HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » When the price of individ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:03 AM

When the price of individualism is just too high

Individual rights, like everything else, has its price. When that price far exceeds the benefits, society has the duty to curtail the right. I believe we have gone far beyond the tipping point when it comes to gun ownership. I assume that even if the Supreme Court wrongly interpreted the thrust of the 2nd Amendment, their decision is, in fact, the law of the land. If, however, a democracy is unable to correct its most egregious mistakes, what use is it?

So why is it that despite a myriad of facts concerning America’s yearly slaughter, we refuse to reconsider the gun issue? I suggest that we are at the mercy of the gun lobby, which includes not only the National Rifle Association, but also those who manufacture and sell firearms. Killing off Americans, including the 20 murdered children, flows from the political clout of a big lucrative business, and there is not a politician in sight who dares to confront that well-financed lobby.

The last time I ventured onto this thin ice, in another forum, there were three responses that repeated the shibboleth,“Guns don’t kill people, people do.” I was reminded that cars kill more people than guns, and no one is in favor of doing away with automobiles. How absurd! I use my car for lots of things, but it was not manufactured and sold to me with the sole purpose of giving me the ability to put a large hole in someone—or twenty someones.

I believe there are three steps that might be quickly taken that will not deny appropriate gun ownership.

1-The reinstitution of the prohibition on the ownership of assault weapons. Outside military use, they have no purpose other than mass killing. We don’t allow civilians to purchase or own machine guns or bazookas.

2-The control of extended ammunition clips. While we cannot easily control guns, we can control bullets. The only purpose for ammunition clips of 50 projectiles is mass slaughter.

3-The carefully control of gun sales by making them available in licensed stores where there is both a waiting period and a thorough background check of potential customers. The easy availability of almost any weapon in sporting goods stores or in gun shows makes it almost impossible to keep them from the hands of the mentally ill, or common criminals.

I assume, and will be quickly corrected if I am wrong, that none of these three steps would violated the guarantees of the 2nd amendment. But nor would their implementation solve the larger problem. Nevertheless, they may be reasonable steps that might make far less likely the slaughter of children in some community grade school while they are safely learning how to read.

220 replies, 20635 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 220 replies Author Time Post
Reply When the price of individualism is just too high (Original post)
Thats my opinion Dec 2012 OP
Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #1
Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #15
bobclark86 Dec 2012 #29
rdharma Feb 2013 #151
kelly1mm Dec 2012 #2
Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #16
Clames Dec 2012 #33
Clames Dec 2012 #3
YllwFvr Dec 2012 #4
Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #17
Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #19
TxRider Jan 2013 #90
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #34
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #36
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #40
gejohnston Dec 2012 #42
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #44
gejohnston Dec 2012 #45
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #47
Straw Man Dec 2012 #48
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #50
gejohnston Dec 2012 #51
hack89 Dec 2012 #60
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #62
gejohnston Dec 2012 #63
Clames Dec 2012 #64
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #66
Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #68
hack89 Dec 2012 #67
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #70
hack89 Dec 2012 #72
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #74
hack89 Dec 2012 #75
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #76
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #77
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #80
gejohnston Dec 2012 #82
hack89 Dec 2012 #78
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #79
gejohnston Dec 2012 #81
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #83
gejohnston Dec 2012 #84
OrwellwasRight Jan 2013 #85
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #159
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #161
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #174
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #175
Straw Man Jan 2013 #86
OrwellwasRight Jan 2013 #87
Straw Man Jan 2013 #88
OrwellwasRight Jan 2013 #96
Straw Man Jan 2013 #98
OrwellwasRight Jan 2013 #99
Straw Man Jan 2013 #103
Kezzy604 Jan 2013 #93
OrwellwasRight Jan 2013 #97
bobclark86 Dec 2012 #59
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #65
Ashgrey77 Jan 2013 #91
OrwellwasRight Jan 2013 #95
Ashgrey77 Jan 2013 #105
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #106
YllwFvr Dec 2012 #69
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #71
Straw Man Jan 2013 #104
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #107
Straw Man Feb 2013 #108
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #110
Straw Man Feb 2013 #111
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #112
Straw Man Feb 2013 #113
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #114
Straw Man Feb 2013 #115
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #116
Straw Man Feb 2013 #117
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #118
Straw Man Feb 2013 #119
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #125
Straw Man Feb 2013 #137
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #138
Straw Man Feb 2013 #139
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #140
Straw Man Feb 2013 #142
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #143
Straw Man Feb 2013 #147
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #148
Straw Man Feb 2013 #149
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #150
Straw Man Feb 2013 #152
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #153
Straw Man Feb 2013 #154
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #155
Straw Man Feb 2013 #156
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #157
Straw Man Feb 2013 #164
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #165
Straw Man Feb 2013 #171
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #177
Straw Man Feb 2013 #184
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #185
Straw Man Feb 2013 #192
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #193
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #158
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #160
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #162
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #173
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #176
Straw Man Feb 2013 #163
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #166
Straw Man Feb 2013 #170
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #167
Straw Man Feb 2013 #169
iiibbb Feb 2013 #172
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #178
Straw Man Feb 2013 #182
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #187
Straw Man Feb 2013 #189
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #126
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #128
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #129
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #130
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #131
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #132
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #133
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #134
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #135
cleanhippie Feb 2013 #136
Straw Man Feb 2013 #141
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #180
Straw Man Feb 2013 #183
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #186
Straw Man Feb 2013 #191
iiibbb Feb 2013 #168
Straw Man Feb 2013 #181
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #188
Straw Man Feb 2013 #190
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #194
iiibbb Feb 2013 #195
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #198
Straw Man Feb 2013 #203
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #205
Straw Man Feb 2013 #208
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #210
Straw Man Feb 2013 #212
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #217
Straw Man Feb 2013 #220
Straw Man Feb 2013 #196
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #197
Straw Man Feb 2013 #199
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #201
Straw Man Feb 2013 #202
iiibbb Feb 2013 #204
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #206
Straw Man Feb 2013 #207
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #209
Straw Man Feb 2013 #214
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #216
Straw Man Feb 2013 #219
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #211
Straw Man Feb 2013 #213
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #215
Straw Man Feb 2013 #218
raidert05 Feb 2013 #179
rDigital Dec 2012 #5
Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #13
krispos42 Dec 2012 #6
gejohnston Dec 2012 #7
Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #18
tortoise1956 Dec 2012 #8
Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #20
tortoise1956 Dec 2012 #27
bobclark86 Dec 2012 #30
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #9
ileus Dec 2012 #10
Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #31
rrneck Dec 2012 #11
Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #21
rrneck Dec 2012 #25
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #35
gejohnston Dec 2012 #37
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #41
gejohnston Dec 2012 #43
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #46
gejohnston Dec 2012 #49
OrwellwasRight Dec 2012 #52
gejohnston Dec 2012 #53
iiibbb Jan 2013 #100
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #109
iiibbb Feb 2013 #120
OrwellwasRight Feb 2013 #124
rrneck Dec 2012 #39
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #12
Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #23
slackmaster Dec 2012 #14
holdencaufield Dec 2012 #22
Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #24
holdencaufield Dec 2012 #26
tama Jan 2013 #89
Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #28
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #32
Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #38
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #54
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #56
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #57
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #58
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #55
LAGC Feb 2013 #121
iiibbb Feb 2013 #122
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #61
TimKeller Dec 2012 #73
DWC Jan 2013 #92
Spryguy Jan 2013 #94
iiibbb Jan 2013 #102
PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #101
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2013 #123
geckosfeet Feb 2013 #127
spin Feb 2013 #144
kudzu22 Feb 2013 #145
Starboard Tack Feb 2013 #146
Sailor2000 Feb 2013 #200

Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:08 AM

1. You do realize that firearm dealers are already liscensed.

Gun dealers to have a license from the ATF, and they already do background checks. I get your point about gun shows, but you seem to imply that sporting good stores don't do background checks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:25 PM

15. Thanks for the correction.

Nevertheless ,there are a hundred ways to avoid that net. The real problem is in private sales particularly at gun shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:57 PM

29. And it will still be avoided

by those looking to get guns for nefarious reasons. People are still going to get them in robberies, back-alley deals and so on.

Doesn't mean we have to make it easy for them, but it will still happen. People who jump through all the legal hoops can still snap, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:28 PM

151. The real problem is in private sales particularly at gun shows.

 

Some states already require background checks at gun shows. But this is easily circumvented because private sales are still legal.

Say you are prior convicted felon at a gun show and see someone other than a licensed dealer with a gun you want. You can meet that guy in the parking lot or another location and do a person to person transfer with no background check.

100% universal background check requirement on ALL transfers of firearms is the only way to stop that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:18 AM

2. On you #1 (The reinstitution of the prohibition on the ownership of assault weapons) the AWB

did not ban the ownership of said weapons, just the manufacture/importing of said weapons. You could still own, buy, sell, or give away any said weapons, and gun shops were free to sell those weapons, either from new old stock or from trade ins. So maybe you meant an 'institution' rather than 'reinstitution' of the prohibition?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelly1mm (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:27 PM

16. So that law needs to be clarified. Threwill be a bill before trhenext Congress to do just that. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:17 PM

33. Wrong.

 

Even Feinstein stated that her law would not be retroactive. Meaning it will grandfather in millions of pre-ban rifles, magazines, receivers, etc that already exist and if there is even a hint that her legislation could make it to the President's desk then there will be a manufacturing surge that will produce enough legal parts to keep in supply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:19 AM

3. You are not putting the cat back in the bag.

 

You are not aware that the results of the last AWB that did not actually ban any semi-automatic rifles, did not impact crime, did not hinder any determined individual from committing mass killings (Columbine happened in 1999 which was within the period of the 1994-2004 AWB), does nothing about the millions of pre-ban (and now considerably more post-ban) magazines, and launched AR and AK patterned rifles into a far higher level of popularity than they had before 1994. Only part of an AR rifle that is legally defined as a firearm is the lower receiver which contains the serial number. Stripped lowers can be purchased for less than $100/each. Once someone owns the lower they can buy parts to assemble a functional rifle at leisure and there is no legislation that would stop them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:34 AM

4. my firearms were not purchased to put holes in people.

Assault weapons are already strictly regulated. And yes civilians do own machine guns. Virginia held a famous machine gun shoot every year. I dont know if they still do. Also semi automatic rifle do have purpose.
None outside the military? Did you watch the tv? Did you see the cops with ar15s ready to take down a active shooter?

High capacity magazines are used that often in shootings? Do you mean arizona? Where it failed and he was taken down because of that? Typical of high cap mags. They havent been a problem yet people still seem to want to ban them.

Background checks and licensing are already done. How well did those waiting periods work out in LA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YllwFvr (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:28 PM

17. You are right. See my #16

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YllwFvr (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:34 PM

19. What I said--or intended,

is that these weapon give you the ability to shoot holes in people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:50 PM

90. You would make a better argument if...

You stuck to facts and not falsehoods.

"1-The reinstitution of the prohibition on the ownership of assault weapons. Outside military use, they have no purpose other than mass killing. We don’t allow civilians to purchase or own machine guns or bazookas. "

Actually we do allow citizens to purchase and own both bazookas as well as machine guns, a citizen can even purchase and own a tank and even a fighter jet if they want to. I actually know several such people. It simply requires a more extensive background check and paying of additional taxes to the ATF. A real machine gun can set you back about 20,000.00 though, so not a whole lot of unstable folk or criminals buy them.

"2-The control of extended ammunition clips. While we cannot easily control guns, we can control bullets. The only purpose for ammunition clips of 50 projectiles is mass slaughter. "

Clearly the only purpose for a magazine that holds over 50 rounds not mass slaughter, as millions of people use just such magazines ever day without ever slaughtering anyone. Be at least a little realistic and logical. Yes they may make it easier for a person to commit mass slaughter but it is also clearly not their "only" purpose.

"3-The carefully control of gun sales by making them available in licensed stores where there is both a waiting period and a thorough background check of potential customers. The easy availability of almost any weapon in sporting goods stores or in gun shows makes it almost impossible to keep them from the hands of the mentally ill, or common criminals. "

Many if not most guns are sold in a licensed and regulated retail gun store, and most sales at gun shows are the same. There are private person to person sales that happen at gun shows as well as outside gun shows, but they are a minority and a very small one. Sporting goods stores must follow the same regulations and perform the same background checks any other licensed gun seller must follow.

I personally doubt any of that would make any difference whatsoever in these senseless killing at schools and such. These people are nuts and they do this for attention, and the media fear mongering and sensationalism is more to blame in my book than gun availability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YllwFvr (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:59 PM

34. They are not strictly regulated.

They can be bought and sold at gun shows and through personal sales without background checks and I've also seem them for sale on the internet. They may be regulated, but only partially, not strictly. Let's deal in facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:09 AM

36. Pretty sure he meant assault rifles which are machine guns by law.

They have been strictly regulated since 1934.

"Assault weapons", by any of the non-sensible definitions, are readily available for sail by most dealers and many private sellers, as you point out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:19 AM

40. Not sure what he meant.

He did say "assault weapons are strictly regulated."

To me, nothing is strictly regulated so long as we allow interstate internet sales, unregulated gun show sales, and private sales. I just think we'd be better off if we knew who had which guns and we required periodic licensing. Just like you have to re-up your driver's license periodically, and prove you are not too blind to drive, etc., you should have to re-up your gun license periodically and prove you are not too crazy to have a fire arm.

Despite the mantra that "only criminals will have guns," the evidence shows that most guns used in mass murders were purchased legally. These are, for the most part, not people engaging in late night deal out of car trunks in the barrio. So tightening the rules on legal gun sales would in fact make a difference in mass murders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:27 AM

42. in the two recent cases,

the shooter stole them.
interstate sales of any kind are regulated under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:49 AM

44. No.

Interstate gun sales happen all the time, without background checks or licensing. I know because I know people who have bought guns this way. So any regulation that exists is not "strict regulation," which the claim I am disputing.

If you are saying that the Newtown shooter "stole" his guns, that is disingenuous. Using guns that are in your house and registered and purchased legally is not "stealing" them. That is like saying you steal your mom's car when you take it to the store, or you steal her couch when you sit on it. That argument is really beneath me, and it should be beneath you.

http://blogs.lawyers.com/2012/07/assault-weapon-and-ammo-used-in-aurora-massacre-were-legal/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57500129-504083/new-york-city-gunman-purchased-weapon-legally-in-florida-police-say/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57559329-504083/mass-shootings-in-2012-crimesider-reports-on-this-years-public-shootings/

Moreover, I didn't say that all mass murders happen with legally purchased guns, I said it was the majority of cases. That is what I have been reading, and it appears to be based on the preponderance of the evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:57 AM

45. call the ATF hotline.

Interstate gun sales happen all the time, without background checks or licensing. I know because I know people who have bought guns this way. So any regulation that exists is not "strict regulation," which the claim I am disputing.
Call the ATF hotline. If it wasn't shipped to an FFL in the buyers state for background check and whatever local requirements, turn them in. They violated the Gun Control Act, which is a felony.

If you are saying that the Newtown shooter "stole" his guns, that is disingenuous. Using guns that are in your house and registered and purchased legally is not "stealing" them. That is like saying you steal your mom's car when you take it to the store, or you steal her couch when you sit on it. That argument is really beneath me, and it should be beneath you.
In this case, he murdered her before going to the school, so not quite the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:59 AM

47. Relying on me to call the ATF is proof that it is not "strictly regulated." nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:06 AM

48. Interstate sales must go through an FFL ...

... in the buyer's state. The FFL does the background check before releasing the firearm to the buyer. This is the same as purchasing it in a store. Why do you single out interstate Internet sales when they are as closely regulated as face-to-face sales in a licensed business?

If you know of someone who has engaged in an interstate sale without an FFL or background check, then you have knowledge of a felony. If you are not willing to report this felony, then you are part of the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:29 AM

50. Not true.

Federal law does not require gun sellers to be licensed. Instead it allows for "private party" sales:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandhomicides/ci_9344423

And guns are sold, apparently, all the time, on Craig's List as well as other internet sites:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081217134251AAu73Vu

And Armslist does not require you to be a licensed dealer:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081217134251AAu73Vu

They are not "as closely regulated as face-to-face sales in a licensed business" because many do not happen by a licensed business. And I dis not "single them out." You did. I also mentioned the well-known gun show loophole. You chose not to address that.

According to what I just read, since unlicensed private party sales are allowed, it is not clear I have knowledge of a felony. Nor could I point any federal authorities to the seller, the website used, the price of sale, the specific location of sale, or any other details law enforcement would need to know to get a warrant to search someone's house for an illegal weapon. So not really much to go on as far as crime fighting. Moreover, your insult and threat to me, which was rude and uncalled for, does not disprove my point that any law that relies on voluntary compliance is not "strictly regulated." It may be regulated, but not "strictly." That is like saying that companies in Bangladesh that engage in voluntary fire safety codes have "strict" safety rules. They don't.

However, I do not choose to subject myself to further accusations that I have violated the law by not reporting something that is of questionable legality, I choose not to further respond to this thread. I also hope you hold yourself up to the same standard, and report every single speeding vehicle, illegal internet download, unauthorized cable connection, underage drinking incident, questionable tax deduction, spitting on the sidewalk, jaywalking, and any other potentially law breaking behavior your friends have ever potentially engaged in, even if you were not present at the scene, but only heard about it later. Oh you don't call the police on your friends every day? Well, don't try to hold everyone up to that standard then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:38 AM

51. news to the folks at craigslist

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #50)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:51 PM

60. Intrastate private sales are legal. Interstate private sales are illegal.

not complicated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:37 PM

62. Try reading the links.

Craigslist apparently says what can and can't be sold but doesn't even police that--the sales happen anyway. Clearly, it is not policing whether the seller lives in St. Louis and he buyer lives in East St. Louis if it is not even policing what products are sold. This is no different than the gun show loophole. Is anyone at the door making sure that all the attendees at the Los Angeles gun show live Cali? No. So, in fact, somewhat complicated. These types of sales happen, unregulated, all the time. Easy to stop. End the loopholes. Like the DMV, require even private sales to be registered, and for guns that should include a background check and licensure., every time. Not rocket science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #62)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:45 PM

63. answers Yahoo?

and a newspaper article that might have been researched or just a reworked press release? Yeah, OK, sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #62)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:48 PM

64. Wrong.

 

I browse Craigslist regularly and have seen such items removed quickly after they are listed. Most don't even last a few hours before being pulled down. Users are very apt to flag such items as violation of the TOS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #64)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:56 PM

66. Try reading the links. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #64)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:14 PM

68. Maybe the sale just has gone through nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #62)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:42 AM

67. Intrastate sales are still a state issue

Private sales work like this:

1. If the buyer and seller are residence of the same state and the transaction takes place in that state, then it is a state issue and background checks are governed by state law.

2. If any of the above is different and a person or the weapon crosses state lines then it is a federal issue and the transaction must go through a licensed firearms dealer and federal background checks are required.


Any state can require background checks at gun shows - nothing is stopping them. My state has already passed such a law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #67)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:48 PM

70. It should not be left up to the states.

That is my whole point. There should be no loopholes. When X drives from VT to NH (or CA to AZ or WHATEVER) to buy a gun at a gun show and then drives it back to his or her state of residence, that is an interstate gun sale which may not be captured in the system due to loopholes. And if that sale takes place in the living room of a "private dealer" you have the private sale loophole, despite any interstate aspect, because the private seller won't have the ability or interest to do a background check and so won't ask you to say that you live in the next state over. And if you find the gun on craig's list or arm's list or any one of these sites that allow or even don't allow, but don't effectively police, classified ads for guns, the site isn't in fact going to be responsible for the fact that the VA guy with the gun drives to DC to make the delivery. And unless somebody knows that it is happening, also knows that whatever sale is about to take place is in fact illegal (and not just exploiting a loophole), knows who to report it to, and can give enough detail (place, time, people involved, etc.) to allow the authorities to locate and stop the sale, it is unlikely such sales can effectively be stopped.

Instead if there were a standard law, just as it applies to cars, that every single sale, no matter by a commercial party or private party or at a show, had to be registered and a background check performed, and every buyer had to be licensed, and to have that license renewed every few years (just like a driver's license) to make sure the person could still handle a gun safely and was not batshit crazy, we'd be a lot better off because people would not have to guess if gun sale A required a background check while gun sale B did not, or if sale C needed to be registered, or if you could cross the state line to get your unregistered gun D.

They all would require a background check, registration, and a license, greatly simplifying matters for buyers, sellers, law enforcement, potential "witnesses" to illegal sales, etc.

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #70)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:54 AM

72. Then change the Constitution. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #72)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:35 PM

74. The Constitution doesn't say it must be left to the states.

Nor does it say there cannot be reasonable restrictions just as there are for every other right in the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #74)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:44 PM

75. Actually it does

hence the present legal situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #75)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:51 AM

76. nope.

as I have advised before, try reading the amendment in question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #76)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:22 AM

77. Does the Amendment grant the Congress regulatory power over internal policing?

I see no indication that it does, so my assumption is that the 10th Amendment applies, reserving the right to regulate intrastate gun issues to the states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #77)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:32 PM

80. Internal policing?

I'm not even sure what you mean, but if you mean to imply that the BATFE, FBI, and the US Marshall Service are unconstitutional, you are most certainly mistaken. Besides, that you are way off topic. I am talking about regulating the sales of guns, which has nothing to do with policing and everything to do with regulating the sale of a dangerous product, which the federal government already does, just not very thoroughly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #80)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:43 PM

82. they enforce only federal laws

if the USSS has a federal warrant for you because they think you have a really profitable printing press, it doesn't go to the locals. If a local cop pulls you over for a broken taillight, the federal warrant will not show up in their system. You might be caught if you pay your fine in "cash".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #76)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:00 AM

78. It has nothing to do with the 2A

I suggest you research the commerce clause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:29 PM

79. Wow.

That's an even weaker argument. The Commerce Clause gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, which means that the federal government can pre-empt state law either when it specifically choose to or when it occupies the field by so thoroughly covering a subject. This is why the federal government can do things like set minimum wages, occupational health and safety rules, Social Security, the FDA, etc. That is why the assault weapons ban and other federal laws regarding background checks have NOT been overturned. So, yes, the federal government could occupy the filed if it wanted to. Perhaps you should research the commerce clause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #79)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:39 PM

81. the background checks are only

by dealers engaged in interstate commerce, FFLs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #81)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:56 PM

83. Yes, because the federal government has not chosen to go farther, which is exactly the point

of my argument--I said it hasn't and it should. You should check out the point of the argument before responding. But you and I had this problem before (see post #49 from Dec. 17). I am no more interested in having a discussion with a person who is only pushing his agenda and not bothering to read and respond to what is on the page than I was on Dec. 17.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #83)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:03 PM

84. and you are not only pushing an agenda?

sounds rather hypocritical of you. I do believe I did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #84)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:32 PM

85. Again: proof that you fail to read posts!

the complaint was "more interested in pushing an agenda than in reading and responding to what is actually posted" not just "pushing an agenda." Then you get up in arms about me being "hypocritical" for having my own agenda when that was never the complaint--which you had no interest in engaging anyway. How fantastic it is to have a discussion with people who have no desire to discuss -- just to "make points" and prove something to the other gun rights promoters. Not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #70)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 09:48 AM

159. Then how do you avoid ICC limitations on fed powers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #159)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:20 AM

161. there are virtually no limits

Social Security
OSHA
Medicare
Medicaid
Civil Rights Act
SEC
FTC

All and more are exercises of the commerce clause. Selling and buying guns is commerce. Therefore the federal government can regulate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #161)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:16 PM

174. Can they regulate my selling of a Trinitron T.V. to a neighbor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #174)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:35 PM

175. Interestingly enough--maybe they could if they wanted to.

The Supreme Court will soon be deciding some cases that could put federal law front and center into what people are allowed to do with products after they have already purchased them. Textbook companies want to have control over to whom you can sell your textbooks (and other material implicating intellectual property rights) after you have already purchased them and they belong to you and not the publisher! Additionally, Monsanto has a case about what grain elevator operators can do with leftover seeds after they have already purchased them from farmers and have leftovers after their main sales. Lower courts have already sided with the lawyers who argue to limit your rights sell your own products, so you are not too far off with the trinitron example.

In terms of what has already been decided, the most extreme decision is Wickard v. Filburn, which said that a farmer who was growing wheat for his own personal use, and not for the market, could be prohibited from doing so under the Commerce Clause because even his own wheat from his own field for his own use (no crossing of state lines!) could have an impact on interstate commerce if his act was repeated by others. That case has never been overturned. So, given Wickard v. Filburn, I repeat my statement that the Commerce clause is virtually unlimited. Not that I agree with these cases, but just that they exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #50)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:33 AM

86. Perhaps you didn't know before ...

According to what I just read, since unlicensed private party sales are allowed, it is not clear I have knowledge of a felony.

... but I'm telling you now: Unlicensed private party sales are only legal between residents of the same state. Interstate sales fall under Federal regulation, which requires a background check conducted by an FFL.

Moreover, your insult and threat to me, which was rude and uncalled for, does not disprove my point that any law that relies on voluntary compliance is not "strictly regulated."

You may have been insulted by my observation, but I did not threaten you in any way.

I also hope you hold yourself up to the same standard, and report every single speeding vehicle, illegal internet download, unauthorized cable connection, underage drinking incident, questionable tax deduction, spitting on the sidewalk, jaywalking, and any other potentially law breaking behavior your friends have ever potentially engaged in, even if you were not present at the scene, but only heard about it later. Oh you don't call the police on your friends every day? Well, don't try to hold everyone up to that standard then.

Do I understand you to be equating jaywalking and sidewalk-spitting to an illegal firearms sale? No, I don't report such things, but then I don't go on the Internet demanding new controls on such behavior either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #86)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 11:26 PM

87. Your name says it all. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #87)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:37 AM

88. If you're referring to the logical fallacy ...

... known as a "straw man," I suggest you do some research on what it actually means. The come back and explain yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #88)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:48 PM

96. I suggest you do some research.

Using a straw man is not a "logical fallacy." It is a "rhetorical technique." It is, in fact, usually a true but irrelevant, inapt, tangential comparison/example that is used to falsely discredit someone else's argument by positing that the argument is about something else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #96)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:25 PM

98. I know what it is.

It is a rhetorical fallacy. It is a failure of logic. I wouldn't call it a "rhetorical technique," because that would imply that it has some value. It doesn't.

It also has nothing to do with my username, but you're not the first to make that mistaken (in more ways than one) imputation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #98)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:41 PM

99. If the shoe fits . . . nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #99)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:26 PM

103. If ...

... the shoe fits . . .

... misinterpret it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #87)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 05:41 PM

93. Go right to the source.

Here is a link to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives FAQs.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/0501-firearms-top-10-qas.pdf

Figure if you got questions might as well go right to the source of the people in charge of it, and there are multiple answers to your interstate transfer rules. None of which I think will support your argument, but hey, however you choose to read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kezzy604 (Reply #93)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:51 PM

97. I don't have questions.

But thanks.

My argument that Straw Man used a Straw Man argument? I don't really need to look anything up about that. You should probably check that you responded to the comment you are referring to. It will make the conversations make more sense.

Welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:25 PM

59. You probably shouldn't admit...

to committing a federal offense on the Internet. Failure to report such a crime makes you an accessory, and up for about 10 years in Federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison and a $100,000 for each offense.

"But I shouldn't have to report it! The system is too lax!"

Then you are a lazy fuck who has blood on their hands. Get off your high horse of blaming guns when its the people -- including YOU -- who are the problem. Cops rely on the public to call 911 to prevent and prosecute murder. Is murder not highly regulated?

BTW, killing someone and then taking their property is stealing. It's like killing your mother and then taking her car, not borrowing it to go pick up some milk and eggs for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #59)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:55 PM

65. That's a lie

so that you can deny that most guns used in mass murders were legally obtained.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map


In this case, each gun was legally purchased and licensed. You can make up a story about how you think the guns were "stolen," but that is all that it is, a story. He lived with his mom, and you have no idea what they shared, what he had permission to access, what she gave him, etc. A theft charge on the guns would never stick, and has no basis in fact, only in the mind of someone who wants to keep weapons of mass destruction widely available.

And as I already posted in a different reply, you had better stop threatening me. I have no idea if the knowledge that I have of what a friend said he bought is a felony -- I looked up the law, and it's not clear to me. I only have hearsay knowledge of the event, no name, price, or location of the seller or the deal, nothing that would be considered evidence in a court of law. I love your bullshit response--as if you have any idea if my friend has committed a felony much less me. YOU are the problem. You will do anything to defend guns and those who use them apparently and waste your time trying to intimidate and threaten those who dare to challenge your ideas. If I am such a felon, maybe you should report me to the police. If you're lucky, I'll get arrested and pounded in the as, whatever the fuck that means.

Welcome to ignore!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #65)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 04:37 AM

91. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Ask any cop, lawyer, or judge. Just saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ashgrey77 (Reply #91)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:45 PM

95. That refers to the fact that

you can't claim you are not guilty of murder by saying "I didn't know murder was against the law." It applies when you are the perpetrator. It does NOT refer to the fact that you are required to report some behavior that you heard about (which is probably inadmissible hearsay anyway) that may or may not be illegal. That doesn't meet the standard of knowledge of a crime. Ask any cop, lawyer, or judge. You might also want to ask any cop. lawyer, or judge how many people are ever even prosecuted (much less convicted) "hearing that somebody might have done something that constituted a crime" but not reporting it. Probably none. Just saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #95)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 12:08 AM

105. You claimed first hand knowledge of someone committing a felony.

If so you need to report them. If you are embellishing 2nd hand information you heard as gossip to prove your point about illegal sales, then no you don't need to report it. But at least admit you were basically lying about knowing someone firsthand who has illegally purchased a firearm and then stating that as a fact to further your argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ashgrey77 (Reply #105)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:47 PM

106. No, I claim to know about a friend who said he bought a gun with no background check or registration

You and your buddies claim it is a felony. I don't know that it is. You wish it was because then you could further YOUR argument. I think it is shit that happens every day a million times because our gun laws suck and are riddled with loopholes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:50 PM

69. assault rifles

Are those that fire more than one bullet with each pull lf the trigger. Those are tightly regulated.

Assault rifles are military rifles.

Civilian guns made to look like real assault rifles are what many talk about. Those you can, in some states, purchase them without a background check and at gun shows.

Im no expert on interstate federal law, but ive looked into buying an online gun. I was required to get it sent from the seller to a federally licensed gun dealer where a back ground check could be done.

Thats my take on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YllwFvr (Reply #69)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:00 PM

71. Only if it goes in the mail.

Not if he delivers it to you or you go get it from him. And only if he chooses to follow the law. Some private sellers don't.

And the Assault Rifle/Assault Weapons dichotomy has been thoroughly debated above. I have no interest in revisiting that dead horse except to say you can kill plenty of people, and apparently this cretin in CT did, with an "assault weapon" that required a new pull of the trigger for every bullet, but no reloading of bullets because of a high capacity clip. He killed plenty of people very quickly without it being a fully automatic weapon. One no longer needs such a weapon to inflict massive and rapid death on massive numbers of people.

30 -50 bullet clips or magazines are NOT needed for hunting. Hunters need to get the animal on their first shot, otherwise they scare the game away. They are lucky if they get a second shot in and take the animal down then, but nobody is eating a deer riddled with bullets from a 50 bullet clip. Nobody. There is no point to such high capacity clips or magazines except to hunt people. And frankly, I don't want my neighbors hunting people. His right to hunt people stops where my right to live in a free society instead of a society of fortresses begins. So I think if we make those high capacity clips illegal to sell or buy, we have solved part of the problem. No one is going after game hunters and their guns, but those of us who live in cities have less chance of dying in a pointless, bloody massacre that no one has a "right" to impose on us anyway.

That's my take on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #71)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:32 PM

104. You continue to misinform.

Only if it goes in the mail.

Not if he delivers it to you or you go get it from him.

Absolutely false. Interstate sales without an FFL are illegal, regardless of how the firearm is delivered.

Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?
A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30

Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?
A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

Please note that if a private person wants to obtain a firearm from a private person who resides in another State, the firearm will have to be shipped to an FFL in the buyer’s State. The FFL will be responsible for record keeping. See also Question B3.


--http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html#gca-unlicensed-transfer

"Licensed/unlicensed" refers to whether the person has a Federal Firearms License (FFL).

People may flout the law, but the law is there. Please don't spread such misinformation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #104)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:05 PM

107. You do.

And apparently enjoy it:

"except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides."

Ergo, X goes to Y's living room and buys a gun. And who checks exactly on X's residence? The laws of X's state?

What about: "When a transaction takes place between private (unlicensed) persons who reside in the same State, the Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping. A private person may sell a firearm to another private individual in his or her State of residence and, similarly, a private individual may buy a firearm from another private person who resides in the same State."

Again, who is checking this shit? How long do you have to be in the state to be a resident? What is the requirement of due diligence and how do I know the dealer didn't meet it? Again, you make assumptions about knowing the elements of the crime, particularly what the seller "knew or had reasonable cause to believe."

Your assumptions are pretty flooring... but you know everything, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #107)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:15 PM

108. You missed this part.

"except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides."

A "licensee" is a holder of an FFL, or Federal Firearms License. In other words, a licensed dealer, who is obligated by law to conduct a NICS background check on the sale.

You claimed knowledge of interstate sales that took place without background checks.

Interstate gun sales happen all the time, without background checks or licensing. I know because I know people who have bought guns this way. So any regulation that exists is not "strict regulation," which the claim I am disputing.

Transactions between residents of different states must by law be processed through an FFL and include a background check. The transactions you described were illegal transactions. That is beyond doubt.

The regulation exists. Whether it is enforced is something for you to take up with the ATF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #108)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:17 PM

110. And you missed this part

"When a transaction takes place between private (unlicensed) persons who reside in the same State, the Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping. A private person may sell a firearm to another private individual in his or her State of residence and, similarly, a private individual may buy a firearm from another private person who resides in the same State."

Another straw man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #110)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:20 PM

111. "Interstate" sales? Remember?

That was the discussion. Your reference is irrelevant.

"When a transaction takes place between private (unlicensed) persons who reside in the same State, the Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping. A private person may sell a firearm to another private individual in his or her State of residence and, similarly, a private individual may buy a firearm from another private person who resides in the same State."

Keep moving those goalposts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #111)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:30 PM

112. And again as I have already stated

What is the basis for residence? For due diligence? What are the requirements if no record keeping is required? How do I know if what went on during the sale meets the requirements of the law?

Where did the sale take place, Ms Orwell? I don't know.
What is the exact date and time the sale took place, Ms. Orwell? I don't know.
Do you know how much money changed hands, Ms. Orwell? No.
Do you know the name and address of the seller, Ms. Orwell? No.
Did you actually see or hear the transaction occur, Ms. orwell? No.
What make and model was purchased, Ms. Orwell? I don't know.
Did the seller know the buyer wasn't licensed, Ms. Orwell? I don't know.
So you can't in fact tell us that a crime has been committed, can you, Ms. Orwell? No. I'm only trying to report it because some $#%% on DU is threatening and bullying me that I have committed a crime by not reporting all the stuff I don't know to you.

Oh, well, carry on, Ms. Orwell. And tell the bullies that people should report crimes to us if they have actual evidence, but otherwise, you are actually impeding our work...

YOU keep moving the goalposts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #112)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:41 PM

113. None of that is relevant.

I corrected your misinformation regarding the legality of interstate sales. You were wrong. I don't really care whether you acknowledge that or not, but I hope that anyone who might be contemplating such a transaction understands it.

For the record, I never threatened you in any way, and as for "bullying," you were the one who revived this thread after two weeks of dormancy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #113)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:53 PM

114. For the record YOU revived it after I said it was done.

YOU have to have the last word. Well keep trying. You corrected nothing as I was not wrong. The shit happens every day. I have nothing to report. And you can continue to bully as if I am some kind of a felon. I am not. And I don't go chasing other DUers through months-old threads to tell them that they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #114)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:05 AM

115. Nope. More misinformation.

Nobody had touched this thread since Jan. 22nd until you came along and started responding to old posts.

You certainly were wrong on several points of law. I believe is important to correct such misinformation whenever possible. You wouldn't want someone to inadvertantly break the law based on information you provided, would you?

You were the one who did the chasing. I didn't even remember that this thread existed until you responded to my old post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #115)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:10 AM

116. Nope. You responded after I said done. You had to get the last word.

And couldn't take it when I responded. Apparently still can't. And still pretending that the Us has strong gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #116)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:15 AM

117. "Said done"? What does that mean?

You mean that I'm supposed to stop responding when you tell me to? I didn't see that in the TOS.

I'm not "pretending" anything. We were having a factual discussion of points of law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #117)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:19 AM

118. No, we are having a discussion in which

you bully someone by saying they have committed a felony and you hope they'll be scared and run away. Not. Gonna. Happen.

But keep telling yourself whatever you like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #118)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:34 AM

119. Wrong again.

No, we are having a discussion in which

you bully someone by saying they have committed a felony and you hope they'll be scared and run away. Not. Gonna. Happen.

No. I said you had knowledge of a felony. Not the same thing at all.

I never had the slightest intention of "scaring" you -- the notion is laughable. I merely pointed out a factual error which undermined your premise. If your point is that we need more laws, you're not supporting it by citing an example where an existing law is being violated. In addition, you seemed to have a strangely cavalier attitude toward the actions of these acquaintances of yours, whose actions you were reluctant to believe were felonies. You wanted to blame lax regulation, when in fact your acquaintances broke the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #119)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 10:44 AM

125. Wrong again and still.

If you know of someone who has engaged in an interstate sale without an FFL or background check, then you have knowledge of a felony. If you are not willing to report this felony, then you are part of the problem.


This is bullying. So YOU are part of the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #125)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:30 PM

137. Bullying?

If you know of someone who has engaged in an interstate sale without an FFL or background check, then you have knowledge of a felony. If you are not willing to report this felony, then you are part of the problem.


This is bullying. So YOU are part of the problem.

The problem is guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them. I pointed out your apparent unconcern with a real instance of one of the processes by which those guns get there. At the very worst, it's an accusation of hypocrisy. If that constitutes bullying to you, then perhaps your sensibilities are too refined for participation in this discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #137)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:51 PM

138. No, the problem is people can buy gins in bedrooms, on the internet, at gun shows, and from the

backs of cars. It is NOT well-regulated and it should be just like cars, just like I said, where you can't drive around an unregistered care just because you bought it at a gun show or in a living room. All the discussion of my sensibilities in the world won't take away the fact that you tried to bully me into thinking I have done something wrong because I've met people that claim to have bought unregistered guns in private sales.

Gee, let's have the whole argument again and you can still pretend that guns are well regulated even though there are about a million loopholes and I can keep saying, no,unlicensed guns are sold in living rooms every day.

Hypocrisy? Maybe you should look that one up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #138)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:08 PM

139. That was not the issue ...

... that we were discussing.

All the discussion of my sensibilities in the world won't take away the fact that you tried to bully me into thinking I have done something wrong because I've met people that claim to have bought unregistered guns in private sales.

You stated that these were interstate sales and claimed that they were legal. I corrected that misinformation. If you thought these sales were legal, then you did nothing wrong. But your insistence that you have no responsibility to take action on the knowledge of illegal sales strikes me as hypocritical in someone who advocates for more gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #139)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:18 PM

140. That was ALWAYS the issue.

You came in quite late in the conversation--quite late--weeks later in fact. And apparently didn't do your homework on what the conversation was even about. Hypocrites tell people to do one thing and then do another. I don't tell you to make pointless police reports and don't do it myself. That's called integrity. Doing as you say. I also advocate for stronger gun laws. For all. It's not hypocritical not to be bullied by you into making pointless phone calls reporting unprosecutable "crimes" under the current law. Again, look up the definition of hypocrite. Arguing for stronger gun laws has nothing to do with one's approach to what you wrongly surmise is prosecutable knowledge under the current inadequate gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #140)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:33 PM

142. The issue was interstate sales

Your information was wrong. I corrected it. You either knew these sales were illegal or you didn't. If you didn't, then I hope you do now. If you did, then you ignored a felony. You could have done something, anything, from dropping a dime yourself to simply telling the person that what they were doing was illegal. You didn't. You want to indict the system, but if you knew and did nothing, then you are complicit, if not legally, then at least morally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #142)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 02:01 PM

143. My information was not wrong.

You continue to assume it is. Quit making assumptions. Read the whole conversation. Or maybe you can't be bothered because you just want to keep repeating that you are right. Well guess what? I'll just keep repeating that you are wrong.

And I am complicit in nothing. No one I know has shot anyone. You are complicit in trying to maintain the system that allows millions of unregistered and untraceable firearms to be sold every single day. I am arguing to change that system. Your only response is that you think (wrongly) I have knowledge of someone using a loophole in the system. That is not constructive and doesn't fix the system. Another STRAW MAN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #143)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:31 PM

147. It most certainly was wrong.

I have read the thread. I stand by what I said. Interstate sales without an FFL and a background check are illegal. You did not describe someone using a loophole; you described someone breaking the law. The distinction is crucial.

When X drives from VT to NH (or CA to AZ or WHATEVER) to buy a gun at a gun show and then drives it back to his or her state of residence, that is an interstate gun sale which may not be captured in the system due to loopholes.

X broke the law and didn't get caught. It has nothing to do with "loopholes." if someone robs a bank and gets away with it, is that due to "loopholes" in the laws against bank robbery?

I don't "think" you have knowledge of it; you said you had knowledge of it.

Interstate gun sales happen all the time, without background checks or licensing. I know because I know people who have bought guns this way.

Are you recanting on that?

Your accusations are unfounded. The issue here is not private sales between residents of the same state, an issue which could be resolved by opening NICS to all sellers or by creating a Federal approved-buyer ID like the FOID in Illinois. I have directed you to the relevant portions of the law, and you persist in sidestepping into same-state transactions. The issue all along has been interstate private sales, which are illegal. Please do not spread dangerous misinformation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #147)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:04 PM

148. THE GUN SHOW "LOOPHOLE"

isn't a loophole? Oh, OK. I am not sidestepping into anything. I have REPEATEDLY said ALL gun should be licensed, no matter when why or why sold or to whom. We do it with car, no matter if the sales originates on craigslist or carmax.com or by two people who meet at 7-11 and decide to trade cars. No such system tracks gun sales and such unlicensed sales occur. Frequently according to the people on the intertubes who brag about how easy it is. Or did you ignore those links too?

YOUR accusations are unfounded. Please do not spread dangerous misinformation such as "our gun laws are adequate."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #148)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:10 PM

149. No such "loophole" for interstate sales.

That was the topic -- remember? Sales between two people who do not reside in the same state must go through an FFL and are subject to a NICS check, regardless of where they take place. That is Federal law. Please acknowledge this fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #149)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:01 PM

150. Gun. Show. Loophole.

What don't you understand about that fact? And yes, everyone I know who owns guns and engages in private sales -- where no license is required -- also keeps a special computer in their house so they can perform federally approved background checks in the off chance the ATF stops by to check this unlicensed dealer that they don't even know about is complying with the law? Of course the law allows unlicensed interstate sales because there is no infrastructure to monitor it or stop it or to track any guns that might ever have been sold that way.

And no, that was never the topic. The topic was "gun sales are not strictly regulated." CHECK MY POST. You know, the one you joined weeks later, after everyone else had laid down his or her arguments and had done with it? Remember? But thank you for telling ME what MY topic was. You are no better at reading my mind than at ending an argument that is going nowhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #150)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 10:09 PM

152. Not. For. Interstate. Sales.

The only reason I joined this thread was to correct your misinformation about interstate private sales being legal without an FFL. They are not. All interstate sales must go through an FFL and are subject to a background check.

There is no "loophole" for interstate sales. The law does not "allow" them, unless you have some different definitions for the words "law" and "allow" than the rest of us. It may be difficult to enforce laws against such sales, but that does not mean they are "allowed."

Since you seem to be impervious to facts, I will instead address anyone who might be masochistic enough to be still reading this thread:

DUers, be advised. Despite what you may have been told here, it is illegal to engage in interstate sales of firearms without an FFL, whether face-to-face, by mail, by teleportation, or by any other means. There is no loophole for kitchen tables, Wal-Mart parking lots, or gun shows. If you engage in such sales, you are breaking the law. Don't do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #152)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 10:37 PM

153. You seem to be impervious to facts.

Things don't necessarily have to be legal to happen every day. What in the world don't you get about unlicensed buyers and sellers meeting at shows, in yards, at McDonald's wherever the hell they want and exchanging guns? There is no way to track, and if you are unlicensed, no one to even know they are supposed to be tracking you or to help you know how to check if your customer actually "resides" in the state where you are located. What are they going to do to you - take away your non-existent license? How are you to even know what the standard is? What if they spent the night there the night before, or if their mom has a house there, or if they do have an instate driver's license but don't actually live there? Do those meet the standard? If so, they are legal, but unlicensed gun sales. If you even choose to ask to see an ID, how do you know it is real? Instead you may choose to ask "do you live here" or in fact not ask them anything at all. the standard for residence legally is usually pretty low, like "do you intend to make this state your domicile. If you say you intend to and then change your mind the next day, you may have legally purchased a gun. And if it were not legal, why would gun shops just over the border in states be allowed to advertise "buy your guns at Joe's -- no registration," across state lines? Because they do! I have seen those signs. THERE ARE HUGE LOOPHOLES that allow all kinds of unregistered, unbackground checked, and unlicensed gun sales to go on every single day. And you apparently did not read my links or you'd know this because you'd have seen links where people brag about buying guns interstate on craigslist or have seen the link to the gun seller's marketplace and one of the requirements to post your guns for sale there is not that you be licensed. So please, keep peddling your schlock about how no interstate private gun sales happen in the US. And NO ONE is reading this except you. All reasonable people gave up in December when the conversation ended. Before you decided to have the last word to "prove" our gun laws are adequate, which they are not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #153)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:47 PM

154. Irrelevance and falsehood.

Things don't necessarily have to be legal to happen every day.

Of course they don't. The failed War on Drugs is a case in point. But that has nothing to do with the fact that these "things" are still illegal. Interstate gun sales without an FFL are illegal. That's all I've been staying, post after post. Please acknowledge the truth of that statement.

So please, keep peddling your schlock about how no interstate private gun sales happen in the US.

I never said that. Now you're just making shit up. Tsk, tsk. Not very sporting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #154)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 03:19 AM

155. Why don't you try reading what I have been saying post after post?

Illegal gun sales are not irrelevant when your point is "our gun laws are not strict enough" which is what I have said approximately 17000 times now. But you keep pretending my point was different so you can keep arguing long after we have established that we will never agree.
I love how you join a thread a month late, make up your own point, and then pretend that the whole argument was about your point, and not about what the person who was in on it from the beginning says it was. But I guess we all use DU for different reasons, and if arguing past somebody and pretending you know their point better than they do is what you enjoy, then our conversation will continue to last forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #155)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 09:08 AM

156. That is not what we are discussing.

You and I have been discussing only one thing in this thread: the illegality of private interstate sales. You misstated the case, and I corrected you. You doubled down and then repeatedly attempted to shift the focus. I repeat:

Interstate sales of firearms are illegal without an FFL and a background check. It's that simple.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #156)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 09:22 AM

157. That is what I am discussing.

As I have told you over and over and over. But apparently you ignore or fail to understand. I have no idea what "you" are discussing. You "claim" to be discussing interstate licenses, which makes no sense when from the beginning I have been discussing registration and background checks as well. It also makes no sense when I have addressed several times what are the standards under the law for complying and determining if someone lives in said state--and you have never once responded. So if that is what "you" are discussing, you are doing a pretty poor job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #157)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:04 PM

164. I repeat.

I joined this thread to correct your misinformation regarding interstate sales. I couldn't care less whatever else you might be discussing or wish to discuss.

I'll make this very simple.

Please note that if a private person wants to obtain a firearm from a private person who resides in another State, the firearm will have to be shipped to an FFL in the buyer’s State. The FFL will be responsible for record keeping. See also Question B3.

--http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html#gca-unlicensed-transfer

Interstate sales of firearms must by Federal law go through an FFL and are subject to a background check. Confirm or deny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #164)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:59 AM

165. Read this post.

Confirm or deny.


In an attempt to gauge how frequently private sellers checked for identification at the Las Vegas Gun Show, a Chronicle reporter approached five sellers to ask about buying a tactical rifle such as an AR-15, which is outlawed in California as an assault weapon. In each case, the seller was told he was dealing with a California resident who was hoping to buy the weapon for cash.
Of the five, one asked to see proof of Nevada residency before the sales discussion progressed, while four never asked. They were informed they were talking to a reporter only after the terms of the sale were agreed upon and the cash was requested.
A seller named Joe agreed to sell a POF-brand AR-15-style assault weapon, including grenade launcher, for $3,500. Joe, who said he was originally from Ocean Beach in San Diego, pressured his California client to act fast.
"These are banned in your state, but they're going to get banned everywhere soon," he said. "You can buy it for an investment."


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Gun-show-loophole-visible-in-Las-Vegas-4208818.php#ixzz2KaUyFAF4

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #165)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:48 AM

171. Confirmed: people break the law.

It is still the law. Confirm or deny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #171)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:44 PM

177. Without any enforcement,

it isn't much of a law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #177)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:42 PM

184. Correct.

Without any enforcement,

it isn't much of a law.

But it's still a law. Before we launch a bunch more well-intentioned but ill-conceived laws, why don't we try some aggressive enforcement of the ones we have, and see what that does to the problem?

How about an all-out Federal effort? Cancel the failed War on Drugs and spend those resources attacking gun trafficking. Make the ATF stop playing James Bond on the border and start infiltrating domestic gun-runner operations. Do some stings on straw buyers. Crack down on gangs of all types.

Or just continue waging culture war on rural America, at great political cost and no gain in public safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #184)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 06:01 AM

185. You can't enforce it as is.

If unlicensed dealers can sell guns -- how do you enforce what they do? You can't enforce anything without a way to trace guns to their source and requiring all dealers--licensed or not--to perform background checks. That requires a change in the law. As I said, like cars. No more "under the table" deals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #185)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:06 PM

192. Arguable.

If unlicensed dealers can sell guns -- how do you enforce what they do?

They can't sell them interstate -- at least not legally. As of now, that's as far as the Federal government has been inclined to assert its authority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #192)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 06:55 AM

193. Yes, therefore unenforceable unless you track the guns themselves. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #158)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:28 AM

160. My experiences at gun shows...

If a person renting table space is an FFL dealer, he/she must run a NICS test. If the person is NOT FFL, he/ she cannot run NICS.

My experience with kitchen table sales: See above.

IMO, states can require its citizens to undergo a NICS test (if it were "open"), or similar test that meets cinstitutional muster (as NICS does).

Next week, I'll meet up with the guy who argued the Gonzalez decision before SCOTUS (and won 7-2). I'll ask him about the com clause and its relevance to national gun regulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #160)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:24 AM

162. In Gonzalez,

Last edited Sun Feb 10, 2013, 03:05 PM - Edit history (1)

the underlying law had nothing to do with commerce which is why he won. It was about where you can carry guns, not where you can buy or sell them. No commerce? The commerce clause doesn't apply. It's quite simple.

And your experience at gun shows and private sales quite proves my point. Unlicensed dealers can make sales and they don't run background checks. You have not disproved my point at all. You made it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #162)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:13 PM

173. Before you celebrate, I support universal checks. I'm concerned

about its prospects of surviving a court challenge. There is also concern that controllers might subsequently use the NICS as scaffolding for a national registration system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #173)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:41 PM

176. Well I support both national registration and universal checks.

So we are just going to have to disagree on the registration issue. To me, it seem likely that both would pass muster under the Commerce Clause as they would be tied to interstate commerce in guns. Those arguing to stop such measures would probably rely more strongly on the argument that the Second Amendment right to "not be infringed" somehow trumped the Commerce Clause than on the argument that the Commerce Clause did not extend far enough to cover background checks and registration. But that's just my armchair lawyering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #158)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:01 PM

163. I never said they did.

Not to mention you are wrong about background checks.

Background checks do not have to be performed at gun shows or in private sales.

Only for interstate sales. "Norm from Henderson" in your first link is a Nevada resident. Therefore, when he buys at a Las Vegas gun show, it is not an interstate sale. If Omar Samaha is not a Virginia resident, then both he and the people who sold him guns broke the law.

None of this contradicts the fact that interstate sales must by law go through an FFL and a background check. Please do not misrepresent what I have said. It is dishonest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #163)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:06 AM

166. It is not dishonest.

Unlicensed sellers are allowed at gun shows. No background checks are required at gun shows. Therefore unlicensed, unbackground checked sales happen at gun shows. Did you read the part about the sellers who say no, they do not ask for state of residence? Therefore it is TOTALLY honest to say that unlicensed, unbackground checked sales happen at gun shows and that in post after post after post I asked you what the standard was for checking residence and who is policing the unlicensed sellers and you ignored it in post after post after post. So it was also honest to say that you conveniently ignored the questions and the facts. Background checks do not have to be performed because it is specifically a loophole in the background check law -- you refuse to admit that. Continuing to use the straw man that we are having some other conversation than we are having.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #166)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:47 AM

170. Laws are broken, yes.

News flash --stop the presses!

I never said it doesn't happen. That still doesn't make it legal. Can you acknowledge that? If you can't, then you're being dishonest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #163)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:11 AM

167. Try using logic

If unlicensed sellers are allowed at gun shows, and unlicensed sellers can't perform background checks, how it is that sales without background check WON"T happen at gun shows? It is inevitable that they will. And they do. You clearly did not read enough of the article above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #167)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:45 AM

169. Logic.

Where is the word "interstate" in your scenario? Sales such as you describe can and will happen legally Between residents of the same state.

If the buyer is from out of state, he/she can only legally buy from a licensed dealer or have the firearm shipped to a licensed dealer in his/her state. That's the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #169)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:32 AM

172. Straw, man

 

His point is that in spite of the law people can do this anyway. This is why we need gun laws to ban certain weapons... because after we do, all of those banned guns will go away... because people who don't comply with laws governing interstate firearms sales will certainly comply with comply with laws governing the sale and possession of an AR-15.

Get it?

I assume he's also saying, that upon witnessing someone breaking a federal law, like a private party sale that spans state lines, he would also ignore it if any friends of his were in possession of a gun in violation of some hypothetical ban; rather just use that as evidence that such a ban does not, in fact, exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #169)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:49 PM

178. That's why it is called a loophole.

And why some people want to close it. It is not called the in-state sales loophole. It is called the gun show loophole, because where background checks would be required if sales were made elsewhere, they are not required at a gun show. It's why many people only buy at gun shows. They don't want to be background checked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #178)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:13 PM

182. You're just wrong, flat-out wrong.

That's why it is called a loophole.

And why some people want to close it. It is not called the in-state sales loophole. It is called the gun show loophole, because where background checks would be required if sales were made elsewhere, they are not required at a gun show. It's why many people only buy at gun shows. They don't want to be background checked.

What people call the "gun show loophole" is the provision that sales between private sellers who are residents of the same state do not have to go through an FFL and are not subject to a background check. When they are not residents of the same state, the game changes. Federal jurisdiction kicks in, and the sale must be processed through an FFL and is subject to a NICS check. This is regardless of where the sale takes place: gun show, parking lot, wherever.

I have news for you: It's not referred to in the law as the "gun show loophole" either. I quoted you the relevant laws several times. The so-called "gun show loophole" does not apply to interstate transactions. Such transactions without an FFL are illegal. Consult a lawyer if you don't believe me. And please stop spreading misinformation. People who believe you may place themselves in legal jeopardy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #182)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 06:03 AM

187. No one places themselves in legal jeopardy.

If it applied to all instate sales, it would be called the instate loophole. It's not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #187)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:01 PM

189. What people call it is irrelevant.

If it applied to all instate sales, it would be called the instate loophole. It's not.

The "loophole" applies only to transactions where the buyer and seller are residents of the same state. If they are not, Federal regulations apply, and an FFL and background check must be involved.

I don't know how to make it any plainer than that. That is the law, and it's important that people realize it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #116)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:07 AM

126. His last post was JAN 21. You posted TODAY, FEB 9. Thats nearly 3 WEEKS later!

I fail to understand how you can post 3 weeks after someone else, then complain that THEY feel the need to have the last word.


You also responded to another poster whose last post was JAN 21.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #126)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:11 AM

128. yeh, cuz i just got back to DU

and saw that people had responded to conversations I thought were over. And what business is it of yours? Straw man can't defend himself from the big bad gun control proponent?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #128)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:20 AM

129. So why the need to try and call him out for "having to have the last word"?

I'm just trying to figure out how after an extended absence, you can open the conversation back up, then complain that someone is just trying to have the last word. That seems nonsensical to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #129)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:45 AM

130. 1) His post was Jan 21 to mine made Dec19

That's actually a longer delay. Why don't you ask him?

2) Oh yeah, that's right. Because anyone who doesn't believe in guns for all is the enemy. Thanks for engaging in high level political discourse on DU instead of engaging in petty discussions about who had the last word in a conversation you were never involved in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #130)


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #130)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:49 AM

132. Yes, and then 3 weeks went by before you responded.

But I see your point.

You guys carry on. It all just seems so childish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #132)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:52 AM

133. Obviously.

And also childish for a third party to step in and insult me when he is doing perfectly well himself. Thank you for your judgement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #133)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:54 AM

134. If you found insult in my posts, you need to reevaluate your sensitivty level.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #134)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:56 AM

135. Or you need to reevaluate

what it means to call somebody "childish." I don't think there is another way to take it. Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #135)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:59 AM

136. Ok, thank you for your suggestion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #130)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:21 PM

141. If you recall ...

... you and I were having another discussion in the days leading up to Jan. 21. I then noticed your misinformation in another sub-thread, and I in to correct it. I was not absent from the thread for the month between your making that post and my responding to it.

Besides, none of that means anything. You're free to come and go from these threads as you see fit. But to come back to a thread after two weeks and to then accuse the other person of having to have the last word is a bit much, don't you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #141)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:56 PM

180. Not, not when it took you 4 weeks.

And you keep responding well after it has been made clear that I
-do not agree with you
-won't be bullied by you
-find that you fail to address my points so that you can focus only on what you want to say
-find that you fail to read links provided
-find the conversation pointless

Yet you find each and every post and respond and respond and respond. But somehow it is another fault of mine and perfection for you. Riiiiiiiight. I understand that you wanna believe what you wanna believe but two can play your game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #180)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:33 PM

183. As long as you keep misreading the law ...

... and misrepresenting it here, I will continue to respond and correct you. It's not a matter of opinion or agreement: it's a matter of law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #183)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 06:01 AM

186. As long as you keep misrepresenting the law

I will keep posting as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #186)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:04 PM

191. I have misrepresented nothing.

I have stated the law clearly and referred you to the actual text of it. Interstate sales without an FFL are illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #130)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:54 AM

168. High level discourse

 

I stand in admiration

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #107)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:02 PM

181. It's very simple, really.

"except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides."

Ergo, X goes to Y's living room and buys a gun. And who checks exactly on X's residence? The laws of X's state?

Y is a licensee: the holder of a Federal Firearms License. Y asks X for a driver's license and gives X a Form 4473 to fill out. Y then calls the NICS hotline (or uses the online form) and conducts the background check. If the NICS operator gives the go-ahead (i.e. verifies that X is not a felon, has never been adjudicated mentally ill, and is not under any orders of protection), then the sale goes forward. A record of the transaction is kept in Y's "bound book," which is subject to ATF inspection periodically.

That's how it's done. I've done it many times. Clearly you haven't, yet you seem to think you know more about it than I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #181)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 06:06 AM

188. Of course I haven't.

I don't want people with guns anywhere near me. I never said I did.

Yes, licensees have to fill out a form, and the non-licensed, oh right, there is no form to fill out because they are non-licensed. Are you beginning to see the circular nature of this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #188)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:02 PM

190. Right.

Yes, licensees have to fill out a form, and the non-licensed, oh right, there is no form to fill out because they are non-licensed. Are you beginning to see the circular nature of this?

The non-licensed cannot legally do interstate sales. That's all I've ever been saying. If they do it, they are breaking the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #190)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 06:56 AM

194. Right, so no one is tracking,

which means these sales happen. That's all I've ever been saying. Over and over and over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #194)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 07:56 AM

195. Which is illegal, which he has been saying over and over

 

and over and over and over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #195)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:29 PM

198. Which is illegal not to be able to track guns?

No, it is perfectly legal and the law is designed that way, which is what I have been saying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

But thank you for chiming in. I am sure he needed you help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #198)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:02 AM

203. What?

No, it is perfectly legal and the law is designed that way, which is what I have been saying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

You're misrepresenting again. His reference was to unlicensed interstate sales, which are, in fact, illegal. Remember?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #203)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 03:36 AM

205. Wrong. Again.

This is what comes of your apparently irresistable urge to get involved in other people's conversations. I said "Right, so no one is tracking, which means these sales happen." The law is designed NOT TO TRACK SALES. As I have been saying: no national registration requirement; no background check records (IF they are performed in the first place, which isn't mandatory); and only a few sales are tracked (from licensed sellers), while the rest are record-free and meant to be so under the law. So it is perfectly legal -- and the law is designed -- not to be able to tack gun sales. That is the conversation and that is the fact. Neither his post nor mine used the words "unlicensed interstate sales" so QUIT putting words in anybody's mouth. You keep trying to change the conversation. Remember?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #205)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:49 AM

208. Really?

Neither his post nor mine used the words "unlicensed interstate sales" so QUIT putting words in anybody's mouth. You keep trying to change the conversation. Remember?

See your post #44 below:

Interstate gun sales happen all the time, without background checks or licensing.

Remember? Please tell me how this does not refer to "unlicensed interstate sales."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #208)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 11:08 AM

210. Really.

Grow up. You were responding to Post #205, not #44. And 205 was responding to 203, which was responding to 198, which was responding to 195, which was responding to 194, and so on. Neither my immediate post, nor the friend of yours you were claiming to channel mentioned "unlicensed interstate sales." You had to go back to a December post in a different subthread (this one Branched off from 44 at a post by YllwFvr to find a post referring to your preferred topic, which was never my point (as I have repeated 9 million times, my point is that our gun laws are not strict enough, have huge loopholes, and need a national registration system, just like cars have). At this point I expected better than for you to find an irrelevant post to the current conversation and claim it justifies your channeling. It doesn't. But you know what, let's engage in really mature argumentation -- I'll go to a post someone made to you and interpret for them, and then I'll use as proof that I knew what the other person was thinking a post you made two months ago. That'll really raise the level of discourse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #210)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 05:12 PM

212. You said you never said it. You were wrong.

That's all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #212)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:18 PM

217. Where is the word "never" in here?

Neither his post nor mine used the words "unlicensed interstate sales" so QUIT putting words in anybody's mouth. You keep trying to change the conversation. Remember?


NOWHERE. NOWHERE. NOWHERE. Now you're just a liar. I'm done. I don't have conversations with people who lie to make a point. Guess you win because you'll get the last word. Bully for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #217)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 08:35 PM

220. Words in mouths.

I have no ideas which post you're referring to nor who "he" is. Start from post #190 and you'll that the sub-thread was indeed about interstate sales.

The fact remains that you made a statement about interstate sales, and now you're trying to run away from it. Bad faith. Very bad faith.

I entered this thread to correct your misinformation regarding licensing and interstate sales. That's all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #194)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:05 PM

196. So it's an enforcement problem.

Right, so no one is tracking,

which means these sales happen. That's all I've ever been saying. Over and over and over.

Every gun that entered the market after 1968 is in some FFL's bound book somewhere. Tracking is possible, but in any case it would only be done if the gun had been involved in a crime. The ATF can and does track crime guns, but it usually only goes as far as the person the gun was stolen from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #196)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:27 PM

197. Again, you cannot enforce the law as is

There is no means to track sales from unlicensed dealers to unlicensed sellers. No way to check if they are obeying, if they should have done a background check but didn't, no way to check if guns crossed state lines they should no have. Without licenses, actors are free of monitoring or consequence. And, since there is no national gun registration law, you are completely and 100% wrong about being able to track guns. Millions are unregistered and we have no idea who owns them now or who owned them previously. Even the background check information must be destroyed, meaning law enforcement is even more blind. That is why when guns are used in crimes, and police find them, often nothing can be done to match the gun to anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #197)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 05:25 PM

199. More misrepresentation.

And, since there is no national gun registration law, you are completely and 100% wrong about being able to track guns. Millions are unregistered and we have no idea who owns them now or who owned them previously.

Please stop misrepresenting what I have said. I said that every new gun sold after the GCA of 1968 is logged in the bound book of the original dealer. This record must be kept forever. When the dealer dies, retires, or lets his license lapse, the records revert to ATF. I never said all guns could be traced, but some can be traced from the first legal sale to as far as the first private sale or the theft of the gun. Because crime guns can be and are sometimes traced to the last "official" buyer (through the licensed dealer's bound book), many private sellers require ID from buyers and keep records of the sale, even though it isn't required by law. Everyone I know does it.

Even the background check information must be destroyed, meaning law enforcement is even more blind. That is why when guns are used in crimes, and police find them, often nothing can be done to match the gun to anyone.

The dealer's bound book is separate from the NICS check data. By using the word "often," you acknowledge that sometimes they can be traced, yet you seem to feel entitled to tell me I'm "100% wrong." How do you justify that?

It shouldn't surprise you to know that criminals sometimes do nasty things like filing the serial numbers off guns. The efficacy of gun registration as a crime-solving tool is overrated in the real world, despite what you may have seen on Law and Order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #199)

Fri Feb 15, 2013, 08:17 PM

201. More misrepresentation from you

Every gun that entered the market after 1968 is in some FFL's bound book somewhere. Tracking is possible


WRONG. Tracking is possible on some guns, some times. Not every gun is possible to be tracked. I will repeat since you seem to forget from post to post what is really being said and discussed here. Since ONLY guns sold by LICENSED dealers require any record keeping , that means any guns sold by UNLICENSED dealers do not require record keeping . So, when a gun is found 20 years later in a different city or state and it was used in a crime, there is most likely no way to track it. If someone in state had registered it, great. But if not, it is just another unregistered hand gun.

And as for your

Because crime guns can be and are sometimes traced to the last "official" buyer (through the licensed dealer's bound book),


Yes, I am sure that the police of XYZ City in XYZ State will have access to your "bound book" and the information contained therein. Just how exactly are they going to accomplish that? If there were a national computerized registration database, like there is for cars, sure. But there isn't. Instead there are what, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of "bound books" that only contain the (unverified) information of LICENSED sales, when UNLICENSED sales are perfectly legal, and again there is no background check info, and no permanent registration database of the gun itself. So even if the local cops could access that information from every LICENSED dealer in the country, it would be of little use. One intervening gun show or private sale and poof! The gun is lost forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #201)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 12:53 AM

202. Facts.

Last edited Sat Feb 16, 2013, 01:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Every gun that entered the market after 1968 is in some FFL's bound book somewhere. Tracking is possible

WRONG. Tracking is possible on some guns, some times. Not every gun is possible to be tracked.

Wrong? How am I wrong if you yourself admit that some guns can be tracked?

I never said every gun could be tracked. I said that every gun that entered the market after 1968 is traceable at least as far as its first sale. The GCA required dealers to be licensed and keep records. The bound book is a legal document, and FFLs are responsible for the accuracy of its contents.

You do realize that there is no such thing as an "unlicensed dealer," don't you? Not after the GCA. Non-licensees can sell their own personal firearms in-state, but if they do it as a business they aren't "unlicensed dealers" -- they are gun traffickers, and the ATF treats them accordingly, if and when they catch them.

Yes, I am sure that the police of XYZ City in XYZ State will have access to your "bound book" and the information contained therein. Just how exactly are they going to accomplish that?

Yes, in fact they will. Through the ATF. It's part of their mission.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2009&issue_id=22010

Every fact I have stated in this thread is verifiable. I would suggest that you pay closer attention to exactly what I'm saying before concluding that I'm "wrong." It would also help if you would educate yourself on what the laws and procedures actually are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #202)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 07:43 AM

204. Now is where he rebuts by using a penis joke or something.

 

Words don't matter here... you know that. They make up words, discount definitions, make up and discount concepts,make up and discount statistics as needed.

We can't win.

Except that we will, unfortunately from my perspective, at the cost of other important Democratic ideals. The Republicans really shouldn't have more power right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #202)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 03:41 AM

206. FACTS: Try learning some.

I already debunked your myth about "no unlicensed dealers" several posts up. Read the article about the unlicensed guys who make their living at gun shows. And no, the ATF isn't shutting them down, no matter what Wayne LaPierre says, otherwise they wouldn't be there at guns shows selling their wares. It's also the Police's mission to stop crime, but I don't run around pretending there are no robberies just because police exist to stop it. I would suggest that you pay closer attention to exactly what I'm saying before concluding that I'm "wrong." Try educating yourself on what reality actually is. It's quite different from what Guns and Ammo says it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #206)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:41 AM

207. More facts.

Read the article about the unlicensed guys who make their living at gun shows. And no, the ATF isn't shutting them down, no matter what Wayne LaPierre says, otherwise they wouldn't be there at guns shows selling their wares

My point was that the ATF does not recognize the category "unlicensed dealer." Such a dealer is by definition a criminal, since a license is required for a dealer in firearms. Apparently this point went far over your head. The falsehood that gun controllers persistently spread is that "unlicensed dealing" is legal. It is not.

I did not say the ATF shuts all of them down, but they can and do arrest and prosecute such dealers. In my opinion they should focus more on that and less on international intrigue along the Mexican border.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #207)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 10:57 AM

209. Your point was . . . . you opinion was . . . .

That's right. You think every thing is fine as is. I think it isn't. That is all there is to this so quit pretending there is more.

FACTS are there are unlicensed dealers, unlicensed sales, no background check sales, and no background check records even when the checks are done. Further more, there is no national registration and no way possible to trace many guns and the system is DESIGNED that way. And the ATF doesn't fix it, and frankly can't fix it, given the loopholes in the law. It is designed with wholes. I think it should be fixed. No amount of berating me or pretending you have facts and I don't or repeating the SAME ARGUMENT 9 million times when I have said we are never going to agree is EVER going to make me agree so you should really stop pretending you have a monopoly on facts or truth. You don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #209)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 05:21 PM

214. I have made no errors of fact.

You have made several.

Opinions are opinions, and facts are facts. On the former, we may differ. On the latter, only one of us can be right. So far, that has been me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #214)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:15 PM

216. No, you title your post facts, and then your whole argument is

Last edited Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:11 AM - Edit history (1)

My point was . . . . in my opinion. There were no facts there. There were facts in mine. FACT: There are unlicensed gun dealers. I cited it; youfinally read it. But you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit into your NRA talking points. I won't argue any more with someone who refuses to acknowledge reality. And who calls his own "opinions" "facts."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #216)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 08:18 PM

219. I don't know what your title line means.

As for the rest, an "unlicensed gun dealer" is a criminal under current law. The phrase is a term of art meant to convey the impression that such activity is legal. It is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #207)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 11:13 AM

211. Besides, isn't referring to

the alleged existence of an "Obama's gonna sell guns to Mexicans and use that to scare people into giving up their guns" plot a little bit of a stretch? Do you really want to bring that into this conversation? Or did you forget you are on DU and not the NRA member board today? I don't think your gun conspiracies are welcome here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #211)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 05:17 PM

213. I never did.

Besides, isn't referring to


the alleged existence of an "Obama's gonna sell guns to Mexicans and use that to scare people into giving up their guns" plot a little bit of a stretch? Do you really want to bring that into this conversation? Or did you forget you are on DU and not the NRA member board today? I don't think your gun conspiracies are welcome here.

I never made any such reference, nor do I believe in the existence of any such plot. Why do you persist in asserting such falsehoods? There was an Operation Fast and Furious, which aimed at stopping the flow of guns to Mexico. It went terribly wrong, but I don't believe it was a plot by Obama or anyone else to take guns away from anyone, except perhaps the gunrunners. No points for the attempted broad-brush smear.

I do, however, believe the ATF should concern itself with the safety of American citizens and let Mexico deal with its own problems. We have enough of our own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #213)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:12 PM

215. oh right, that's why the veiled reference about the ATF stopping international intrigue?

Riiiiiiight. You never meant that. Guess what? People who don't think that don't refer to Fast and Furious at all. It is nothing, meaningless, pointless, a trumped-up Republican meme. Not relevant to pretty much anything except people who want to stir up anti-Obama fervor. I am so over talking to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #215)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 08:15 PM

218. The "veil" is in your mind.

Riiiiiiight. You never meant that. Guess what? People who don't think that don't refer to Fast and Furious at all. It is nothing, meaningless, pointless, a trumped-up Republican meme. Not relevant to pretty much anything except people who want to stir up anti-Obama fervor. I am so over talking to you.

Interesting. So anyone who even acknowledges the existence of Fast and Furious is automatically a conspiracy theorist? That's so ... counter-factual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #104)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:51 PM

179. ......

 

dang,it was just getting good too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:47 AM

5. What's an "assault weapon"? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:51 PM

13. I use my defense weapon when someone is using their assault weapon. Looks like this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:52 AM

6. The homicide rate is down to what it was in the late 1960's.

It's down about 40% since Clinton took office.

"Assault weapon" is an arbitrary term that tried and fails to divide semi-automatic guns into "sporting" and "dangerous" categories. Either you need to simply ban semi-automatic long guns, or you need to give up on that aspect of gun laws.


And, yeah... we do let civilians purchase and own machine guns and bazookas. Rare and expensive, but legal.


There are far, far more firearm magazines in the country than guns that use them. Trying to regulate them would be vastly harder than trying to regulate guns.


And firearms are either sold by federally licensed dealer, or by private sellers. Geographic location doesn't matter; gun show or kitchen table, what matters is who is doing the selling. Dealers have to, by law, do a background check. Private sellers cannot, by law, do a background check.

States can mandate that all firearm sales go through a federal dealer, which might help things, but it has to be done a state-by-state level, as the federal government does not have jurisdiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:54 AM

7. just some quick points

1-The reinstitution of the prohibition on the ownership of assault weapons. Outside military use, they have no purpose other than mass killing. We don’t allow civilians to purchase or own machine guns or bazookas.
assault weapon is a propaganda term dream up by Josh Sugarmann maybe with Frank Luntz's help to give people the impression that ugly rifles are machine guns. All technology evolves, bolt actions were military battle rifles until the 1950s in most countries. The expression tactical to practical comes to mind. Given the proper caliber, they can be used for hunting and are often used in target competitions. Functionally, they are the same as any other semi auto rifle. BTW, the ones sold for hunting come with five round mags, I don't know of a state that allows more than that for hunting. If you seriously think it is a good idea, the thing to do is learn more about what guns do what. For example, California defined any pistol with the magazine well outside the grip as an assault weapon. That created a problem for members of the Olympic pistol team, because the most commonly used pistols in the Olympics and International Shooting Sports Federation events use pistols like the Walther GSP that meet that definition.

2-The control of extended ammunition clips. While we cannot easily control guns, we can control bullets. The only purpose for ammunition clips of 50 projectiles is mass slaughter.
I always thought their purpose was to part not so gun savvy mall ninjas from their money. From what I read, Holmes did more damage with the shotgun because the drum magazine caused a jam. There is a reason the military doesn't use them. When I had an M-16 in Korea, they gave us 30 round mags. Stoner didn't design the gun with those in mind, and mine sucked. I bugged the armorer for 20 mags, which is what it was actually designed for. The founder of Ruger Firearms felt the limit should be 15. If I were to pick a random number, it would be 20.

3-The carefully control of gun sales by making them available in licensed stores where there is both a waiting period and a thorough background check of potential customers. The easy availability of almost any weapon in sporting goods stores or in gun shows makes it almost impossible to keep them from the hands of the mentally ill, or common criminals.
sporting goods stores and Wal Mart have to have a federal firearms license, at least a type one, to sell guns or buy them across state lines. That has been federal law since the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, and strengthened by the Gun Control Act 1968. They must follow the same inventory control, record keeping, and do background checks like Bill's Gun Shop and Tackle. They also have to follow any state law. Licensed dealers at gun shows follow the same laws. One time intra state private sales is a little more complex. Flea markets are my thing. If they are there every weekend with an inventory, they should have an FFL. The ATF doesn't agree.

I assume, and will be quickly corrected if I am wrong, that none of these three steps would violated the guarantees of the 2nd amendment. But nor would their implementation solve the larger problem. Nevertheless, they may be reasonable steps that might make far less likely the slaughter of children in some community grade school while they are safely learning how to read.
no they wouldn't and some are in place. What isn't already federal law as we explained, is CT state law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:30 PM

18. Thanks for the clarification. I am trying to find my way around this issue. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:15 AM

8. I'm not here to point out flaws,

I'm sure you've read the answers below. I would like to thank you for taking the time to write a reasoned response with suggestions on how to proceed from here. Please take my answer as an attempt to give feedback on your post.

I support RKBA, always have. However, seem of what you suggest could fall within the realm of possibility. Let me take a shot:

1. I honestly don't know if this is doable. Frankly, I'm afraid that the next sick fuck would just buy a Winchester model 94 and use that instead. If you feel that's what is needed, become an activist and push for it.

2. Yeah, I don't believe this is an infringement on RKBA. I agree with another poster who suggested 20. (BTW, I can't think of a serious shooter who actually uses the extended magazines. The only use I can see for them is to provide a way to blow through a whole shitload of money really fast. ..)

3. The major difference I see here is that you are advocating a particular store, instead on going down to Bass Pro Shops. Personally, I don't care for it. However, I have to admit that I don't see where it would be an infringement on RKBA either.

What about the other steps? By that, I mean the ones that will limit access to guns for those individuals who are unstable and more prone to use them on society? I've asked this question elsewhere, because I have absolutely no expertise in working or dealing with mental illness. There has to be a way to do this without stomping their rights into the dust (think TSA no-fly list...) Any ideas on that front? i'd love to hear them.

And thanks again for making rational suggestions, instead of coming in with pitchforks and torches...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tortoise1956 (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:35 PM

20. thanks for your reponse.

I'm trying to find my way around this issue. You have helped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:37 PM

27. You're welcome

on several levels:
1. You listed specific proposals, and requested opinions.
2. You were neither rude nor aggressive.
3. You refrained from personal attacks or name calling.

I tried to respond in the same manner.

Bear in mind that I'm not a fan of your ideas. However, you specifically asked if they would violate RKBA, so I gave my opinion as to whether or not they did. If you want to proceed, I suggest you contact your representative with suggestions.

Glad to be of assistance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:05 PM

30. I appreciate your questions

and I know others do, too. It's nice to see a real debate, rather than the screaming and yelling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:48 PM

9. You can own a bazooka, with no special permits.

A bazooka is nothing more than an empty pipe with a battery, some wires and a switch (trigger). It is the rocket that is dangerous and is tightly controlled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:52 PM

10. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

and drivers in cars kill people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:06 PM

31. a person with a gun in his hand who shoots and kills someone has disolved the space

between himself and the weapon. It is just as much a part of the self as if his fist, were he to punch someone.. The gun is being used for the purpose with which it was manufactured.
A car was never manufactured so that it could kill someone. We call the first murder. We call the second an accident. There is a difference in purpose---unless someone purposely runs over someone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:59 PM

11. Your premise fails to address the reality of an assault.

If someone is assaulted for any reason, they will be alone. There won't be anybody there to help. The entire encounter is defined by individualism because one individual will be brutalizing another individual. Unless of course the disparity of force makes one individual significantly more powerful than any number of other weaker individuals.

What solution do you offer an individual who is assaulted by another? That's the real question to ask, and it will invariably be asked by anyone living in the real world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:42 PM

21. My three suggestions do not take guns out of anyone's hands--

if they are not a criminal and are sane. I do not deny the right here of self-protection. There are cases cited here where someone with a gun protected him/herself when assaulted by someone else with a gun. '
But the evidence is that the real outcome is more than likely not the death of the attacker but the death of the defender. One can find anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but that violates the statistical norm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:48 PM

25. Your three suggestions do not address

the problem of a disparity of force between the assailant and victim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:08 AM

35. The 20 dead children were not alone.

No victim of a mass murder was alone. It is ridiculous that we all should be forced ti live in armed fortresses to appease the rights of a few who refuse to accept any limitation of any kind on their "right to bear arms" despite the fact that their right not only puts me in danger, but also the fact that I have to suffer limitations on my right to be free from illegal search and seizure every single day. Why is your right more important than my right? Oh right, it isn't. We all must learn to accept that freedom does not equal license (in the meaning of a reason or excuse to do something wrong or excessive) and that no right is absolute.

That is the reality we should discuss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:15 AM

37. do you get stopped and frisked in NYC?

but also the fact that I have to suffer limitations on my right to be free from illegal search and seizure every single day.
just curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:26 AM

41. I don't live there so that's not really a relevant question for me.

But it is my understanding that NYC law (or perhaps it is just policy?) now says you have to subject yourself to a thorough police search of your belongings before you use public transit, though to my knowledge, that has not been enforced except in the months following 9/11 (if you refuse the search, the police can deny you permission to board, though it is likely thy will take your refusal to be searched as "probable cause" and arrest and search you anyway). Still, the fact that this is official policy means you give up your rights everyday anyway. If this has changed, please correct me.

I just don't see why the 2d amendment is more important than the 4th. To me, it isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:36 AM

43. I don't live there either but

my understanding it is a "walking while black/brown" sort of thing. Neither is more important, just that some people are more willing to sign one away for "security" than the other. Part of it is if you convince people that searches are for your own good, then they will buy it. As for the 2A, criminologist James Wright put it best:

Thus, in the majority, I believe gun ownership is a topic more appropriate to the sociology of leisure than to the criminology or epidemiology of violence. Unfortunately, when we seek to control
violence by controlling the general ownership and use of firearms among the public at large, it at least looks as though we think we have intuited some direct causal connection between drive-by shootings in the inner city and squirrel hunting or skeet shooting in the hinterland. Or such, in any case, is the implication that the nation's squirrel hunters and skeet shooters often draw, and frankly, it's no wonder they sometimes question the motives, not to mention the sanity, of anybody who would suggest such a preposterous thing.
In this case, the squirrel hunter is being blamed for some asshole who steals a gun and shoots up a school or mall.

or to put it in another way: people are told "we need TSA to molest everyone because one person might try to sneak something on a plane." That's an easier sell for people to give up a right
When group A, who doesn't like the right anyway, goes to group B, who had nothing to do with the attack, shrilling screaming "it is your fault you hillbilly piece of shit", group B is going to say "fuck you" and push back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #43)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:58 AM

46. But your argument is the whole problem right there.

People are over reacting. No one wants to "prevent squirrel hunting and skeet shooting." But when squirrel and skeet shooters, who use traditional shotguns and rifles, start pretending that it is necessary to do so with semi-automatic weapons, then it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation. My dad hunted and kept a rifle and a shotgun in the house. He would never have said some of the shite I hear on this board that prevents a rational discussion. And he never would have brought an AK-47 or an AR-15 to the skeet shooting competition. Or to shoot a deer, duck, pheasant, or elk.

What I am saying is that everyone is harmed by policies that limit the right to be free of search and seizure, and yet that right almost doesn't even exist anymore. Very few are impacted by gun regulations, since only a small (and shrinking) minority of Americans own guns. So why do we regularly enact laws that infringe on the rights of all and we can't even have a rational discussion about adding common sense regulations regarding a right that would harm very few? The discussion is unbalanced. The "fuck you" response is unwarranted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:29 AM

49. two things.

People are over reacting. No one wants to "prevent squirrel hunting and skeet shooting." But when squirrel and skeet shooters, who use traditional shotguns and rifles, start pretending that it is necessary to do so with semi-automatic weapons, then it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation. My dad hunted and kept a rifle and a shotgun in the house. He would never have said some of the shite I hear on this board that prevents a rational discussion. And he never would have brought an AK-47 or an AR-15 to the skeet shooting competition. Or to shoot a deer, duck, pheasant, or elk.
Some of those traditional skeet and squirrel guns are semi automatic, they just have pretty wooden stocks like the one pictured below. Of course your dad wouldn't use an AK or AR for skeet, they are rifles not shotguns. Since you don't know the technology, we can't have an intelligent conversation. And I really don't buy the "nobody wants prohibition", just not yet. You may not, but when this fails, something else will be "reasonable"
?v=8CDFADFA6EB56C0
What I am saying is that everyone is harmed by policies that limit the right to be free of search and seizure, and yet that right almost doesn't even exist anymore. Very few are impacted by gun regulations, since only a small (and shrinking) minority of Americans own guns. So why do we regularly enact laws that infringe on the rights of all and we can't even have a rational discussion about adding common sense regulations regarding a right that would harm very few? The discussion is unbalanced. The "fuck you" response is unwarranted.
35-40 percent, including 30 percent of registered Democrats is not a small minority. If you want to go by the MAIG funded Frank Luntz poll, go for it. Since Brady et al is blaming group B for crimes they did not commit, "fuck you" is reasonable. It was not directed at you personally. Reasonable is relative. What is reasonable for you, may not be reasonable for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:42 AM

52. One thing.

Of course your dad wouldn't use an AK or AR for skeet, they are rifles not shotguns. Since you don't know the technology, we can't have an intelligent conversation.


Um, no. You miss the point. I said that people who claim that they need semi-automatic rifles for squirrel and skeet shooting are the ones using misinformation to stifle conversation. My comment about my dad was to prove how stupid such comments were. So, once again, your attempts to make people feel stupid fail. By the way, hunters do not use semi-automatics to hunt big game. The goal is to take them down with one shot (two if you have bad aim). You do not need 20 and 30 rounds to take down a deer, elk, or antelope, and you do not need to fire numerous shots rapidly.

PS Have you ever argued that only those who know how to do open heart surgery can have an "intelligent conversation" about health policy? That is such an old meme that has had holes poked through it a million times.

Another insulting, thread ending post. Try having a little respect for your fellow DUers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 01:54 AM

53. most hunting regulations limit

magazines to five. Yeah, I do know some who use semi autos. And you have not poked holes in anything. I did not mean to insult, you came off as kind of insulting and condescending.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #52)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:03 PM

100. You have made assumptions that are too narrow.

 

I don't know about other people's claims-- however you admit you don't have a lot of experience, but I see you speaking for hunters and what hunters should and should not be able to do.

However, I am a hunter. And where I hunt has feral dogs. My single shot hunting rifle is fine for deer, but pretty much useless against multiple dogs. I carry a semi-automatic handgun with a 15 round magazine as a precaution for feral dogs where I hunt. I am sometimes miles from roads and assistance. I feel that a revolver would not be adequate protection. I do not want to have to deal with a magazine change if I am facing dogs.

Now, if you were to peruse several thread where I have brought this issue up, the people clamoring for every kind of gun control seem very zealous about dismissing what is a pretty reasonable concern, and a pretty reasonable response to said concern. Instead they demean me by asking how many dogs I shoot a year, or why my first response when encountering dogs is to want to kill them, or whatever. I can assure you that is not my first inclination, and luckily I have not had to face dogs before. That doesn't mean they aren't a concern for me since they have caused problems for people other than me.

So as a gun owner, and hunter... it is frustrating to outline perfectly reasonable scenarios only to have them dismissed out of hand... and then people setting up strawmen hunting scenarios.

It's not just about self defense against humans... it's not just about hunting... there are all sorts of situations that people find themselves in where they need to make a decision for themselves, and it is frustrating when people dismiss their decisions out of hand.

On a side note, you listen to the people who complain about those with concealed carry permits; how they are wannabes. First off... people with permits should be lauded by the gun control crowd. They are registered with the state, vetted by the state, and generally some sort of training is required. But they are often vilified.

I have(had) a concealed carry permit. Want to know why? Because in my former state the laws governing possession of a firearm could vary significantly from municipality to municipality. The laws governing permit holders preempted municipalities. So with a permit, I only had to remember one set of rules. Also, it removed all subjectivity with regards to the way a law enforcement officer might judge the manner in which I possessed or transported a firearm. There are a lot of grey areas... like if I was out hunting, and my jacket covered my gun... is it concealed? What if I decided my day was done and I wanted to put it in my backpack. The permit eliminated this issue.

If you think this is reasonable... great... but you can certainly also understand that I get tired of explaining it to people... and I certainly don't want it to be up to some bureaucrat who doesn't know my circumstances, or may dismiss my circumstances, because of their preconceived notions about what is "reasonable" to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #100)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:15 PM

109. The basis of all law is reasonableness.

And your desire to shoot feral dogs may not pass the reasonableness test. Bureaucrats make decisions every day, about who gets into UCLA, about who deserves lenience, about which grant application is best, about whether some structure is one side or the other of a property line, about whether some release of toxic effluent is in violation of the law. Of course they are going to make decisions about YOUR guns. They are not sacred and neither are you. Bureaucrats make decisions. It's their job.

And my dad went hunting a couple times a month when I was a kid. Don't tell me how much I do and do not know. I do know that the feral dogs story is very far fetched. What are you assuming, that I have never left a city and assume scary animals rove the streets outside any city limits? Sorry to disappoint. I have been all over this country and many places in the world. I have yet to encounter the feral dog threat that requires 50 round magazines -- particularly in the same vicinity where one hunts deer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #109)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 02:27 AM

120. law = reasonableness?

 

Last edited Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:57 AM - Edit history (4)

Really? No. Law/regulations are about affecting outcomes. Tell a gay friend that marriage laws are about reasonableness. We are considering gun control laws under the premise that they will lower/eliminate gun deaths.

The fact that you dismiss my feral dogs concern based not on your own experience, but actually second hand on your father's experience, speaks for itself on your arrogance. As if you were the standard by which all people are measured. That's like me telling my old school mates in grad school that statistics courses "aren't that hard". Or my major professor insisting that taking PChem was crucial for my own work. even are not considering gun control as an exercise in reasonableness ; we are considering it supposedly as a means to prevent gun deaths.


Also the law should be about equality. So it shouldn't be up to a bureaucrat deciding what is reasonable. If one decides my story is reasonable and grants my right to carry for dogs... while another decides another person's identical story is bogus - the law isn't being applied reasonably. Bureaucrat's judgements on gun issues has a proven abysmal track record - which is why so many states have gone "shall-issue".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #120)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 10:37 AM

124. I'm not saying what the law should be.

I'm saying what the law is.

Negligence = If a person doesn't behave how a reasonable person would have behaved when there was a duty to do so

Justification = If a reasonable person thought someone's life was in danger

Self-Defense = If a reasonable person would have thought his own life was in danger

And yes, I've been around feral dogs. Your assumptions are off the charts.

They run in packs in Mexico. And nobody shoots them. And they're not dangerous. And even if they were, you can run off a pack of dogs without 50 round magazines. Dogs are pack animals, which you would know if you had ever been around them. 50 shots are not needed to run them off. Maybe 3.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OrwellwasRight (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:18 AM

39. The disparity of force made them alone. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:37 PM

12. But that's not about individualism, then.

 

The last time I ventured onto this thin ice, in another forum, there were three responses that repeated the shibboleth,“Guns don’t kill people, people do.” I was reminded that cars kill more people than guns, and no one is in favor of doing away with automobiles. How absurd! I use my car for lots of things, but it was not manufactured and sold to me with the sole purpose of giving me the ability to put a large hole in someone—or twenty someones.

OK, but then, your argument isn't about individualism, so let's not paint it that way.

Your argument is about weapons.

1-The reinstitution of the prohibition on the ownership of assault weapons. Outside military use, they have no purpose other than mass killing. We don’t allow civilians to purchase or own machine guns or bazookas.

Here's the problem: The AWB did not ban assault weapons.

Basically, you could have a weapon with any 2 of the following features: pistol grip, detachable magazine, bayonet lug, or threaded muzzle.

To comply with the ban, most importers/manufacturers just omitted the bayonet lug and threaded muzzle, as no one uses them anyway.

It did nothing to alter the functionality or deadliness of the weapons.

In California they made it so you could not have a pistol grip or a magazine that is detachable without a tool.

So they came up with goofy-looking stocks and made a magazine release that can be operated using the nose of an unfired bullet as a "tool".

The gun is still basically the same as it was before.

You cannot have an effective "assault weapons ban" without basically banning all semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines. That is going to be very hard to do. You are talking about weapons that have been in circulation for over 100 years.

2-The control of extended ammunition clips. While we cannot easily control guns, we can control bullets. The only purpose for ammunition clips of 50 projectiles is mass slaughter.

How do you control them? There are so many already in circulation that even if you banned the manufacture or sale of new ones, as they did in the last AWB, it would have little effect on availability, other than raising the prices a bit.

3-The carefully control of gun sales by making them available in licensed stores where there is both a waiting period and a thorough background check of potential customers. The easy availability of almost any weapon in sporting goods stores or in gun shows makes it almost impossible to keep them from the hands of the mentally ill, or common criminals.

All sales at licenses stores already require a background check. I agree with and would support universal licensing that will ensure that all sales, private or commercial make sure that the owner has had a background check. Waiting periods are fine for people who don't yet own any firearms. Not much point in waiting if you already own some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:46 PM

23. Thank you. Your points are well made.

I conclude, however, that what you are really saying is that the laws need to be tightened so they are less easy to get around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:13 PM

14. Baloney. You're just as much in favor of individualization as the next guy.

 

1-The reinstitution of the prohibition on the ownership of assault weapons.

Ownership of "AWs" was never prohibited.

The easy availability of almost any weapon in sporting goods stores...

Sporting goods stores that sell firearms have Federal Firearms Licenses, and procedures for selling firearms is exactly the same as in a dedicated gun store.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:45 PM

22. Have you consider the price...

 

... that many have had to pay for collectivism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:47 PM

24. I am NOT calling for collecrivism, but for a bxit of common sense. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 07:49 PM

26. If you speak out against individualism ...

 

... you are, by default, in favour of collectivism. When you move away from one, you move toward the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #26)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:45 AM

89. American etc. modern "individualism"

 

often seems more like collective insanity. Degrading human experience to "individualism" of consumer choices in totalitarian consumerist mass society.

What Jung etc. mean by "individualization" is whole different issue from consumer and property rights of fearful ego.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:53 PM

28. Are you saying thqt ll laws whbich inhibit my action are collectivisic.

I am prohibited from driving at 80mph down a city street. Is that a move to collectivism.
Most laws protect the society. I gather you feel that anything that makes a person subject to societal rules a move to collectivism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:11 PM

32. Hey, you sound like someone willing to sit down at the table

and actually accomplish something about violence! I think my perspective is a lot more pro-gun than yours, but there are some spots where I think we agree enough to make real steps forward without actually harming the RKBA. I'm not on board with the prohibitions on cosmetic bans or capacity restrictions, but I think there's some room for changing the rules for gun sales. I'm satisfied with the way FFLs are regulated and required to perform background checks -- this is a significant and valuable barrier. I think private sales should be subject to some form of background check (cheap/free and convenient, like NICS is) as well, but the problem there is that I don't see a Constitutional basis for a federal law creating such a scheme. Coupled with that, I'd really like to see a two-pronged assault on the societal causes of gun violence: the War on Drugs and unchecked mental illness.

The war on drugs has fostered cartoonishly violent black markets and funded cutthroat street gangs that don't care who is cut down in the crossfire. Take away the cash cow that is drug prohibition, and I'm confident that the negative effects of drug abuse will be mitigated and made easier to address.

As for mental illness, the gun control movement has been going about it all wrong -- blanket bans, lifetime suspicion, and humiliating disclosures make seeking treatment equivalent to committing a felony. There need to be more affordable resources for seeking treatment, and a clear road back to a normal life, free from punishment.

How about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 17, 2012, 12:17 AM

38. Good,

Why don't you lay out your POV, maybe in response to my three suggestions, and let's see if we can find common ground.
I'm not asking for agreement, but only that people on two sides of an issue can hear each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:49 AM

54. Sure, if you agree that we need more "faith" to overcome this issue.

Yeah, he said it was "human unfaithfulness" that caused this shooting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=59385

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #54)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:57 AM

56. A religious perspective tends to seek solutions in faith.

It's normal, natural, and completely acceptable. You're trying to portray T-m-o's post as something it wasn't, and I'm not interested in arguing over distortions and tightly-cropped excerpts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #56)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:59 AM

57. No, he is not seeking a solution in faith, he is placing blame on those without it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #57)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:07 PM

58. Okay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:50 AM

55. Wait, I thought you said it was "human unfaithfulness" that caused this shooting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=59385

We just need more good christian values and faith in god, right?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #55)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:14 AM

121. JAYSUS...

That's got to be a new low for him.

What a load of fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #55)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:42 AM

122. Thanks for pointing out a group on DU I think I never want to participate in.

 

I am an religious agnostic who really likes discuss the topic... but if that thread is any indication... I'm glad to be around the warm hearth of gun control...lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:56 PM

61. Well Said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:20 AM

73. The Night Before Newtown

If you haven't done so yet, please read this article. It was written the night before the Newtown Tragedy

http://unapologeticallyliberal.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/the-killing-routine-nras-effect-on-the-us/

Is it time to start talking about gun regulation yet? Whenever I bring this topic up around Republicans, I’m often met with them wrapping themselves in the constitution and making some outlandish comparison between us and the Patriots who fought during the Revolution. How they make that comparison is beyond me, considering a trained British soldier during the Revolutionary War could fire roughly 3 shots a minute. In addition to the time it took to load, when the trigger was pulled, no one could be sure where your musket would actually fire.

Now, an American has the ability to easily purchase semi-automatic assault rifles and large capacity magazines. A semi-automatic AR-15, the gun used in the recent Oregon mall shooting, has the capability to fire about as fast as your finger can pull.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:48 AM

92. In a "Free Society"

 

Every Right must be offset by the Responsibility to exercise that Right within the legal constructs of that Society.

Failure to do so must be met with swift and sure punishment of sufficient severity to cause the offender to not continue their anti-social behavior.

Whether a tool of any kind is used or not, violent acts are anti-social behavior. The price of our society's failure to hold the violent individual responsible and respond with swift and sure punishment of sufficient severity is just too high.

Guns, Knives, and baseball bats are not the problem. The problem is violent, anti-social behavior not met with swift and sure punishment by our "Criminal-Justice System" which is not only an oxymoron but in total failure.

Semper Fi,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:06 PM

94. I have a better solution.

 

Ban all non-muzzle loading firearms. If you can't kill an animal with one shot, you suck at hunting and should feel bad about yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spryguy (Reply #94)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:18 PM

102. I am still batting 1000

 

I've shot deer with muzzle loaders and rifles. There is a reason I don't bow hunt. I don't want the animal to suffer. I'm a decent shot with a muzzle loader, and I'll tell you if you were to do that, there would be a lot more deer suffering out there because at the end of the day, ML are not as accurate or as powerful or as reliable at killing game.

I also carry a 15-shot semi-auto pistol because where I hunt there are feral dogs. I am often several miles from my car, and quite a distance from help. The pistol is a reasonable precaution that doesn't weigh much; my single shot rifle or muzzle loader would not be effective against 5 feral dogs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:14 PM

101. "We don’t allow civilians to purchase or own machine guns" - actually 'we' do...

(except in a few states, and there are more regulations on a machine gun purchase than a semi-automatic).
There are thousands of machine guns legally owned by individuals in the US.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 08:35 AM

123. to be an individual is be the subset of a set. without the individual there is no set. how the

individual governs their own actions within the context of the set is really the question, is it not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:11 AM

127. Personally, I do not think that anything you propose will curtail gun violence.

I cannot prove that you are wrong, just as you cannot prove that you are right. But I can say that making firearms impossible to purchase or to use could be construed as infringement. And that any laws passed to do so will be played out in the courts. Again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 02:49 PM

144. First assault weapons are used for hunting and competitive target shooting at the national level. ..

I am not a hunter but my research shows that hunters do use .223 AR-15s to hunt deer legally in my state of Florida. The state limits the magazine capacity to 5 rounds while deer hunting.

AR-15s with standard 20 or 30 round magazines are legally used to hunt feral hog in Florida and are effective. Feral hog are considered a pest as they are not native to our nation and cause significant damage to the environment. They are can be dangerous especially when cornered or wounded.

However some hunters prefer to use a more powerful round to hunt deer and hog.

Second I will agree that there is little practical use for a magazine that holds 50 rounds or more. Often such magazines are unreliable and will cause a jam or misfeed.

Third every gun store that I have visited since 1998 has ran an NICS background check on me before I could purchase a firearm. Dealers are required to have an FFL (Federal Firearms License).

Disclaimer: As I said I am not a hunter nor an I an attorney. I do not provide legal advise but merely my opinion.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:03 PM

145. I have to disagree with Points 1 and 2

On Point #1 -- "Assault" weapons are not useful only for mass killing. Witness the hordes of LEOs chasing Chris Dorner in California with such weapons. Are they all planning on mass killing? No, they're after one guy. They have those weapons because they are useful for self-defense, both by police and regular citizens.

Point #2 -- 30-round magazines. See Point #1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kudzu22 (Reply #145)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:09 PM

146. "Assault" weapons are not useful only for mass killing

Key word in that quote being ONLY.
The cops hunting Dorner are armed the same as he is, which supports the argument that people carry guns to use against others carrying guns. Especially those who are really pissed off at each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thats my opinion (Original post)

Reply to this thread