Gun interests WANT criminals to have guns

[BainsBane]

The gun lobby worked diligently to defeat background checks so that criminals and drug cartels have ready access to guns. Individual gun proponents, in their turn, lobby to extend concealed carry into cities, thousands of miles away from where they live. With concealed carry, "legal gun owners" have the ability to shoot teen age boys when their music is too loud. They can respond to the theft of a briefcase by killing the thief. If they see a suspicious African-American boy with a can of ice tea and a bag of Skittles, they can kill him on site. These are rights gun proponents assiduously work for.

Then if a shooting occurs, they assume the shooter wasn't a "legal" gun owner. Yet they oppose background checks. The NRA lobbied to defeat universal background checks, so that there will be no distinction between legal and illegal gun owners. Some who pretended to be for background checks celebrated their defeat. The defeat also provided an opportunity for them to blame Americans for daring to exercise their free speech rights in calling for an assault weapons ban. The gun forces despise free speech, which is why the gun lobby has worked to impose gag rules around the nation to make it illegal to speak out against gun proliferation, document gun violence, or engage in research on guns. Stopping background checks enables them to pretend shootings are carried out by "illegal guns owners," when the absence of universal background checks, licensing, and registration means there is no real distinction between a legal and an illegal gun owner. Gun proponents have worked hard to ensure felons can simply purchase firearms at gun shows, online, or through private parties. That is the situation they want. The right of those with felonies or those without felonies to kill at will is more important than our right to life.

Meanwhile, gun proponents wring their hands over voluntary buy back programs in cities. The idea that some people would by their own choice give up their guns is for gun zealots, a travesty. They laments the fact that a few guns wont' be put to proper use, that is in shootouts in cities like mine, where they destroy property and kill bystanders. Guns are designed to kill. The idea that people might not choose to no longer own guns disgusts them. Buy backs are entirely voluntary, but they disgust gun proponents. Gun violence, however, does not concern gun proponents. Human life isn't worth considering, especially it is people of color, women, and children who are victims of gun violence. Our lives are completely insignificant in comparison to the gun zealots desire to see as many guns in circulation on city streets, where they are used for maximum lethality.

Even war mongers have the capacity to express sorrow at the life of soldiers killed in foreign exploits. But when it comes to victims of the domestic war wrought by gun policy, proponents can't even pretend to express any concern about victims. Villainization of the Sandyhook families exemplifies that best of all. Anyone who actually feels anything at the loss of life due to violence is deemed "too emotional" to have credence in the gun debate. If I object to shootouts in front of my house and express concern over danger to my life, I'm called "too emotional." "Rational" people don't care who dies. All they care about is making sure as many guns as possible are out and about on city streets. Guns matter more than human life to these people. Whether we live or die is entirely inconsequential. They give more thought to their morning cup of coffee. So when we work to reform gun policy, we are up against some of the most powerful corporate interests in the nation and their supporters for whom human life is trivial. This makes our struggle daunting, but all the more important.

[Skittles]

1. of course they do

make sure any moron can own a gun, then convince everyone they need protection from morons with guns.......see how that works?

[BainsBane]

9. Anything that justifies more and more guns

All the gun industry cares about is profit, and murder is big business. What motivates their footsoldiers is a more complicated and ultimately scarier question.

[Skittles]

10. same shit that motivate fox news fans

fear and ignorance

[BainsBane]

193. It's fascinating how many Fox interpretations

of gun policy are expressed so freely on this board. Now they are whining about gun confiscation.

[Skittles]

195. NRA propganda works

obedient NRA pimps are everywhere

[KG]

2. they care not a single fuck who ends up with a gun, just so long as guns are sold.

[BainsBane]

3. and that those guns are cheap

Which is why they insist gun companies have special protection against law suits. Courts have even ruled that gun companies who knowing sell to illegal gun dealers are exempt under federal law. So when a gun proponent claims they care about constitutional rights, he is LYING. He cares about making sure there are lots and lots of cheap guns in circulation, not only in his own pocket but in the hands of those in cities, where guns are most lethal. Don't believe the constitutional argument for one minute. They work to undermine the first amendment at every turn.

[rrneck]

4. By golly

I do believe you hit every anti gun trope, emotional hot button and fallacy in the book.

Good job!

[BainsBane]

6. Sadly, I've seen a great deal of evidence for it

quite recently

[rrneck]

7. No you haven't. ntt

[BainsBane]

8. My impression was that you were better than most

but I could be wrong.

[rrneck]

11. I'm not better than anybody. Neither are you.

But if you actually believe that firearms manufacturers secretly want to arm criminals we would all love to see proof of it. Myself, I think they just want money. And the lobbyist organizations that churn out the tons of bullshit that swirl around the issue are in it for the money too. So anybody that buys the bullshit is just as guilty as the NRA or the Brady bunch or any of the rest of them.

You may be shocked to discover that your self interest and the common good are not the same thing. And citizenship is not a function of consumerism.

[BainsBane]

101. Just to clarify to anyone reading this, I meant better only in terms of less extreme

in views. I do not believe some humans are superior to others, even those who advocate policies abhorrent to me, just as I don't believe a murder to be a lesser human being than myself. I may find someone's behavior repulsive, but they are nonetheless human beings, and every human life has value.

[rrneck]

102. LOL!

Do you really think you are going to "clarify" away the self serving sanctimony in the OP?

[BainsBane]

103. Oh, it's been confirmed at length in the responses

Thanks to you and your friends. It's proven to be a very useful thread. I thank you for coming clean.

[rrneck]

108. LOL again.

I haven't looked, but it seems the ugly accusations didn't begin until people started to ask you to substantiate your claims. Then you knocked over the dining room furniture in your haste to take refuge in partisan accusations. There are questions pending.

This may come as a shock to you, but the political process isn't a support group and government isn't a shopping mall. I have yet to see you venture beyond the parroting of the most shallow of talking points and when confronted, you flee to accusations of heresy against Democratic policy positions. This may also come as a shock to you, but political coalitions don't have to march in lockstep to be effective.

I am asking you to explain how you think the legislation you so vociferously support will work. It shouldn't be that hard to do. If you can't explain it here, how much luck do you think you or anybody else will have in the real world?

[BainsBane]

115. I already did. I'm sorry you find reading too difficult to bother with

And thanks for once again confirming you oppose Democratic party policy on the most innocuous of gun control provisions.

Legislation was already written, voted on in congress, and available for you to read any time you feel like it. It didn't extend to private party sales outside of gun shows. It didn't cover all background checks. Why the fuck do I have to write legislation for you now when legislation already exists? You act like that is something that can be made up on the spot. It was negotiated by two Democrats with A+ ratings from the NRA, one of whom is now subject to attack ads from the gun KKK. Lovely, isn't it. There really is no limit to their evil.

Here is a brief version, it is not legislation and does not imagine every possible scenario because I am not a fucking lawyer. I consider it absolutely idiotic that I should have to present something like this when legislation has already been written. This is not the proposed legislation because I have nothing to do with that. I don't own any congressman. I'm a mere citizen of modest means, and worse yet I am a woman who lives in a city, so obviously my views, like my life, are meaningless.

In my view, every single gun sale would be subject to a background check. For private parties to make sales, they could go to the DMV office where a check could be made for a modest fee. I think common use might be for the buyer to pay for that, but that would be something the two parties could agree on themselves. It would be user-fee based system, which is the fairest way to do it. I suppose you resent the fact that gun buyers should have to pay anything and would prefer that be a public welfare function. (One of the first Gungeon posts I ever read was some moron arguing that the constitution required the federal government to pass out free guns to its citizens. The stupid runs deep). I do not find that acceptable. All sales at gun shows would be subject to background checks and all internet sales. If someone wants to make a gift of a gun, they will need to bring the recipient to the store or DMV for a background check. Estates will need to verify that any heir receiving a gun is not ineligible. They can pay those fees just as they pay other probate costs.

No one with a felony conviction, restraining order, or who has been legally adjudicated as a danger to himself or others should be allowed to purchase a gun OR ammunition. NO exceptions.

Why should any felon be exempt from a background check? If that is what you meant by exceptions, that turns my stomach.

If you don't like what you read above, go over to the Senate website and read the actual legislation. Bills take time to write.

What possible burden would it be to any law abiding person to restrict felons from owning guns? No eligible gun owner would be turned down. There is no burden. There are only two reasons to oppose universal background checks 1) concern about a decline in profits for the gun companies from making it more difficult for criminals to acquire guns, and 2) a concern that the rate of gun violence might decrease if criminals don't have access to guns. Which is it is that bothers you?

[rrneck]

124. Well, I guess that's enough to start.

Last edited Mon Jun 17, 2013, 11:49 PM - Edit history (2)

Manchin/Toomey attempted to regulate internet and intra state sales (as I recall). I thought that was very interesting. It hadn't occurred to me to go about it that way. Why intra state and internet sales? Some more cynical than myself would think it was an incremental approach to firearms confiscation. I think that's unlikely. I think it was an attempt to regulate firearms transfers based on intimacy. The assumption was that is was unlikely that two people who met online or live across state lines share a sufficiently close relationship to allow the seller to determine if the buyer would be a legal and responsible gun owner. In theory it makes sense. In practice I don' think it would work. Given the population density across the eastern seaboard it is quite possible to be intimately familiar with somebody across a state line. There are not a few cities and towns in the United States that actually straddle state lines. And if you're selling a gun through an internet connection you'll never see the buyer, or the straw purchaser who is buying the gun for him.

The law would have zero impact while annoying a lot of voters. That's all risk and no payoff for any legislator that supports it. Now I know that it almost passed the senate. The United States Senate is the most exclusive club in the world. There is no doubt they got together and decided who would vote how based on who could and who could not afford to do so. It was all political theater from the get go. They took one look at the legislative task at hand and turned it into WWF wrestling match to distribute red meat to their respective bases.

So the legislation was based not on firearms (the AWB and mag capacity tried that) but on relationships between people. I don't know what social circles you run in, but where I am relationships come in all sorts and kinds of flavors. People create, change, redefine and manipulate relationships all the time. There is simply no way to write workable legislation designed to regulate personal relationships between people. The only relationship between people that involves a gun we can hope to regulate is that between a licenced FFL and a qualified buyer because it's a business relationship. Beyond that all bets are off. There is no way in hell we can demand a wife do a background check on her husband if she wants to give him a gun. That's just stupid. The legislation that the president and Manchin/Toomey proposed made exceptions for family. But define "family". We already have a problem with that right now in this country. There are already outrages aplenty with laws regulating marriage and you want the Democratic party to tell two people in a relationship what they can and cannot do? Under penalty of law? It's morally repugnant and politically suicidal. It's an invasion of people's privacy, and that won't work.

So now do you want to have a try at explaining how the law would actually work? For real people in the real world?

[jmg257]

181. I think you worry WAY too much about relationships.

You mention that all the time concerning private sales.

Too fucking bad if mandatory universal background checks affect some "relationship".

Guns are special. They are deemed "deadly weapons". There is NO reason in this day and age why a transfer of ownership should not include a background check for the buyer...no matter who is selling and who is buying. The technologies should be easy enough to implement w/o undue burden on privacy.

Sure its a pain in the ass vs the status quo, especially between friends and family...so what? IF it is thought to be too annoying then simply don't 'deal' with guns, or buy/sell/gift them too much.

People are dying needlessly because certain people who should not have them get guns. UBC could only help reduce that from happening, with a little inconvenience the only downside.

[rrneck]

182. Do you work for a living?

Unmarried couples that have been together for years have to go to the DMV to fill out paperwork.

"Too fucking bad"

People sharing housing because they lost their homes have to jump through hoops and spend money they can't spare for no discernible benefit to them.

"Too fucking bad."

A single mother with three kids and two jobs trying to escape an abusive male whoever has to coordinate a tete a tete across town to fill out paperwork.

"Too fucking bad"

Same sex couples get another little slap in the face because the state won't let them get married.

"Too tucking bad".

We burn off a boatload if political capital pushing legislation with no evidence it will make the citizenry any safer.

"Too fucking bad."

We set off conflicts of interest in our own political coalition like a pinball machine, bleeding off political will tilting at windmills.

"Too fucking bad."

We couldn't get a background check law watered down to uselessness past a Democratically controlled senate.

"Too fucking bad."

We energized the NRA and its supporters with our failure.

"Too fucking bad".

We exacerbate the culture wars and further polarize the electorate, making Washington even more feckless and dysfunctional, thus demonstrating that government is the problem and not the solution.

"Too fucking bad"

A tsunami of right wing partisan money flows into Washington.

"Too fucking bad."

Democrats get a one way bus ticket to the political wilderness.

"Too fucking bad."

Well, at least the paperwork will be in order. The NSA thanks you.

[jmg257]

187. Yep - work hard for a living.

Your point is????


I would have no problem selling numerous guns to numerous people I know, especially when I could use some extra cash.

Hey - as far as I know, they don't have issues...yep - as far as I know.

Wonder how that worked out for Nancy Lanza giving guns to her family members.

Oh yeah - all those innocent people died & all those lives ruined because of the great & special relationship she had - or wanted to have - with her son.

Yep - Too fucking bad, huh?

[rrneck]

189. The point is

appeals to ignorance and emotion based on your personal preference indicate you have no valid point to make.

[jmg257]

191. I wasn't appealing to your ignorance.

Pointing out a bit of naivete (or selfishness?) - maybe, but not ignorance. And I know by now dealing in emotions, even when lots of people get killed, is fairly useless re:guns.

Instead, I was appealing to the recognition of the obvious point that "relationships" are all well and good - except when WAY too much emphasis is put on them, to the detriment of others - such as when deadly weapons are involved...it's a silly foolish way to get people killed.

Want to give your pyscho son a video game, no one will care...give him access to an assault weapon, people may start to be concerned.

[rrneck]

184. And by the way...

relationships are special. They win elections.

[jmg257]

188. Yep - and they get people killed too.

Lots and lots of people, because some people think anyone they have a decent relationship with having guns is just a great idea.

Or they just don't know any better?

[rrneck]

190. What's your point? nt

[jmg257]

192. Once again, that you put WAY too much emphasis on "relationships".

When the transfers of deadly weapons are involved.

[rrneck]

212. You guys are a riot.

I spend a dozen posts wading through a shit ton of accusations and insults from BB only to have her bolt for the hills just when some substance began to appear in what she had to say. Then you show up and I didn't even realize it at first you sound so much like her.

I give you guys all kinds of stuff to work with: politics, ethics, the ramifications of your policy desires and the dangers of those ramifications to the country and the world. And you reply with, "You think too much because Lanza".

I love it.

[jmg257]

232. It does get amusing, doesn't it?

While the notions get curiouser and curiouser, too much "stuff to work with" seemed to bog things down...slow to read, distracting to...wade through trying to find a point, and simply boring in the long run.

I do get a good chuckle coming back to it all, though!

[rrneck]

234. Fixation on single causes is a relic of the nineteenth century.

It is useless if we want to determine why people do things or why things happen in the natural world, but it works great if we have a product to sell.

[gejohnston]

223. corrrection

I think you meant to say intra state. Interstate sales, including online, already have background checks unless you are violating the 1968 Gun Control Act.

[rrneck]

236. Thanks. Post edited. (Replied yesterday but it didn't show up. Damn phone.) nt

[badtoworse]

34. He forgot the part about compensating for a small dick

[rrneck]

38. Damn. I figured I'd miss something.

Now some wisenheimer will accuse me of being in denial.

[Eleanors38]

49. Well, that leaves me out.

[badtoworse]

51. Somebody get a ruler

[Eleanors38]

225. Wait! She's coming back with a yardstick.

[Doctor_J]

5. Of course. And in the US commerce trumps human life every time

Be it the KeystoneXL (really think Obama will veto?), the explosions in TX and LA, Big Insurance rationing health care, and so on.

I take heart that before I die we will have our day

[derby378]

13. Well said

One of my complaints with the gun-control lobby has been its apparent unwillingness to evolve new ideas that could further reduce violent crime levels involving firearms while protecting our Constitutional rights. After Sandy Hook, at least for a short time, a gun-control advocate and I had conversations on the feasibility of a civilian armory where guns could be securely stored instead of keeping them at home - if Nancy Lanza had access to such an armory, Sandy Hook certainly would never have happened, because Adam Lanza would have had to go through the cops in order to steal his mother's AR-15.

I still support the idea of a civilian armory. I'd gladly store my Tantal in one, even if it meant I had to go through another background check every time I wanted to withdraw it for another road trip into the middle of nowhere. As long as the dues are equal to or better than the rates charged by a pawn shop for the same service, I think it's very doable, with the profits going to the city or county. That means more funding - from gun owners like myself - for anything from drug addiction counseling to anti-gang programs or whatever the community needs.

Did I just mention background checks a moment ago? I certainly did. I support the Toomey-Manchin proposal, and I want it brought before the Senate once again for a full and honest vote.

[truebluegreen]

15. OK, we'll just go for the confiscation then.

I'm fine with that. Oh, and repeal of the pathetically-out-dated 2nd Amendment.

[truebluegreen]

19. OK you got me

I left out a word: "after" we repeal the pathetically-out-dated 2nd amendment. Happy now? since I'm not disregard the bill of rights? No?

Yes, the point is to reduce gun violence. And just like the way to reduce drunk driving deaths was to reduce drunk drivers, the way to reduce gun violence is to have fewer guns, or at the very least to require them to be safely locked up.

If you don't believe it can work, use the google to look up Australia and gun control. Or check out the recent 3-part story on same from The Daily Show.

Maybe you'll learn something....

[derby378]

23. Or you could use your favorite search engine to look up Mexico and gun control

It's real simple to blame civilian gun owners in America when the problem is more complex than one is willing to admit.

[truebluegreen]

25. Why would I use the google to look up Mexico and gun control

when I live in Mexico and have for years. The situation here is WAY more complicated than you or the google understand. And also not analogous to either the United States or Australia. But thanks for the advice.

And btw who the f are we to blame for 30,000 gun deaths (murders, suicides and accidents) in America if not for civilian gun owners? Or are you trying to maintain the biggest part of the problem is the police and the military?

[badtoworse]

50. Mexico: Law abiding citizens can't own guns and there's no way to take them away from the bad guys.

The result? As you say, 30,000 gun deaths annually. Does that about sum it up? Why would we want that to happen here?

[truebluegreen]

59. You need to work on your reading comprehesion.

30,000 gun deaths annually in America, not Mexico.

But go ahead and ask yourself, why would we want that to happen in America? Because it does. Every effing year. 10 9/11s, every year. More people have died from gun violence in the United States since 1968 than in all of the wars in US history. And still all we hear is we can't restrict guns in any way. Because Freedumb. Or something.

As for the gun violence here in Mexico, a large part of it is the result of Americans not taking care of their own problems (are you seeing a pattern?) but instead exporting them to other countries, in this case the disastrously pathetic War on Drugs. We who reside south of the border would be most appreciative if you all would clean that up. Thanks.

[badtoworse]

75. You got me on the 30,000 - I missed that. You did say in the US.

The majority of those are suicides and IMO would have occured by some other means if guns were not available. Not to belittle the problem, but it is a mental health problem, not a gun control problem.

Given what passes for law enforcement in Mexico, it's easy to believe that there are 30,000 homicides there per year. The quick search I just did has Mexico with 11,309 gun homicides in 2010 or about 10 per 100,000. By comparison, the same site lists US at 11,078 in 2010 or about 3.9 per 100,000 of population. These numbers do not include suicides. The same site lists 19,382 gun related suicides in the US in 2010.

See http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

As for the war on drugs, I don't support legalization. I guess you're going to have to just fix the government corruption that allows gangs to operate with virtual impunity south of the border.

[truebluegreen]

87. OK. I appreciate your response.

I don't care if you support legalization or not. I said clean up your own problems instead of pushing them off on others. If stopping the supply doesn't work (and after 40 years you should be able to admit that it doesn't) then work on demand. Look to Portugal if you want some pointers (they decriminalized, not legalized, and it worked). If you get your problems under control, we will have a much easier time with ours, which are many. Instead we are all doing the reverse.

Second, there are plenty of studies that show the most efficient method of suicide is by gun. When suicide is more difficult and/or less effective, the rate drops. Look to Australia for changes after they tightened up gun control, particularly teen suicides.

Finally, stop trying to compare Mexico to the US. They are not analogous. Particularly, don't assume anything about suicides by gun here (I know you didn't), the number is vanishingly small since--as you say--citizens can't own guns.

BTW, looks like my numbers were right on, weren't they? 30,460 gun deaths in the US in 2010, not counting accidents. Leaving Mexico out of it--our troubles are our own--what do you suggest to fix this?

[badtoworse]

194. I don't have a specific solution for the suicides.

It's a mental health problem, so a mental health solution is needed. Mental health screening is already part of the background check process, so I don't believe further restricting the rights of sane, law abiding gun owners is appropriate.

I could, under certain conditions, support some measures like expanding background checks and magazine limits, but I would want some concessions from the other side. I think a lot of gun owners share that viiew. Typically, the gun control folks offer nothing but insults, so I'm not optimistic that any kind of a deal can be reached.

[BainsBane]

111. Your opinion is wrong

Other forms of suicide aren't nearly as lethal. Gun attempts are 90% lethal. The other common method, pills, is only 5% lethal. Your opinion is clearly refuted by data from the CDC.

Do you oppose legalization of drugs because it will decrease sales of guns? That corruption you reference is "legal" and wrought by the NRA, which prohibits the ATF from enforcing laws on illegal gun sales on the border. Again, more evidence that the gun interests WANT guns to go into the hands of criminals and drug cartels.

[badtoworse]

196. I oppose legalization of drugs based on the effects of substance abuse that I have observed.

Your attempt at tying it to gun sales is laughable.

[sarisataka]

30. And just like the way to reduce drunk driving deaths was to reduce drunk drivers

so if that is a successful model, how did we accomplish reducing drunk drivers?
-did we place limits on alcohol percentages?
-did we cut the number of cars on the road?
-did we tighten checks on who can purchase alcohol?
-did we campaign to change the tacit acceptance of drunk driving?

MADD is a very good example of successfully changing an attitude and practice that resulted in too many deaths. It has a long way to go still but the positive effect cannot be disputed.

Why does no one try to apply the same model to gun violence?

[truebluegreen]

41. Exactly my point.

Obviously I am being deliberately provocative here, less obviously I am trying to push the Overton window to the left--toward more controls, against the--as you put it--tacit acceptance of gun violence.

We turn a city upside down and inside out to catch a couple of whack jobs who killed two people and injured many with a couple of bombs, but 30,000 gun deaths a year is just business as usual, nothing to see here, I need my guns to protect myself/family/stuff, how dare you even consider restricting my rights! As if all those people didn't have rights too, like to keep breathing.

It is nonsensical and absurd and it needs to change.

[ceonupe]

201. because wedge/cultural issues drive dollars and voters

because wedge/cultural issues drive dollars and voters

what would witherside have to crow about. DiFi would be exoposed for the 1% loving corporatist she is if not for her "love" of gun control.

I belive netiher side wants the issues settled (see NYC and Bloomberg heavily lobbbying DC to drop the full handgun ban before the court cases that lead to Heller) or how Bloomberg and co pushed IL to not go May issue for fear that their current case would cause NY and CA to lose their May issue laws).

Gun control is full of horse trading and identity politics (rural vs urban) Older generation vs younger generation more removed from our hunting and firearms traditions but really a front for both sides to get out the vote and raise money.

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. "we'll" - Oh, you're volunteering to be on a confiscation team, then?

Yeah, suuuuuuuure you are.

[truebluegreen]

20. Sure. Will you be playing?

[Lizzie Poppet]

24. I'll believe you when I see you at someone's door, geared up.

And not a moment sooner...

Protip: wear Kevlar. Lots and lots of Kevlar...

[truebluegreen]

26. I'm shakin' in my socks...

[Lizzie Poppet]

28. Why? It's not as if we both don't know you'll be nowhere near any confiscation team.

That's the problem with advocacy of confiscation, of course: the people who would actually be tasked to carry out such a plan are overwhelmingly in favor of private ownership of firearms. I trust you see the problem...

[truebluegreen]

45. I'm sure you don't realize the point of this conversation

so I'll just spell it out for you.

You seem to be parroting NRA talking points and I was wondering how invested you were in that. Now I know. Do all y'all consider yourselves soldiers in battle against the forces of right tramplers? or something? Warriors against evil, dangerous thugs that haunt our streets? (except they don't). Defenders of the nation against tyranny? Except the only right I've ever heard defended is the (truncated) 2nd, all the others are apparently window-dressing.

My point is, if that's the way you feel, fine. Just don't try to dress it up as being for the greater good, because it demonstrably isn't. Fewer guns = less gun violence, not the reverse.

Adios.

[Lizzie Poppet]

78. If that's what my posts "seem like" to you...

...then it's your problem (one of basic comprehension), not mine.. Since I stuck strictly to a single point on a rather narrowly-defined issue (that is, your use of "we" in advocating gun confiscation), you actually have fuck-all to base that broader impression and insult on. NRA talking points? Your absurd extrapolation onto broader points? That's a straw man, and while it's common here, that doesn't make it any less inane. You haven't a fucking clue, sparky...

Let me spell something out for you, though: gun confiscation from the general civilian population will never, ever happen in the United States as currently constituted. Any serious attempt would result in the dissolution of the Union. Bank on that. Lazy thinkers can pretend that's some sort of "NRA talking point," but anyone actually taking an objective look at the matter will recognize it as a simple inevitability.

[truebluegreen]

89. OK. Since you want to take it to extremes,

if that's the form of Union you want, by all means dissolve it. Nobody has to live with an intolerable situation, not even you.

[Lizzie Poppet]

117. Actually, I rather expect such a dissolution within 20 years, maybe less.

I don't really expect gun control issues to have a big part in that, mind you. It's more a question of the era of the continent-spanning nation-state coming to its end. I expect a half-dozen or so regional polities to replace the current United States by then...and I believe the process is likely to be (relatively) peaceful.

[Lizzie Poppet]

29. Indeed.

Good against 9mm ain't shit against .338 Lapua.

[ceonupe]

202. the question in an unconventional war is what that 9mm will do to the family of the soilder who ...

the question in an unconventional war is what that 9mm will do to the family of the soldier who shot the .338.

Its funny when people talk about internal civil war in the US like it would have rules applied to it. People family would become at risk if we devolve into a civil war.

Neither side should advocate it. The destruction that would result would set us back hundreds of years.

[Lizzie Poppet]

205. "Neither side should advocate it."

I agree wholeheartedly. A Second US Civil War would likely bring about something I consider inevitable: the break-up of the US as currently constituted into a handful of regional polities. However, it would accomplish this in the worst possible way, with incalculable bloodshed and destruction. No sane person wants this sort of thing.

[truebluegreen]

47. As for you, all I have to say is

Fuck the NRA and enjoy your stay at DU.

[BainsBane]

99. So much for the myth of the law abiding gun owner

You all have put so many nails in that coffin, the corpse is long cold. Yet, like a zombie, it rises from its grave to walk with the dead.

[Lizzie Poppet]

118. No one has a moral obligation to obey every last law.

Pass a law that millions of people consider a completely unreasonable (and pointless) infringement? They'll blow it off...and resist if subjected to aggressive enforcement. That should only surprise the utterly naive.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding. Funny ol' thing, math...

[Llewlladdwr]

54. You're a funny guy truebluegreen.

You gun confiscators can't even get a background check bill through the *Senate* and you want to talk smack about repealing the 2nd? How's that gonna work exactly?

[truebluegreen]

63. I always aim to amuse.

Thank you!

Gotta start somewhere. I thought I'd start with an extreme position, like you guys always do.

[BainsBane]

100. You might as well

They consider the most mundane position a travesty. Now they have finally come clean about their opposition to universal background checks. I actually fell for that line for a while, though it's been clear to me for several months that it was a fiction.

[Lizzie Poppet]

119. "the most mundane position"

Truebluegreen wasn't talking about universal background checks (which I and many other gun owners here have repeatedly stated our support for). He's talking about confiscation. If you think that's a "mundane position," then get a fucking grip...

[BainsBane]

123. I understand that

Try reading. I said he might as well go for it, since proposing mundane positions like universal background checks and mandatory gun safes is seen as an outrage by you people.

This thread is full of people voicing their opposition to extending background checks. You have reading to do. You're obviously badly out of touch with your people.

I noticed your post about the other poster's needing a Kevlar vest to protect himself. Very classy. I'm glad you've given up any pretense of the "law abiding gunowner." Gungeoneers frequently voice their determination to violate the law. The lets extend concealed carry into cities was yet another instance of that. Yours is worse though.

[Lizzie Poppet]

179. Out of touch?

Nope. I stand by my statement that the majority of gun owners favor extended background checks. A few posts in a flagrant troll thread don't offset multiple polls on the matter. Perhaps you should take your own advice about reading (specifically, reading about how statistical analysis works...).

I will also reiterate that there is no moral obligation to obey a law that one considers a violation of one's basic rights (a profoundly liberal principle...perhaps you've heard of them). One might choose to do so because one is coerced by threat of force, but that's an entirely different matter. So...are "gungeoneers" determined to violate a sweeping confiscation law. Yes, some are...probably most. Would that violation involve the use of force? Maybe...but I doubt it. Not because many aren't willing to resist such a travesty...but because the very people that would be needed to actually enforce such a plan would in large numbers refuse to comply (take that to the bank, btw). Thus my response to the person suggesting confiscation, my question as to whether or not he'd be volunteering to help with the confiscations.

[BainsBane]

183. Of course the majority of gun owners favor expanded background checks

polling data shows that. A gungeoner insisted I was, in effect, delusional when I said the same thing. The majority of Republicans support them too, but a bunch of gungeon dwellers do not. Some of those people are on the furthest right-wing fringe of American society when it comes to gun policy.

Save the confiscation canard. That's never passing and you fucking no it. But it gives you a chance to whine, so you're happy as a clam.

[Lizzie Poppet]

186. Just can't give up the bullshit amateur psychoanalysis, can you?

It's like your heroin, I guess. Personally, I see it as something of a tacit admission that you've got nuthin'...

Don't like confiscation discussions? Consider suggesting to your fellow traveler on the control side not to, you know...bring the matter up. Derp...

[derby378]

21. In order for the armory to work, participation would have to be voluntary

There's been some disagreement on this, but I believe keeping it voluntary encourages participation, especially if incentives are offered.

My take on reducing violent crime is more focused on the homefront. Kids need decent schools that offer a world-class education, and right now many schools across the nation are suffering due to budget cutbacks, incompetent bureaucracy, and so on. You need educated kids for an educated workforce, and companies aren't going to be inclined to hire kids who graduate from high school without even being able to spell. I have no real issue with yanking marijuana out of the DEA's Schedule I list and subjecting it to tax and regulation, but I think better schools and a stronger workforce will have more of an impact in the long run.

[badtoworse]

37. I keep my guns in a safe and they are just a secure there as they would be in an armory

Your idea would be an unnecessary nuisance to responsible gun owners and would be ignored by irresponsible gun owners or criminals. Sorry, but I think it's a really bad idea and I would not accept it.

[derby378]

39. Then you're all set

The armory (did you catch the part where I said it would be voluntary?) would be tailored for people who couldn't afford a gun safe at home or had other reasons for not wanting to keep a gun in the house - worries about children, objections from spouse, etc.

It's not a nuisance if it's voluntary. It does help to foster a "we're all in this together" mindset, which isn't such a bad thing.

[badtoworse]

44. I responded to Post 13 which did not mention voluntary

I missed the subsequent reference to a voluntary program. I don't think a voluntary program would accomplish much - a small gun safe is not all that expensive and I doubt that many people who could not afford one would be in a position to purchase firearms in the first place. Besides that, many gunowners purchased their firearm for home defense or carry (or both). Such owners would not participate for obvious reasons. I wouldn't oppose a voluntary program, but I doubt it would have much of an impact.

[Half-Century Man]

79. Civilian armories maybe a way to go.

Our Founding Fathers, even as progressive enlightenment thinkers, could not have foreseen the destructive capability of hand weapons 175(+) years into the future. In fact; because they were enlightenment thinkers, they would have had a predisposition to not envisioning these kinds of weapons. The enlightenment was a humanistic movement, one that thought humans would move forward into a future free of oppression and tyranny. Most enlightenment thinkers (Locke, Mills, Jefferson, Madison, etc) were a bit naive; they failed to take into account mankind's inherent flaws and/or twisted psyches. That aside; I say we accept that they expected firearms to advance in complexity and accuracy. And we interpret the second amendment as accounting for that but not accounting for the twisted direction we went instead of directly forward.

I alway thought that if we regulated magazine fed weapons just a bit differently. Like we do with automatic weapons (yes; you can own submachine guns, sawed off shotguns, dragooned pistols etc; you just need a class III Federal Firearms License [III FFL]). One of the requirements for a class III license is protective storage. Do something similar for military style magazine fed weapons. That we regulate the weapons, not the owners. A grace period be established to account for all weapons (models to be determined) and any discovery of unaccounted weapons results in their confiscation.

Lets call it the "Militia Equipment Act " for now, and it would cover military styled weapons (magazine fed weapons of calibers and models determined before passage, with the reasoning laid out for a guide to future inclusions). Right to own same as now; weapon storage rules greatly enhanced. Weapons must be stored separately from magazines and ammunition, in locked containers with completely separated locking mechanisms. Weapon safes must be fastened to building framework, secured in such a way as to endanger building stability if violently removed. Magazine and ammunition storage must be fastened to floors or walls in such a way as to severely impede mobility; and fire resistant for (X) mins at (X) temps.
Access to be controlled by the owner of controlled firearms. Ownership by individual or married couples exclusively.

If adequate storage can not be accomplished in a private residence, then group armories can be established, private or municipal. In Group weapon safes, each weapon must be secured by it's owner by an exclusively controlled locking mechanism.

Weapons without detachable magazines legal status remains unchanged. Pistols with removable magazines can be subject to MEA if so determined. All stored weapons must be unloaded.

Ready Firearm exception: One loaded protection firearm maybe kept in a residence. It must be secured with a tamper resistant device but not exclusively a lock. As the chance of being attacked by criminals in platoon strength is somewhat far-fetched, weapons covered by the MEA would not be eligible as a ready firearm.



How is that for a start?

[derby378]

207. Sounds a bit complicated - I'd rather we just build the armories and be done with it

The goal should not be to further regulate gun ownership, but rather to create a framework where gun owners have a safe haven to store their guns - all of it run by law enforcement, built with taxpayer funds, and sustained both by storage fees and government grants. It would also go a little further in dismantling Reagan's "government is the problem unless corporations run it" myth.

[Half-Century Man]

213. I was always surprised that Ray-guns myth survived the first "what the fuck are you talking about?"

I'm not saying control ownership, I'm saying these kinds of guns need extra regulation because of their ability of mass fire. The regulation should consist of documentation by model, caliber, type of ammo used, physical location, and who own is the owner.

Gun owners as a whole are not documented. Military styled weapons and their owners are.

I was hoping that difficult to accomplish protective measures could be enforced to encourage moving the firearms to a common controlled location to limit access to certain individuals and at certain times. I know people who have just such a vault system in place now. It was expensive and difficult to do. Because their Class III is in jeopardy unless very strict laws are followed; these people are the most fanatical strict gun safety people I ever met.

[uppityperson]

32. "if it occurred as Zimmerman described" is the issue as he is a proven liar and had issues with

violence before this. Do you believe Zimmerman's story? Just wondering.

[Duckhunter935]

35. I just purchased a pistol on the internet

And of course had to have it shipped to an FFL and do the background check and pay 40 dollars. Kind of steep for the transfer.

[BainsBane]

42. Yet they do shoot people for any and every reason

and gun cultists rally to their defense. Look at Zimmerman's defense fund. The important point is that they kill a person of color, woman. They the KKK/gun brigade will contribute to their defense, on the odd chance that police actually arrest. If a child is killed, no arrest is made. They leave their guns around so that their children use them, and NEVER are arrested as a result. Meanwhile, gun proponents make sure they not be arrested, since, I suppose, children are mere property to be disposed of at will.

[Eleanors38]

58. You can't ATA us out if here, so you return to smear?

[BainsBane]

65. Yes, well contact the NRA

to pass more gag rules to do away with the first amendment once and for all. That's the newest line of attack for the gun forces: to criminalize speech challenging gun proliferation, just as slaveholders made passed gag rules making it illegal to speak out against slavery in the South.

At least we know the argument about "constitutional rights" is complete bullshit. No one with an IQ above 60 ever bought that story anyway.

[Eleanors38]

68. "gag rule?" My god, check your own post in ATA.

Projection has become cosmic.

[BainsBane]

83. Did you think that a request in ATA is the same as the law

For what is acceptable on a private, progressive website? You think that's the same as criminalizing speech? Wow. SMH. Of all the things I've seen people write on this site, that takes the cake. Truly amazing. I'd suggest you read something on free speech and the First Amendment (like almost anything), but I'm afraid it would be a waste of time.

In your analogy, Skinner is violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments by not opening this site up to Republicans and Nazis.

I'm starting to feel sorry for you now.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

46. welcome to DU

[BainsBane]

112. Poor little gun troll went bye bye

(The one you welcomed.) Glad to see that MIRT is on the job, even when jurors don't care if right-wing lies are promoted and some members actually welcome them.

[DanTex]

169. LOL. It's always funny when our "pro-gun progressives" roll out the red carpet for obvious

right-wing trolls.

[BainsBane]

172. Funny how many happen to join DU all at once

Just when there is a thread that gets the "pro-gun progressives" going. The mask of the "pro-gun progressive" falls throughout this thread. One member even goes so far as to say "progressives learn to hate through gun policy." I wonder how someone who so despises progressives posts so often and comfortably on a Democratic website?

[DanTex]

173. It's the "gun troll loophole".

I'm sure the mods had good intentions when they decided to waive the "DU is for Democrats" rule when it comes to gun policy, but it may be worth reexamining that decision. Gun nuttery is right up there with any other cultish right-wing ideology when it comes to plastering the internet with misinformation.

[BainsBane]

175. I recently raised that in ATA to no avail

I did so after seeing a particularly shocking thread in the gungeon mobilizing members to expand concealed carry into cities whose populations oppose it. Skinner said there are prof-gun D's. I pointed out there are also pro-choice Ds and anti-gay marriage Ds. and they aren't given cover here. Evidently gunners are free to mobilize for the most reactionary gun measures, and they are taking full advantage of it. This thread is full of posts where they come clean on the fact they oppose expanding background checks. So that BS they were peddling about supporting the Presidents gun control measures except for the assault weapons ban was a complete fabrication. Surprise, surprise.

[beevul]

180. No, you didn't.

"I did so after seeing a particularly shocking thread in the gungeon mobilizing members to expand concealed carry into cities whose populations oppose it."

What a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive.

The thread in question, is NOT about "expanding concealed carry into cities whose populations oppose it."

Its about making sure there are OBJECTIVE standards for acceptance or denial of a concealed carry permit - rather than subjective standards.

You understand the issue, yet this is about the hundredth time you've been told that, yet continue to spew the same falsehood in spite of it.

And now in GD for the world to see.

People unfamiliar with it might ask why, the rest...not so much.

[BainsBane]

185. That's the effect of the policy

It's like arguing the point of War on Iraq is "freedom" rather than invasion and murder. I have no doubt the neocons believe that, but the result is slaughter. Your objective standards are meant to extend guns into cities, where they are put to the most lethal use. So pretend you have nothing to do with reality. You obviously make a habit of it. Whatever your claim your motivations are does nothing to change the reality. The best possible spin is that you simply don't care about the repercussions. But as one of your fellow comrades in arms pointed out, I have no right to life. Interesting how many points in my OP have been confirmed so openly here.

[beevul]

229. Bullshit.

I'm not even going to address the tripe you surrounded and seasoned this bunch of non-reality with.

"Your objective standards are meant to extend guns into cities, where they are put to the most lethal use. So pretend you have nothing to do with reality."

Ahh, the "I'm saying that without saying that" game. There used to be a poster from the great white north that played that game, and played it well she did. Until she was tombstoned for "making DU suck".

What are you "saying without saying"? Oh that's easy. That concealed carry holders contribute to gun violence in a statistically meaningfull way.

Sorry, hate to burst your bubble, but it just isn't so.

So what we have here is you, lecturing me about reality, after the clear implication that a group which is statisticly more law abiding than law enforcement- conceal carry holders - has some significant effect on gun violence.

"The best possible spin is that you simply don't care about the repercussions."

No, the best possible spin, is that there even ARE repercussions in any statistically meaningful measure.

"So pretend you have nothing to do with reality. You obviously make a habit of it."

Physician, heal thy self.

[Eleanors38]

52. Your patience and thoroughness are beyond the call of duty. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

209. MIRt didn't even get him .... he got zapped by Automation ... interesting. n/t

[Eleanors38]

210. I've seen that on occasion. What is auto-removed, and why is it used?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

211. it is a robotic system put in place by Admin to save MIRt time and trouble ... must

be some certain words/catchphrases and post count has to be lower than a certain number, too... I think.

This guy was under 10, right?

[Eleanors38]

214. Ah, more algae rhythms.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

215. yeah, to make sure we don't mildew.

[coldmountain]

16. The gun cult terrorists have no morality

[BainsBane]

40. absolutely

How else could they terrorize victims of gun violence as they have with the parents of the children killed in Sandyhook.

[petronius]

22. It's pretty obvious that your third paragraph at least is aimed at recent threads

in GC & RKBA, so here are the links in case anyone wants to see for themselves what pro-RKBA DUers (i.e., gungeoneer-types) actually said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=123735

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=124671

Anyone who chooses can decide for themselves if your characterizations of hand-wringing, lamenting, or disgust are accurate, and whether your suggestion that anyone here desires increased death among people of color is anything other than egregious and offensive. Not to mention your accusations of racism, sexism, under-education, and pro-murder-ism scattered through those threads...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

48. ^^^^^ this is pertinent to the discussion here, thanks ^^^^^

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. There you go, introducing emprical evidence versus a factually challenged emotional rant.

[Eleanors38]

67. Gun politics are how "progressives" learn to hate...

And the long leash accorded some is detrimental to this site, and to progressive change in general.

[ieoeja]

199. I would say your links prove the OP's point.

Oft repeated pro-gun argument: "We don't need new gun laws. We just need to enforce the laws that we already have."

Oft repeated pro-gun attempt: "Repeal the laws we already have."

First OP you link demonstrates this point very effectively.


So here we have a link showing how outrageous the pro-gun side has become. Yet, you provide it as proof that the gunners are reasonable. And numerous other gunners post to agree with you.

You guys have spent so much time in the gunner bubble that it has warped your way of thinking on this subject.

[petronius]

203. To clarify, my point in posting wasn't to prove reasonableness (or the lack thereof),

my point was to provide a context for a set of characterizations, insinuations, and accusations (as listed in my concluding paragraph) that this OPer has made more than once. It's entirely up to you whether or not you think those characterizations et al. are valid, or whether the opinions expressed at the links are reasonable...

[ceonupe]

204. So if a person otherwise supports most "progressive"/democrat ideas but

So if a person otherwise supports most "progressive"/democrat ideas but they are Pro RKBA they are worse for the site than someone like say Mike Bloomberg who's only real issue most here have in agreement is gun control?

I mean stop and frisk violate all your rights because of your religion, big gulb ban, change the rules for a 3rd term, anti-union, anti public education, pro wallstreet, bankers best friend and ultra .000001%er.

[Kolesar]

31. The drug rackets are their obvious market

People with a lot of disposable income and whose business means they cannot utilize law enforcement.

[aikoaiko]

33. With rants like this it's hard to understand why gun control is a failure on the national scene

When gun restrictionists stop talking about banning accessories or firearms we may have the chance to talk about background checks without registration.

[sarisataka]

36. Maybe the struggle would be easier with a different attitude

You own a gun you are a potential murder and and in your heart you believe that there is nothing wrong with murder.

It appears there are no good or bad gun owners. All are bad whether they support background checks or not...

[rrneck]

62. Hm. I missed that. That's a pretty shitty way to talk to anyone. nt

[Eleanors38]

73. Unless your pro-2A on DU, it seems.

[BainsBane]

43. If they didn't want criminals to have guns, they would work for background checks

rather than opposing them and instead looking to spread more guns throughout the nation. Their actions make crystal clear exactly what they want.

[Grisbald]

53. There are background checks

Every new firearm goes thru a background check. Brick & mortar stores run back ground checks. Internet sites that sell firearms ship to a FFL. Eleven States require all firearm sales at gun shows go thru a background check. Six others require it on handgun purchases. And most, not all, but most of the dealers at gun shows are FFL dealers.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

55. welcome to DU

[BainsBane]

57. FALSE. Completely false

40% of guns DO NOT go through background checks. That is well known, debated in congress, and it is exactly how the gun lobby wants it. Your post is a completely fabrication.

[Decoy of Fenris]

61. 20 year old "study", sample size 300 who were asked for personal opinion in a push poll.

The "40%" meme has been around for ages and is known to be false to anyone even mildly informed on the issue.

[BainsBane]

66. Then WTF was the NRA opposing in congress?

And why are they running ads against Joe Manchin?

It's always nice when someone confirms the point raised in the OP. If gun interests didn't want to have criminals to have a steady supply of weapons, they wouldn't pretend that background checks were universal. They wouldn't pretend that gun shows, internet sales, and other private sales were subject to background checks. If all gun sales were already subject to background checks, the gun lobby wouldn't spend millions in lobbying and advertising to defeat the most modest proposals that only slightly expand background checks.

Here is another study you can pretend doesn't exist in order to guarantee criminals a steady supply of weapons.

In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[20] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations."[20] These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."

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

[Decoy of Fenris]

74. In order;

"Then WTF was the NRA opposing in congress?

And why are they running ads against Joe Manchin? "

Given that the NRA is rather largely a lobbying firm for firearm manufacturers, the NRA was likely engaging in what makes the most business sense to them. A gun control bill directly acts against their best interests, and so they opposed it. That's not rocket science.

I can't say anything about Joe Manchin, given that I've not followed West Virginia politics in a ... Well, ever, really. So I'm not informed enough to speak on the matter.



"It's always nice when someone confirms the point raised in the OP. If gun interests didn't want to have criminals to have a steady supply of weapons, they wouldn't pretend that background checks were universal. They wouldn't pretend that gun shows, internet sales, and other private sales were subject to background checks. If all gun sales were already subject to background checks, the gun lobby wouldn't spend millions in lobbying and advertising to defeat the most modest proposals that only slightly expand background checks. "


You're right, but for the wrong reasons. I don't think the gun lobby cares -who- has the guns, so long as the guns get sold. Again, it is for all intents and purposes, business. Do you think McDonalds markets only to fat people, or that Pepsi markets only to diabetes patients? Hardly. All that matters is the sales. Background checks -could- impede those sales, and so the gun lobby acts against them in the same way that soda manufacturers struck back against Bloomberg's soda ban in New York. It's all business.



&quot Gun show snip to save space)"

I don't think you'll find a rational person who doesn't agree that gun shows can and often are a massive source of criminal activity in the illegal gun trade. I'm not certain where exactly you're going with that, though.

[BainsBane]

133. well many people in this thread assert otherwise

but I certainly agree they are not rational.

[Decoy of Fenris]

135. Key distinction, that. ;) n/t

[BainsBane]

71. False, the poster just below said background checks are an undue burden

on gun owners. He opposes them. There are no background checks for private sales, internet sales, or gun shows. Please don't mistake people here for idiots. We read the papers. Even your comrades in arms admit those background checks don't exist. They admit it by saying such checks are an undue burden on "legal gun owners," who for some reason have trouble proving they don't have felony convictions. Funny how that works isn't it?

[rrneck]

60. Prove universal background checks would work.

Prove that universal background checks will not infringe on the privacy of law abiding citizens.
Prove that universal background checks will not deny firearms to those who might need them, thus causing unnecessary loss of life.
Prove that universal background checks will not result in serious damage to other Democratic Party objectives.

[BainsBane]

69. How could they possibly infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens?

If you're law abiding they pass the check. It's not a high bar. All you need is to not have a felony conviction or legal determination that someone is a danger to himself or others. It's hardly difficult. All this talk about "illegal" gun owners really is a complete fiction. You don't care at all, do you?

Background checks are the moist basic of measures. I hope you create an OP to let everyone know you were not telling the truth when you claimed to support the President's gun control measures. How do you live with yourself? If you can't take the most basic action to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, how do you look at yourself in the mirror?

[rrneck]

76. That's not proof.

How will you mandate the background check?

How will you enforce the mandate?

Will anybody be exempted from that mandate? Why? If so, define your criteria.

[BainsBane]

90. Proof: I walk into a gun show

Say I have a felony record. Right now I buy a gun, no problem. Below I will post evidence from from the ATF to show that is quite common. With a background check, as a felon I can't buy a gun. If a "legal" gun owner doesn't have a felony conviction, he walks out with his gun. See how that works? I can't imagine what scenario you envision where "legal" gun owners are hurt by background checks? Or are now felons, murderers, and batterers counted among "legal" gun owners? They are the only ones protected by opposition to expanding background checks to private sales and gun shows.

Here is evidence: In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report. The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations." These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."

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

I'm bookmarking this thread for future reference so everyone knows that claims people in this thread make about being in favor of the President's gun control proposals are not true. I do appreciate the confirmation. As for my comment about your being different, clearly I was badly mistaken. 91% of Americans polled support background checks, including the overwhelming majority of gun owners, but not here. So now we can put aside the pretense. Now everyone can see what pro-gun elements here really are. I will not be communicating with you further. Such extremist positions are entirely unconscionable, particularly when the effect is to keep guns in the hands of people who shoot at people in my neighborhood and threaten me personally. Obviously nothing I said above was an exaggeration, as is evident in the responses to my OP.

[Duckhunter935]

91. I assume

not a thing has changed in the 13 years since this was done. You can do what you said for an intrastate private sale but not legally from an FFL, which are most gun sale venders. They would be breaking federal laws and should be prosecuted.

[Decoy of Fenris]

94. Just read the report: The problem with felons purchasing guns is not necessarily the fault of owners

After reading through a not-insignificant bit of the ATF report, it is my understanding that the majority (by and large) of illegal gun sales come from corrupt FFL distributors as well as "straw purchase" rings; organized criminals. FFL distributors are authenticating "fake" background checks and attributing them to felons, while the purchase rings are non-felon criminals buying and distributing firearms to felons through secondary sales.

I have a few questions for you, as you seem to have at least a basic knowledge of the subject:

1.) Given that straw purchasers and corrupt FFL distributors are operating within the law of background checks (or admittedly circumnavigating them), how would further background checks act to discourage or stop said illegal activity?

2.) Assuming BGCs are capable of preventing at least some of the sale of weapons to felon purchasers, how can we then further progress in this arena? As it stands, the most notorious examples of felony purchases are operating within the letter of the law, if not the intent. Is there a way that we can actively close the "gun show loophole" without directly infringing on non-felon gun purchases?

[BainsBane]

136. the other piece is allowing the ATF to enforce the law

The NRA has successfully imposed regulations that prohibits the NRA from using electronic databases, that makes them unable to ask sellers for records, and exempts gun sellers from keeping the kind of records that even convenience stores keep as a matter of course. Allowing the AFT to do it's job and enforce the law is also necessary. Background checks alone can't accomplish that.

However, when there is no requirement for a background check, a gun seller doesn't need to fabricate paper work. He has none to begin with.

[Decoy of Fenris]

137. See, that's a point where you and I agree. To a point, at any rate.

I dislike the notion of registries of any given kind, but I do see their potential value; a person like me is at a crossroads. On the one hand, I have to give in to registration which can lead to an abuse of power, or bow to the criminals getting off the hook. I'm still torn on where I want to fall on that notion, and although it may be clear-cut to some, it's much harder for me. To be blunt, I don't particularly have any good answer, other than to say I can appreciate why you'd pursue more active allowances for the ATF. In the same fell swoop, however, I can also see why the more die-hard gun nuts would oppose said path, given that background checks are ultimately harmless, but a potential registry or documentation could be seen in the same light as data-mining for "security reasons."

Tough call.

[BainsBane]

139. Why shouldn't gun dealers keep the same records

that people who own convenience stores do? What is so burdensome about that? Why are you worrying about that when the NSA has all of our phone and internet usage?

[Decoy of Fenris]

141. That, in and of itself, is not burdensome.

My personal problem is whether those same records can or will be used later on, either correctly or (more importantly) incorrectly implicating someone in a crime. I admit that my worry is without real justification, and to be honest, I think I just dislike surveillance in general. I'm just as opposed to the NSA surveillance as to the notion of a firearm registry. Something in me rankles a bit at the notion of having my information everywhere. I acknowledge that we're in the information age, and there's really no way to escape it, but I certainly don't have to like it or advocate for it.

[BainsBane]

144. So you're worried about prosecution of criminals engaged in gun violence?

I can't respect that.

[Decoy of Fenris]

148. Less that, more accidental implications of innocents.

In the same way that DNA can be used and be incorrect, a registry could have the same negative. As I said though, it's a middling detail, one that would almost never come up, and I confess that it's a silly little reservation. Again, I think I'm just against the notion of surveillance as a whole.

[BainsBane]

152. DNA exonerates the innocent

accurate records can do the same. Any evidence is subject to the laws of criminal procedure before it can be admitted in court. Your position is wrong, both legally and morally. It hurts me that human life never figures into your thought process. You side with gun property over the protection of life at every juncture.

[Decoy of Fenris]

153. DNA also condemns the innocent.

Accurate records can likewise do the same. But again I admit that I have very little basis for my objections, and simply have a moral disagreement with surveillance in general.

[gejohnston]

224. because the law reqires them to keep more detailed records.

Tell you what, Go read the records keeping and inventory control requirement in the Gun Control Act, and the Federal Firearms Act before that. Making a clerical error in a convenience store isn't a felony. A gun dealer doing making a minor clerical error is punishable by ten years in the federal prison. At the very least, learn something about current laws.

[rrneck]

95. Yeah yeah yeah, whatever.

That wasn't proof either. That was a dodge. I have reposed for your convenience the proof I asked for. If you support legislation, explain how it will work. Can you do that?

How will you mandate the background check?

How will you enforce the mandate?

Will anybody be exempted from that mandate? Why? If so, define your criteria.

You know, I don't really give a flying fuck what you think of me. But don't feel bad, I don't give a flying fuck what most of the population of the planet would think of me. When you prove you can have a reasonable discussion without trying to insult me, maybe I might begin to care. In the meantime, this is my journal. Enjoy.

[BainsBane]

77. ᴧᴧᴧᴧᴧᴧ HERE ᴧᴧᴧᴧᴧᴧ PROOF that they oppose background checks.

[rrneck]

80. Well that's new.

A non sequitur in another language. Try it again.

[Decoy of Fenris]

82. A call for proof of concept is hardly opposition. n/t

[BainsBane]

84. and denying reality, what is that?

[Decoy of Fenris]

85. When engaged in dialogue, a request for proof of unsubstantiated claims is fairly common.

I'm not saying the poster is right (He's coming across as rather petulant), but it's hardly "OMG HE HAITS LIFE".

[rrneck]

88. You ain't seen nothing yet.

BB and I have already had this conversation and she doesn't want to revisit it.

This OP is the ugliest sort of self serving partisanship.

[rrneck]

86. There are questions pending.

You've shown a flair for insulting people. Let's see how you do with rational discussion.

[Pelican]

114. Already had a nice breakdown of the problems with background checks as designed...

... and then realized that the exact same conversation had already occurred... with you...

Just for laughs.. here it is again.

1) Any background system open to the public will be abused by employers, ex-spouses, asshole neighbors next door etc.. etc..

2) I don't think the mental health community has a solid enough definition of what level of depression is enough to bar someone from owning a weapon. Also, personal biases, both for and against guns, would pervade the system and it would get rigged that way by mental health providers or whoever inputs into the system

3) The legitimate and ever present concern that the slightest move towards gun control along common sense measures will be used as precedent against us and be taken to an extreme. Give an inch and get taken for a mile. This is the main reason no one can do anything about gun control. At all...

[BainsBane]

116. WTF are you talking about?

Why would it be open to the public? Is it open to the public in gun stores now? Is your driver's record open to the public? Your credit report? How do you even dream up this stuff? The gun echo chamber must be a very strange place far removed from reality. The defeated amendment did not extend to personal private party sales. It extended only to gun shows and internet sales. You could save yourself a lot of bother by simply going to the Senate website and actually reading the bill.

However, it would be fairly easy to create a system to be used by private parites. The result would be a result that says whether or not the person is eligible. yes the person is eligible or no he isn't. If no, the person receives something in the mail like you do when you are denied credit. They then have the opportunity to fix any potential errors. The public does not have access to any records.

I describe how private party sales might work in a potential perfect bill in another post, but they were not covered under the recently failed amendment. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3031417

The fact personal private party sales were not included in that amendment makes it particularly bizarre you should raise that excuse now. 1) either you have no idea what was in the actual amendment, or 2) you do know are are assuming others here are too stupid to read the newspapers and will believe your distortions.

Nothing you raise has any basis in fact. The defeated amendment made no such determination about the mentally ill. The guidelines need not be different from what they are now other than extending to gun shows, internet sales, and (in my view but not the actual negotiated legislation) private sales. Only the mentally ill adjudicated by a court a danger to themselves or others would be prohibited form owning a gun, just as it is now. The only difference is that more sellers or all sellers would be required to perform a background check before making a sale.

As for your part 3, The paranoia of idiots cannot be a basis for national legislation. This country is full of delusional right wingers, and catering to them is insanity. There is no question that the nation is full of imbeciles, but that is their problem. They need to get an education. If for whatever reason they choose to believe that kind of false NRA propaganda, they also believe that the UN is getting ready to take over our government. Does that mean we shouldn't work with the UN or maintain a State Department either? If we run the country according to the paranoia of the wacko right, we might as well give up hope for the country all together. Excuse number three is the weakest possible reason to do nothing.

The only reason to do nothing is because gun interests make profit from murder and crime. Well, that and the desire for genocide, to kill off the population of color to reestablish white male exclusive rule in the United States. I suspect the paranoid who worry about gun confiscation also want to see white only rule reestablished.

So here we have yet more confirmation that the story about pro-gun folk on this site supporting the President's gun control measures was fiction. We have about twenty gunners making that quite clear. That puts them with the extreme right--the nine percent of the population that opposes background checks. Demographically, that aligns them with the Tea Baggers, since a majority of gun owners and even a majority of Republicans support background checks. The only demographic that opposes them by a majority is the Tea Party.

This thread is fascinating. More and more people are dropping their masks.

[Pelican]

126. It's odd...

... that the literal exact same post can elicit such differing responses from you.

The last time we chatted you were near civil...

This time, less so. Are you under some extra stress?

[Apophis]

120. A post I agree with.

I didn't think I could agree with you on anything, but here we are.

[CokeMachine]

70. You are good!!

You alert and then your juror instructions are worse than the alerted comments. Talk about PERSONAL ATTACK!! At least it's hidden in your alert and very few will see it.

At Sat Jun 15, 2013, 06:16 PM, an alert was sent on the following post:

Keep it up -- this is funny!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=124734

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Personal attack. And frankly the guy's a gun troll. If you can find a post where this guy isn't trolling for the NRA, or attacking progressive DUers, I'd like to see it.
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: One of your posts has been hidden by a DU Jury

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Jun 15, 2013, 06:25 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: agree with the alerter, gun troll making DU suck with personal attack
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Alert posts, not people.




Apparently the alerter didn't do any research. If he/she had they would know that I'm for UBCs and support most (if not all) of the party platform. Juror number four is right there with you. Typical for this -- never mind!!

[Eleanors38]

81. Didn't you know repeating back someone's post can get you hidden?

Long leash. Very long leash.

[BainsBane]

106. That's not my alert

Though I'm glad to see the post hidden. Believe me, if it were mine I'd proudly admit it.

[BainsBane]

109. Gosh, I hadn't even read that response

I was way too overwhelmed by the gunner swarm to read more than a handful. I'm honored that you would credit me, however. Truly I wouldn't have thought to alert on that post in the Gungeon. I saw several responses just like that. I know full well I'm on enemy territory when I venture there. The only alert I've sent there was on that OP about extending concealed carry, and that was nearly two weeks after its post date.
Kudos to the alerter. He or she is much better at it than I. I alerted on a death thread to another member in this thread, and I couldn't even get THAT hidden.

[G_j]

72. I can only venture a guess

that many of those who contributed to Zimmerman's defense fund are NRA members. It's just a logical guess.

[BainsBane]

97. I wonder how many

are a bit closer to home?

[Ian David]

92. Thank you, Captain Obvious. n/t

[BainsBane]

98. Amazing how many vehemently deny the obvious.

[BainsBane]

93. Confirmation that pro-gun DUers OPPOSE background checks

are in the responses above. That puts them in the far extreme of American society. 91% of Americans support expanding background checks to private sales. Even the overwhelming majority of gun owners support universal background checks. A poll of NRA members before Sandyhook showed that even 70% of them supported universal background checks. A number of gungeoneers, however, do not. In the period between Sandyhook and failure of the background check amendment, they misrepresented their position. See responses to my post 43 for evidence of their opposition to background checks. Why, I wonder? What was their true plan? It makes me wonder what else they haven't been forthcoming about. Hmmm.


Woops.

[patrice]

128. What else? I wonder if this is in the mix . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/world/arms-trade-treaty-approved-at-un.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

. . . especially given that Susan Rice, currently heading the NSA which is embroiled in the Snowden case would have negotiated U.S. terms for voting in support of that treaty at the U.N. . . . oh yeah, and make that the drone collaborating NSA, at that.

[BainsBane]

130. I don't think they've heard about that yet

and I just made a connection earlier in this thread between paranoia about gun confiscation and UN conspiracy theories.

You should can ease up on the Rice hating crap. Dumping everything you don't like in this administration on a woman is just ugly. You sound like McCain and Graham. She doesn't set policy herself. The White House does. She wasn't in the NSA during any of that stuff. I find it amazing how women's bodies are always the site for political contestation, even among those who should know better.

[patrice]

198. Where did I say I hate her? You appear to be a bigot of some sort, or someone who enjoys

spreading dissension and hate yourself.

Believe it or not, SOME people, obviously NOT you, can look at others objectively, assess positives AND negatives - honestly - and not hate them. That comes from the ability to recognize positives and negatives in one's self. Something you are apparently not capable of, hence your intolerant elitist crap.

You should do a reality check on yourself for hero-worship.

[hack89]

200. Susan Rice is not "currently heading the NSA"

She is the National Security Adviser to the President, which has nothing to do with the National Security Agency.

[patrice]

216. Thanks for the correction. I honestly did not mean it as an insult. Just a fact that her

resume, in light of recent events at the U.N., gives her very special expertise that could cut to the right or the left in this situation.

[mwrguy]

104. Gun cultists are sick

They'll never listen to reason.

[BainsBane]

105. Be sure to read the responses beginning at post 46

To see them finally admit to opposing universal background checks.

[mwrguy]

107. Oh I did

Bunch of closet right wingers.

[BainsBane]

110. Me thinks the closet door has started to open.

[rl6214]

113. I think you need to get yourself another roll of tin foil.

[BainsBane]

121. Everything in the OP

has been confirmed by many gungeoneers. About twenty say that universal background checks are unacceptable. Truly, there is no exaggerating the capability of the gun nut. Just when I think I've seen the worst, they prove themselves to be colder than I could have possibly imagined. Some here have even argued that gun safes are unconstitutional. Evidently a requirement to keep loaded guns out of the hands of children, they argue, is a violation of the Second Amendment. Who could even dream up something that fucking crazy? No tin foil needed. The crazy on the gun side far outpaces what the rest of us could possibly imagine.

[Decoy of Fenris]

122. Can you link to any post where any of what you said is true? n/t

[BainsBane]

125. beginning with post 46

You were part of it in that you denied the fact that background checks are not currently universal. Then there is the death threat one member made to another. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3030313

What set off all of this was my own disclosure in the gungeon about my own recent brush with gun violence, and the complete lack of concern for my life expressed in response. Here is my post there: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=124753

Others who have had family members killed have observed similar reactions by gun folk here. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3011698

[Decoy of Fenris]

129. So... All this is about you not getting the pat on the head and pity party you wanted?

Firstly, I don't (think) I've ever denied that background checks are not currently universal. My memory is fairly bad, though, so take that with a grain of salt.

Point one: Your first link is hardly a death threat. It is an examination of possibility in regards to one rather overzealous gun control advocate insisting on confiscation, and arguably good information given should said poster attempt that course of action to any given gun fanatic. What you call a death threat, I would say is a damned fine bit of advice. Confiscation attempts would likely result in an unhinged loon and a firefight eventually.

Point two: You throw broad-brush accusations, promote fear-mongering, accuse DUers of arms-trafficking, blame them for a piddling amount of property damage, and you expect sympathy? You're a stranger on the internet. Your story could be true, it could be false, and in either case, most other people just won't care one way or another. I wouldn't take such things so personally.

Point three: And? Hell, I've had two close friends off themselves and two more die to random gun violence. Aside from remorse for their families, what do you want out of me, let alone random strangers? Embarking on a crusade won't do anything for the dead.


It seems more than anything that you're just upset that people don't really respond the way you want them to respond. That's a -good- thing, Bain. Individuals react in different ways, in regards to any emotion. Some people get angry, others get sad. Some get despondent, and some just don't give a shit (That'd be me). You really can't justifiably be upset because people aren't reacting in the exact way you wish them to. Moreover, none of these links (of the three in your prior post) give much support, if any, to the notion that the Gungeon folks want to arm criminals, or any of the other rather silly hyperbolic projections you've tried to establish. What's worse is that I think you know that; you're not stupid, you know your stuff, but you keep using those blasted logical fallacies that give the idiots on the pro-gun side the PERFECT way to frame you as a gun-grabbing authoritarian. I'll respond to your other post shortly, after a brief bio break and a smoke.

[BainsBane]

131. Yes, I expect people to act humanely

When they promote policy that results in gun violence against people like me, I take it personally. I have a right to to take my own life personally. Notice that other thread where the guy talked about his family member being killed. I said "I'm so sorry for your loss." That is what human beings say to one another. Most even believe it. Even sociopaths know to fake compassion. That was simply confirmation of observations by most of us here than gun proponents simply do not care who lives or dies. How else can one explain the threats against the family members of Sandyhook? I don't like how those people responded either.

You don't give a fuck about me, CTYankee, or the victims of Sandyhook. Fine, You don't have to. I don't give a fuck about your guns either. I sure as hell don't give a fuck about your gun paranoia. I have talked about background checks and gun safes, and you accuse me of gun grabbing authoritarianism. I haven't mentioned taking a single one of your precious guns. Get a fucking grip. That you consider something so innocuous as "gun grabbing" tells me you operate on the far fringe. You clearly cannot be reasoned with.


I'm done placating the gun nuts. They obviously don't give a damn about anyone else on this planet, certainly not us lowly folk who live in cities. Cities are nothing but proving grounds for them to wage their power struggle over how to get as many guns in circulation as possible, in places where they are the most lethal. No, I don't respect those views. They sicken me. So go back to the gungeon and cry about how I hurt your feelings. You people love nothing more to whine and complain about how you don't like the fact that people are "bigoted" against your views, like gun nut is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. So go snuggle up next to your guns. They obviously are far more important to you than anything else, certainly far more important than the lives of people like me.

[Decoy of Fenris]

134. Please read for comprehension. You're not quite understanding.

You want to take your own life personally, by all means, no one can stop you and it's the intelligent thing to do. Do you know the difference between you and me? When I take my life personally, I don't act -at all- to oppose those I disagree with. I disagree with abortion in the third trimester, but you know what? I'm a man, and it isn't my body, so I get exactly jack-shit right to say anything about it; that's the way it should be. I wouldn't have it any other way. I promote that actively across the entire spectrum; I won't force you to own a gun if you don't force me to lose mine. Unfortunately, that particular issue is escalating, which is why I fall on the pro-gun side of the debate.


Y'see, we do have a certain degree of understanding. You continue your cause, I continue mine. We're on opposite sides of the issue, but outside of attempting policy change, we can appreciate difference.

In regards to gun grabbing, I didn't call you a gun grabber. I said that in repetitive broad-brush attacks in addition to repetitive use of logical fallacies, you are giving the fringe gun group a reason to label you as a gun-grabber. I know that you've never called for confiscation (to my knowledge, anyways, but again, poor memory), so please do not accuse me of things I have not said. In regards to me, I call people "gun grabbers" when they do, in fact, aim to seize firearms out of homes; there are two or three, possibly four DUers who espouse those views, and I reserve the titles for them alone.


I'm not asking you to placate any amount of gun nuts. By all means, fight your good fight; people need a cause, and if this cause is yours, so be it, as it is mine through association. All I'm asking for is a bit of honesty and civility in the debate here on D.U. rather than being lumped in under the brush you like to slap across every possible gun owner within earshot.

[BainsBane]

138. Taking care of one's own interests is key

to what bothers me about those gungeon threads. These are people in Wyoming and other rural places working diligently to extend concealed carry to cities throughout the country, far from where they live and where they will never travel. It's not enough for them to have concealed carry in their states. They insist jurisdictions where the overwhelming majority of the population opposes concealed carry be forced to allow it. Now, that is a policy that results in greater violence, in higher death rates in cities like Chicago. There already is concealed carry in my city. Aren't I lucky. That's why there is regular gun fire in my neighborhood. Chicago's crime rate is down 40% from last year, but these people want to make sure that more guns enter Chicago. There are even groups that go into cities and hand out guns. Since we know more guns equal more gun violence, how can I conclude anything other than they want to see that violence? The same with background checks. Opposing background checks only ensures criminals ready access to guns. It strikes me as entirely logical to conclude that opposition is intended to ensure that ready access.

More guns out and about in cities and criminals having easy access to guns both increase homicide rates. Now, someone might say that is not why they support those measures. They can give some argument about constitutional rights, but when they support the NRA's efforts to deprive First Amendment rights through imposing legal gag rules, restricting doctors from asking about guns in the home, or writing down anything about guns, as well as special exemptions from lawsuit for gun manufacturers, it's crystal clear constitutional protection doesn't matter one bit to them. If one only cares about the broadest possible interpretation of the Second Amendment and not at all about the gun lobby's infringement on other constitutional rights, they neuter the entire constitutional argument.

So they support policies that result in higher death counts but claim that isn't what their goal is. If it isn't their goal, WTF are they doing? Why do they cry about voluntary gun buy back programs? I's like advocating for war and claiming you don't want people to die. There may be some other motivation, but when the policy results in massive loss of life, pretending one's position has nothing to do with it doesn't pass the smell test. They advocate for policies that kill. They therefore are responsible for deaths that result, just as I would be responsible if I advocated for war or cuts in medical care. We are responsible for what results from the policies we advance, not just some hypothetical justification for why we think those policies are a good idea.

So they advocate for concealed carry in cities thousands of miles away from them, where people like I live. That results in shootouts and deaths of people like me. I have every right to take that personally, just as Iraqis have a right to take neoconservative war mongering personally.

I have never called for gun confiscation but the more I read responses by gungeoners, the less I care about their gun rights. As I've said before, they do more to advance gun control than the Brady Campaign ever could. And that was when they were still pretending to care about dead children and support background checks. Now that they've dropped that pretense, it's hard to have any sympathy at all for them. The worst was that opposition to gun safes. I can think of nothing more evil. Even Rumsfeld and Bush didn't target children.

[Decoy of Fenris]

147. And this right here's the crux of the issue.

"I have never called for gun confiscation but the more I read responses by gungeoners, the less I care about their gun rights. "

I'm skipping the rest of your post, at least for the moment, because I feel this has to be addressed. THIS is the problem. That quote, right there, is why I can't stand with the gun control movement. I may have every right to speak out against gun nuttery, but by the Gods, I won't purposefully discard those rights. That statement above, while perhaps a true expression of your feelings, is part of the problem of polarization on the issue; I, and not a small group of others, would rather not stand idly by while others resolutely attempt to disregard our rights. I won't stomp on your free speech, I won't argue your right to choice, I won't stop your right to vote nor your right to bear arms, to be considered equal or to express whatever religion you wish. But the minute someone crosses that line and attempts to infringe on my own rights, through action or inaction, that is when I have to start to push back. I won't speak for other Gungeoneers, but for me, I am pro-gun for one reason and one reason alone; personal freedom. (That, and I do love the history behind most firearms, but that's kind of irrelevant.)



Let me ask you this. You have obviously expressed a distaste for when foreign politicians and groups attempt to interfere in your state politics. Do you have the same dislike for Bloomberg and his PAC? Myself, I despise both him and the NRA's attempts to influence state-level politics with agenda-bearing finances. I do, as a point, agree with you about foreign influence, but you have to remember; again, this is the internet. This is a message board. I sincerely doubt any gungeoneer is suiting up and driving into your state to actively campaign in your state-level politics. Expression of opinion is hardly something worth getting upset about, I think.

[BainsBane]

150. But gun proponents do stomp on our free speech rights

and our rights to life. The NRA is actively working to undermine the First Amendment and people here support it. I address that in the same post. Your point is specious.
The NRA has imposed gag rules that criminalize speech. Read the rest of my post. A big fail on that point. There is no group that does more to undermine our rights than the gun lobby. What you are saying is that property is more important than speech or human life. I disagree very strongly

I welcome Bloomberg's financial investment in gun control and gun research. I understand there is nothing the right hates more than the wealthy who devote their money to anything other than their own unbridled greed, but I do not feel that way.

Ideally I would like to see public financing of elections, but it the meantime a countervailing force is welcomed. The gun lobby outspends him and other gun control groups 15 to 1 anyway.

[ceonupe]

206. bloomberg on one issue support you while he craps on almost every other democratic idea and principa

bloomberg on one issue support you while he craps on almost every other democratic idea and principal

Lets see hes anti union
a .00001%er
supper pro wallstreet
anti regulation for most businesses accept big gulps it seams
not a strong supporter of public education
a totalitarian corportist who changed the rules to servea 3rd term
Support violating all your rights for the good of what ever he wants. Stop and frisk, cameras every where, spying, religious profiling the list goes on and on.

But becaue he tricks off a few dolalrs on the gun control issue. (less than .001 % of his wealth probably) hes golden kig shit around here. Its sick

We are kciking out good democrats because the are proRKBA while embracing the wolf in gun control clothing.

[rl6214]

217. Just another juvenile rant

You people are so predictable. Don't have things go the way you want them so you call names, whine and stomp your feet, toss out a couple of conspiracy theories and then throw out a few more juvenile names.

[oneshooter]

218. It can't be helped. It's what they do. n/t

[BainsBane]

127. Some of the gun safe opposition

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2939566

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2939686

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2940093

More in that thread.

Felon thanks the NRA. He knows what side his bread is buttered on. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022986186

[Decoy of Fenris]

132. I think you're distorting a bit, mate.

Having read through the post about the gun safe issue, I think you've distorted the point. The objections raised by the Gungeoneers in that particular thread have little to do with gun safes themselves and more to do with legislation -requiring- them, selectively, in addition to gun locks. While the legislation is noble and would indeed save lives, effective gun safes are expensive, and certain gun locks simply won't work on some varieties of firearm due to mechanical incompatibility. The legislation requiring the purchase of a gun safe and lock are, for all intents and purposes, a "poll tax" on the exercise of a constitutional right, sharing almost identical similarities with requiring a valid form of identification to vote. This is the sort of legislation I myself am against, and would prefer tax rebates and incentives for positive action such as voluntarily purchasing and utilizing a gun safe/lock.


In regards to the felon-NRA letter, after a brief bit of digging and examining his psychological reports, Gary Bornman has had a great history of mental illness, demonstrated an inability to live outside of prison, and has apparently gone on numerous crusades both in and outside the criminal justice system against perceived slights. If he thinks something is "wrong", he simply does the most attention-grabbing act he can, regardless of whether the system in question is in need of reform. Apparently, he has a history of such things, and I would humbly state that using him as an icon of "Truth" is about on par with citing Ted Nugent as an authority on firearm safety.

[BainsBane]

140. a poll tax? it's not voting.

WTF? These people spend thousands on gun and you're worrying about money for a safe. Too fucking bad. They can afford 15=100 guns but not a safe? Give me a fucking break.

You know all kinds of felons owe a great deal to the NRA for ensuring their ready access to guns.

[Decoy of Fenris]

142. It's the exercise of a protected right.

Want to vote? Have to buy a cheap ID.

Want to own a gun? Have to buy a moderately priced safe.

Want to speak freely? Buy the permit for a free speech zone.



Any legislation requiring financial burden on the free exercise of any given right is something that I can't stand in favor for.

[Gravitycollapse]

145. So I assume you advocate that everyone in the United States be provided firearms free of charge.

After all, it is a protected right. And if we take your argument to the absurd, which is what should be done, firearms should be free.

[Decoy of Fenris]

149. Why? Free exercise is the ability to exercise freely, not "Fo' free!"

Purchase of firearms is a direct excision of the right to bear arms, up to and inclusive of the act of purchasing said firearms. However, a mandated requirement of additional purchase in order to exercise said right is, almost directly, a "poll tax". That's just an idea that I can't get behind.

[Gravitycollapse]

154. It's your argument, not mine. If it's confusing to you, then the rest of us are fucked.

You directly compared the right to vote and free speech to the right to possess firearms. And you then proceeded to argue that the practice of protected rights should be without cost.

Well, if that is so, then firearms should be provided at no cost. That is the logical conclusion from your own argument.

[Decoy of Fenris]

156. It's not confusing at all, really.

When it comes to addressing of the rights, there are very clear lines in regards to the practice of said rights.


1st Amendment: Few restrictions outside of mitigating circumstances (inciting, hate crime, et cetera). HOWEVER, when additional restrictions (such as "free speech permits&quot are imposed, it is infringing on the free exercise of the right (as it is no longer "free", but conditional.)

2nd Amendment: Moderate restrictions for the good of public health and safety, charge to purchase a firearm directly. HOWEVER, when additional restrictions (such as "mandated gun safes&quot are imposed, it is infringing on the free exercise of the right (As it is no longer "Free", but conditional.)


Free exercise of a right, even including a preliminary cost, is still free. Additional costs, or costs that make the right prohibitive through financial burden, is an infringement upon said rights. It's fairly simple.

[Gravitycollapse]

158. You admit that you must pay to exercise the 2nd amendment but then draw an arbitrary line.

There is no theoretical or logical difference between paying for the firearm and paying for a safe. It is a merely further down on the continuum of cost incurred from exercising your 2nd amendment right.

So if your argument is that being required to safely store one's firearms is an undue burden, then having to pay for said firearms is also an undue burden. Do you understand how I have merely drawn out your absolutist rhetoric? If you disagree with what I say, you are disagreeing with yourself.

[Decoy of Fenris]

160. I concede that logically, I have little if any ground to stand on.

My problem stems from the notion that if we start to abridge or deny expression of rights based on financial burdens, then what is to stop the spread of that same phenomenon elsewhere? IDs to vote? Permits to speak? I grant that we are functionally almost there already, but I do not have to accept it quietly.

[Gravitycollapse]

162. It is impossible to have a right to something material without some sort of cost.

I believe we all have the right to effective medical care. But I understand that such a right requires resources and application. It possesses a cost, even if we address it from outside the bounds of capital. So it is through practice of such a right that we must also consider how to offset that cost.

Some would argue that the right to vote is immaterial. Others would argue that it is material. A similar issue exists with the right to possess firearms. The stating of the right, the belief in its existence, is immaterial. It is nothing more than a thought and thoughts are free. But the practice of such a right fundamentally incurs cost.

How would you like to pay for the 2nd amendment? And why do you think that the cost for practicing the right to own firearms must end at the point where we attempt to make such a practice safe?

[Decoy of Fenris]

163. Agreed.

I do agree that the cost necessitated by the exercise of given civil liberties (Let's be intellectually honest for a moment; "right" is a bit strong a word for this stage of the debate) is inherently imposed on a case by case basis determined by the nature of the liberty in question. You raise a valid point also in regards to the immaterial liberties, such as they are, in that while they may not have value, they certainly have worth. It is my belief, then, that in the exercise of given liberties, the worth of the exercise of a right, be it voting or firearms or speech, should not be outstripped by actualized value arbitrarily legislated. Keeping the point topical, the value of exercising the 2nd Amendment liberty may be measured by worth if not in value; a $100 gun's worth may be immaterial if, at some point, one uses it to save their own life, and in that particular instance, the actualized value means little. The ability to exercise that right has been cemented over any actualized value.

In that vein, it is my honest belief that legislation in regards to the 2nd Amendment should encourage, but not mandate through value or worth, positive behavior that betters the overarching worth of society and associated wellness. More curtly, encourage positive action, and positive results will manifest themselves. I would say that if one wished to evaluate the cost of exercising the 2nd Amendment, the cost in value would be the price to purchase the firearm itself (in the same way as one must purchase health care to exercise your right to wellness). However, perhaps less a valued imposition than intangible wealth, encouragement to engage in safe behavior and overall gun safety might be rewarded through tax incentives, such as buying a safe and a lock, or by the same breaks/rebates for voluntarily entering a non-compulsory gun registry.

My objection to "making such a practice safe" is not in the safety at all, but in the negative reinforcement. Why do gun control bills fail? Because they are inherently negative, attempting such things as banning and arbitrary restrictions. If the gun control movement could begin to establish more positively-reinforcing legislation that would encourage safety and personal responsibility over legislative restriction, I would be much more likely to actively aid such endeavors.

[Gravitycollapse]

165. We only need to look to Australia to see how restrictive gun control can be highly effective.

So whether or not you personally feel like jumping on board with us is largely incidental. Feel free to grab a seat. Or don't. But we won't hold the bus for long so you're going to have to decide pretty quickly.

Cost and value are not one and the same. When I address the cost of something, I am speaking to the work that must be done to obtain that something. Value should be seen as the relative importance placed in the work done.

When I say there is a cost associated with exercising the 2nd amendment, I am not stating that it costs 1000 dollars or 10000 dollars. I am merely saying that it costs something. The figure associated with the cost, the value, is subject to plethora of variables that are mostly based on belief and not something transcendent.

[Decoy of Fenris]

166. Aye, but the problem with comparisons between countries is that they're not the same.

I know that seems stupidly simple, but it's a basic truth. Australians are fundamentally different people in terms of culture and personality, and honestly, Americans are a more brutal, somewhat more simplistic group of folks than the Australians.


And I'm plenty aware that cost and value aren't the same; I was attempting to make that clear in my distinctions between the value and worth of something. My apologies if that got somewhat diluted. Otherwise, I believe we're on the same page in that regard.

[BainsBane]

164. So evidently would having to purchase a media outlet

to exercise free speech be an undue burden, or having to contribute to a political campaign to have one's voice heard. The court rules money equals speech. The argument of safes equally a gun tax makes no sense and couldn't possibly withstand constitutional review, even by the Scalia court.

[BainsBane]

146. How about the right to life?

What about the tax incurred on the cost of hospital bills and funerals? What about the tax incurred by the loss of income of a family member (since all that seems to matter here is money)? Or how about the tax on me and my three neighbors for having to fix the bullet holes in our cars? Evidently the criminal's right to have stockpiles of guns to shoot at someone running behind the cars in front of my house is protected, while my right to be free from that violence is not?

[Decoy of Fenris]

151. What right to life?

As blunt and cruel as that is, there is no 'right to life'. Hell, there isn't even a right to a mediocre existence. You live as you can; the right to life, as you put it, is better characterized as the right to live. Your right to live is only as much a right as you can make of it; no more, no less. It's sad, and cruel, but it's the way of things.

[Gravitycollapse]

155. The right to own a firearm is a direct expression of the right to life.

[BainsBane]

157. I see

That really says it all. No wonder. Sir, I find your lack of conscience horrifying. You have confirmed precisely the point I make in the OP. My life and that of others affected by gun violence is of no consequence to you.


"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" comes from the Declaration of Independence. This is from a page on Constitutional rights.

Natural Rights:

The classic definition of "natural rights" are "life, liberty, and property", but these need to be expanded somewhat. They are rights of "personhood", not "citizenship". These rights are not all equally basic, but form a hierarchy of derivation, with those listed later being generally derived from those listed earlier.

Personal Security (Life):

(1) Not to be killed.

(2) Not to be injured or abused.

http://constitution.org/powright.htm

[Decoy of Fenris]

159. So is this:

&quot 12) To acquire, have and use the means necessary to exercise the above natural rights and pursue happiness, specifically including:

(1) A private residence, from which others may be excluded.

(2) Tools needed for one's livelihood.

(3) Personal property, which others may be denied the use of.

(4) Arms suitable for personal and community defense."



Let's be honest though, Bain. I don't care how much you may say you have a 'right' to life; if a jetliner falls out of the sky and crushes you into the ground, do you think that your 'right to life' will save you? No. That particular right is an illusion. You could get struck by lightning, hit by a rogue roofing nail, mauled by a bear, hell, you could get crushed by a meteor and no matter how much "right" you have to life, that right ceases to be upon your death.

[The Straight Story]

178. Ever hear of death or birthdays or Christmas?

My dad owns a gun, will probably leave it to me when he dies. Won't cost me anything.

My nephew has more than a few guns most of which he got when younger for his birthday.

But of course let's make the poor pay more.

How about "If you're going to get an abortion you can only pay cash" law so that those opposed are ensured no public funds ever go to support something they don't like? And if a poor person gets one than they obviously don't need welfare/snap since they can afford an abortion.

You can hate guns all you want and salivate over only people like bush and other people in the government owning them, you can dance for joy at the idea that poor people should be penalized for being poor when it comes to the ability to own something you hate, just don't sit around trying to get laws passed - especially when 99% of gun owners don't use them to harm anyone.

Someday I probably will own a gun and I like the thought of that. But having to buy a safe? No way I could afford it - but that's ok I am sure you are more comfortable with trump owning a gun than us bad poor folks.

[BainsBane]

143. I will note that I find repulsive

that on ever single issue where you identify a tension between liberty for guns, ready access to cheap guns, ease of access to weapons and measures that save human lives, the right to life always loses out to the right to property. That is what capitalism is all about, I suppose. I find it repulsive. Shouldn't human life sometimes come first, even for gun proponents? Why must it always come after every other interest. Is there no point that morality enters into your thinking? Why is my life worth so much less than everything else?

[Decoy of Fenris]

161. I'm more a long-view humanist.

No matter how much I try, I simply cannot get worked up about death. People die; they're born, they die. It's a fact of life. Yes, of course, death is tragic for those directly involved, but in the long-view, those people are less than blips. If I died tomorrow, it would make no difference at all outside the people I aquatint myself with.

However, when it comes to ideas, ideas persevere. Ideas and ideals outlast empires, outlast eras and dynasties. -WE-, as individuals, are unimportant; we're fleeting flecks of light in the darkness. What we -do- though, that sets the stage for the long-view, hundreds and thousands of years down the line. The way I see it isn't "gun" vs "Life", but "defense" (as an idea/right) vs. "price of protection" (individual deaths). In the long view, it's a fairly easy choice to make.

[Bazinga]

167. Why is the right to own a gun in opposition to the right to life?

I, for one, own a gun precisely to protect the lives of my wife, my son, and myself. That's why I don't typically refer to them as gun rights, or the right to own a gun. I prefer to think of it as the right to the most effective means of self-defense. After all, what is self-defense if not the exercise of the right to life?

I wish there were some way to convince you that the vast majority of gun owners, including every commenter on this board, do in fact care deeply about safety. We simply disagree on which policies promote safety and the balance between individual liberty and social welfare. The fact that you refuse to accept that gun-owners could be anything but heartless, murder-promoting monsters makes discourse with you all but impossible.

I really hope that you can learn to differentiate between criminals and compatriots. We're on your side. We don't want to see schools, movie theatres, or the cars on your street shot-up anymore than you do. So when you claim that we value plastic, wood, and steel over human life, don't be surprised when we push back, because that's not the side we're on. When you lump us in with street thugs and deranged psychopaths, don't be surprised that we get defensive, because that's not us. And when you want to look for solutions, talk to Us, not at Wayne LaPierre.

[NutmegYankee]

168. Your argument is fatally flawed

It is not the right to own guns vs the right to life. It's liberty vs safety. And you are choosing safety. Others chose liberty.

[hack89]

170. Nice distortion

pointing out that any gun container law has to comply with Heller is not the same as opposing gun safes.

If this is "opposition" then you have some serious reading comprehension issues:

BTW I have no problem with storage requirements - I go as far as to lock up my guns and ammo in separate safes. Perhaps the law could be reworded to require biometric safes such that kids can't access the guns yet they are accessible to adults.

[BainsBane]

171. Yeah, links are really a distorion

It's awful to hold people accountable for their own words. Given that your story changes so often, I understand why you resent past posts being linked to.

[hack89]

177. You linked to a post where I specifically support gun safes

Last edited Mon Jun 17, 2013, 01:19 PM - Edit history (1)

and where I merely pointed out that gun storage laws have to conform to Heller.

on edit: I even suggest how such laws can be written to comply with Heller.

It takes a certain mindset to turn that into "you oppose all gun safe laws."

[Skidmore]

174. This should be the theme of an ad campaign.

There should be ads pointing out that the NRA is a lobby group for gun manufacturers who have a vested interest in insuring that criminals have access to guns while selling the notion that you need guns to protect you from the criminals they shield by not preventing background check and responsible ownership. Why doesn't Bloomberg put his money there?

[BainsBane]

176. Good suggestion.

I'd contribute to such a campaign.

[pintobean]

197. I live in one of the most dangerous cities in the US

I'm glad that my state has CC. My neighbors are heavily armed (legally) and I find comfort in that fact. It's a deterrent to gun crime. Don't pretend to speak for city dwellers.

[DirkGently]

208. Illegal sales are still sales.

... thus the campaign to neuter ATF and smear them as "jack-booted thugs." And opposition to background checks. And spinning a story about ATF having to manually track guns because they're not allowed to track registrations as an attempt to make it "look" like we need more gun safety regs.

NRA might have once represented sportsmen, hunters, and hobbyists. Now it's just the mouthpiece of manufacturers who stand to profit on guns and gun violence begetting gun violence.

[krispos42]

219. Yeah, because the fraction of a percent that is straw-purchased really adds to their bottom line.

Or the other fraction of a percent that is stolen every year.



With concealed carry, "legal gun owners" have the ability to shoot teen age boys when their music is too loud. Oh noes! And with guns in the house, "legal gun owners" have the ability to shoot from their bedroom windows at teen-age girls wearing provocative skirts and hipsters on single-speed bicycles and elderly people on Rascals!

And with cars, "legal drivers" have the "ability" to run over narcoleptic vegans on rollerblades! Panic! Panic! Won't somebody think of the narcoleptic rollerblading vegans?





And what's this? If I take the same concerns we have about the NSA gathering communications-related data on us, and apply it to the ATF or the FBI with gathering gun-related information us... I'm some kind of zealot, and worrying unnecessarily.

And your free speech being assaulted? You have the right to say stupid stuff all you want, but if you're going to continue to do so, don't you dare say that I don't have the right to point out that it is, in fact, stupid stuff. Yammer about your precious "assault weapon" ban all you want; it's a dumbass idea in past, present, and proposed form. Don't blame others because you're clinging to a dumbass idea.

And your entire paragraph about not being able to differentiate between legal and illegal gun owner reflects poorly on you. The police seem to have no problem being able to figure out if a shooter legally, or illegally, had the gun he used to commit the crime.

And hey, nobody made your side bring up the same tired, threadbare, 20-plus-year-old, proven-useless culture war about protruding pistol grips and magazine capacities and telescoping buttstocks after Newtown. You guys did that on your own.




So, can I count on your support for limiting all vehicles speeds in the country to 10mph, saving 30,000 lives a year? Or is being able to drive for a hormone-laden fast-food burger at 55mph more important?

[BainsBane]

220. Your information is not accurate

In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[20] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations."[20] These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States

You need to read up on what the NRA forced to be included in ACA, what they have passed in Fl, and gag laws elsewhere. You're badly under informed on the subject. Obviously there is no point in my telling you, since I have repeatedly. So I can only conclude you don't give a flying fuck about anything in the constitution except the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Your distortions of fact reflect poorly on your cause. They show how corrupt your argument truly is.

[X_Digger]

221. Hint: 26,000 = way way way less than one percent of the total guns sold in that same period.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/total-nics-background-checks-1998_2013_monthly_yearly_totals-033113.pdf

If it were 10x that amount, 260,000 guns, it would *still* be less than one percent.

Krispos's point still stands.

[BainsBane]

228. that's not the total numbers of guns purchased

You people make sure there that gun dealers don't keep records. Just by siting background checks you deliberately leave out the millions of guns sold illegally. EVERYONE with any brain cells knows the gun lobby opposes extending background checks to ensure a steady revenue flow from criminals.

[beevul]

230. You have left the arena of fact completely now.

"You people make sure there that gun dealers don't keep records."

This is just so far from anything that might be spun as truth I don't even know what to say.

"EVERYONE with any brain cells knows the gun lobby opposes extending background checks to ensure a steady revenue flow from criminals."

A steady flow of revenue from whom to whom?

Your logic is so broken here, its beyond amazing.

[X_Digger]

233. LOL, that would make the percentage LESS, not more. *snort*

When you're in a hole, the first step is to stop digging.

True, an NICS check could represent the purchase of multiple firearms in the same transaction- which pushes the percentage *even lower*.

Please proceed, Bainsbane.

[krispos42]

222. Fraction of a percent, indeed.

14,000,000 new firearms sold annually in the US.

84,000 diverted from legal to illegal commerce (let's assume for the sake of argument that they were all new)

84,000 ÷ 14,000,000 = 0.006

0.006 x 100 = 0.6%.

Maximum, because I assumed all 84k were new guns. The more that are used, the smaller that number becomes.



The very definition of a fraction of a percent.




Your side freaking about about guns and demanding political action drives gun sales up 20% or more.


If I was the gun companies, I'd be supporting getting your side as much TV time as possible. Far easier, and far more profitable, than somehow counting on straw purchases to increase or more guns getting stolen.

And the way you want the guns collected in your gun-buyback programs destroyed? Man, I'd support that, too, if I was a gun manufacturer!

[BainsBane]

227. Given that gun dealers are required to keep no records

there is no accounting of what actual guns sales are or who they go to. That is simply what the ATF discovered. The gun lobby has made it so gun sellers don't even have to keep the same kinds of records common among convenience stores. There is nothing in that report that posits that to be the total number of guns sold. Gun activists have worked diligently for is defeating any and all measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The only logical conclusion that can be reached from that is the gun interests WANT criminals to have guns.

[beevul]

231. How can you say such provably untrue things publicly and not expect someone will post the truth?

"Given that gun dealers are required to keep no records there is no accounting of what actual guns sales are or who they go to."


FFL holders are required to keep a registry of firearms sales in an ATF-approved Bound Book, or a computerized equivalent using ATF-approved software. Licensed dealers must also maintain file copies of Form 4473 or eForm 4473 "Firearms Transaction Record" documents, for a period of not less than 20 years after the date of sale or disposition. When retiring or otherwise relinquishing a license, these records are sent to the BATFE's Out-of-Business Records Center. Licensed collectors are not required to send their records to the BATFE when relinquishing their license. The ATF is allowed to inspect, as well as request a copy of the Form 4473 from the dealer during the course of a criminal investigation. In addition, the sale of two or more handguns to a person in a five business day period must be reported to ATF on Form 3310.4.

You should know this:

Even the most die hard anti-gunners on DU generally know that what I posted above is true, so you aren't doing yourself or your cause any favors posting this crap.

[Lizzie Poppet]

235. You shouldn't make shit up, as it tends to come back and bite you on the ass.

Like now, for example:

"Given that gun dealers are required to keep no records there is no accounting of what actual guns sales are or who they go to."

O RLY?

FFL holders are required to keep a registry of firearms sales in an ATF-approved Bound Book, or a computerized equivalent using ATF-approved software. Licensed dealers must also maintain file copies of Form 4473 or eForm 4473 "Firearms Transaction Record" documents, for a period of not less than 20 years after the date of sale or disposition. When retiring or otherwise relinquishing a license, these records are sent to the BATFE's Out-of-Business Records Center. Licensed collectors are not required to send their records to the BATFE when relinquishing their license. The ATF is allowed to inspect, as well as request a copy of the Form 4473 from the dealer during the course of a criminal investigation. In addition, the sale of two or more handguns to a person in a five business day period must be reported to ATF on Form 3310.4.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

How's that foot taste?

[Hekate]

226. Quelle surprise. They're in it for the money, nothing else. nt