Chicago Mayor Daley says he'll continue his push for gun-control laws

[Thom Little]

Mayor Richard Daley said Wednesday he'll continue to push for "commonsense gun legislation" even though several of his proposals have failed to pass the Illinois General Assembly in recent years.

.......

Daley mentioned four laws he would like to see passed in Springfield. They include a measure to limit handgun purchases to one per person per month and a bill requiring gun dealers to obtain a state license.

Another measure would require guns in a home with children under the age of 18 to be unloaded, disassembled and placed in a securely locked box, or be secured with a trigger lock that renders guns temporarily inoperable.

Daley said he would most like to see passage of a law banning assault weapons in Illinois. They are currently illegal in Chicago.

"Some people ask us, 'Why do you continue to push these same bills every year when they never pass?"' Daley said. "These same people said we would never close the gun show loophole, but we did."



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060104guns,1,7641143.story?coll=chi-news-hed

[tritsofme]

1. In Illinois you can go to Iraq and be killed at 18,

but you need to ask your parent's permission to get a FOID card until you are 21.

This is one issue where Daley and I differ, and I generally like Da Mayor.

He can have his own draconian laws inside the city-limits, but leave the rest of the state alone.

[Retired AF Dem]

2. but leave the rest of the state alone

+1.

[Dolomite]

3. 'Why continue to push these bills every year when they never pass?'

"Because it keeps me in office!"

[Wickerman]

34. Kinda shoots that "Let's stop losing elections" mantra

doesn't it? ooops. I said shoots.

[davepc]

38. Different approaches work in different places.

Which was Howard Deans point when he campaigned in 2004 by endorsing a state by state approach to gun control. What got a Democrat elected in New York or California was different then what got a Democrat elected in West Virgina or New Mexico.

For his efforts he got great praise from the VPC and their fellow travelers:

"Governor Dean is wrong for America on gun policy," said Michael Barnes, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United with the Million Mom March. "It makes no more sense to leave gun policy up to each individual state than it would to let each state set separate environmental standards. Guns cross state lines as easily as pollution. We're going to make sure that Americans who support our cause know he's wrong on these issues."

"Hey, Howard: We don't need a pro-NRA president. We've already got one," said Mary Leigh Blek, President Emeritus of the Million Mom March. "Americans who care about getting guns off our streets need to know there is virtually no difference between Governor Dean and President Bush."

...

Though the Brady Campaign/Million Mom March has not endorsed a candidate, the gun safety group has decided to oppose Dean publicly, and plans to be aggressive in opposing Dean throughout the Democratic primaries. An email alert will go out to all Brady members nationwide today, educating them about Dean's wrongheaded view of gun safety policy, and advocates of reasonable gun safety laws will be encouraged to attend Governor Dean's campaign appearances and tell supporters about his extreme views on gun issues.

"Electing Howard Dean President would not be a step forward towards making our children and our communities safer from gun violence," Barnes said. "We intend to make sure Americans know that."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=491

I know, I know. Primary season and lots of things get said about a lot of people. The Brady Campaign threw their weight behind John Kerry, and we all know how that turned out.

Now Dean is kicking ass and taking names as the DNC Chairman, breaking fund-raising records by taking a 50 state - state by state - approach to finding finding and exploiting local politicians, local issues, local donors, and local parties.

Instead of having national policy being dictated from the beltway, he thinks it should rise from the grass roots up. Instead of dictating what the party supports he lets the party membership have their say.

Howard Dean and the new democratic leadership who "get it" are going to get rural "red state" democrats elected. He's going to do it despite the efforts of people like the VPC and others who think that there is a "our way or the high way" approach to gun control, and that you either support extensive federal regulation or you support the people in each state deciding what is best for themselves.

Dean has a whole new approach. And part of that approach the consistent manner he addressed gun control during the primaries. I haven't heard a thing out of his mouth to think that he's changed his stripes any, either.

Different tactics work in different states, and different cities. The ultimate objective is to break Republican stranglehold on Congress and eventually get the Presidency back from the fascists.

The old ways of getting people elected are dying. Howard Dean is killing them.

Hell, Kos said it best:

The Democratic Party is in the upswing in the Mountain West and the South, in places like Montana and Virginia, because Democrats there have made a serious effort to compete for votes everywhere, rather than make a nominal effort to be an "also-ran" outside the Democratic-density areas. As Warner asks, how many more times will the Democrats run presidential campaigns where they abandon thirty-something southern and western states and "launch a national campaign that goes after sixteen states and then hope that we can hit a triple bank shot to get to that seventeenth state?"

In the 1992 and the 1996 presidential elections, with three candidates in the race, as many as thirty states were viewed as competitive battleground contests up through election day. In 2000, that number dropped to just seventeen by election day. In 2004, the number of contested states early in the presidential contest stood at eighteen, and was whittled down to about eight by election day.

This strategy--or more accurately this obsession--that the Democratic establishment in D.C. has with narrowing electoral campaigns to ever shrinking "swing states" is self-defeating. It doesn't build any new converts to the party, it makes it easier for the Republicans to walk away with huge chunks of the country unchallenged, and it starves the Democratic Parties in those "red" states.

But don't tell that to Bob Shrum, the über-consultant who lost eight presidential campaigns so far and won zero. Asked by writer Ben Smith in the November 21, 2005, issue of the New York Observer whether he had any regrets about his work on Kerry's campaign, Shrum responded that had he believed Florida would go for Bush so strongly, "the campaign would have sent more resources--including Mr. Kerry--to Ohio." One can only hope that Bob Shrum won't be back in 2008 to run one more Democratic candidate into the ground with his overpriced expertise and a three-state strategy.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/5/173123/9585

This is a whole new approach to *everything*. Fund raising, candidate selection, and even policy positions. The difference is the flex in policy will be a response of the candidates to the voters in their district, NOT a response to the corporate donors in Washington DC. The Democrats who are elected by Deans methods will be Democrats who are endorsed by their constituents 1st and foremost. Ideological crusaders and perfectionists cringe at such an idea. They're afraid it means compromising values. It does no such thing. Vales are inherent. Approaches to issues are not one size fits all.



Monolithic federalized gun control loses national elections. I'm sure it plays well in Chicago, IL but we win in Chicago, IL anyways. I'm worried about Charleston, WV and environs.

It's criminal that a state like West Virginia could elect a Democrat governor over a Republican by a double digit margin (63% to 34%) while losing the Presidential margin 56% to 43%.

John Manchin is a pro-gun Democrat (with an NRA endorsement and an A rating to boot). John Kerry isn't.

"I've fought the NRA from Day One and I've been on their list since Day One," Kerry told supporters in McKinney's machinery shed. "Howard Dean needs to square his support from the NRA with his current position."

http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22649906.html

Yet a NRA endorsed Democrat destroyed his Republican challenger in West Virgina 2-1, and Mr. Kerry couldn't carry the state.

But, nah....I'm sure gun control had *nothing* to do with it.

Howard Dean gets it. The trains' a coming. The VPC and Brady Campaign won't like it, but it's going to get more Democrats elected. More Democrats means less Republicans. Less Republicans means less fascism. Less fascism means a country that is more free.

Dean has said all along that the gun vote cost Al Gore votes in the 2000 election. I agree with him. I support Howard Dean. I support his approach. I support his vision for the party. I've supported him since the primaries, and I support him now.

Gun Control is a crippling issue on the national level. Let the Democratic politicians in Chicago and Los Angles praise it to the rafters, and let Democratic politicians in rural red states pledge to fight against it. Then lets get some Democrats elected and take our country back.


edit: typos, added a paragraph.

[Wickerman]

39. Agreed

well, not quite so adamantly on Dean as you are, I guess. However, the cure-all down here is that gun control in any form is evil and Chicago has been vilified for ages by many users. Thanks for the reminder that one size does not fit all.

[davepc]

47. Howard Dean is one of the few people who excite me in politics

:)

I'm a reformed Nader supporter from 2000.

[iverglas]

4. a question

"a measure to limit handgun purchases to one per person per month"

There are two kinds of people who would want to buy more than one handgun per month:

- collectors
- people who are selling handguns to other people

(Yes, yes, there could be people who want to buy handguns for their entire family for Christmas. Well, there are always gift certificates -- and that way, it could be verified that the ultimate recipient was an eligible owner as well, and that the gift was a genuine gift and not in reality a straw purchase, too.)

Why could there not be a special class of permits for collectors? People with such permits could buy as many of anything as their little hearts desire, once meeting the criteria for a collector permit (which should obviously include satisfying requirements for the safe/secure storage of their collections).

I'm not asking a general and hypothetical question. I'm asking in the context of Chicago, which obviously has some jurisdiction to make rules about firearms and has done so. Up here, a collector can obtain a specific permit to acquire handguns (it's a matter under federal jurisdiction here), and that's what I'm suggesting for Chicago, except that the permit would be required only to acquire multiple handguns, or specifically multiple handguns within a certain period. (Why not "x" number a year, rather than 1 a month?)

Hmm; perhaps municipal zoning bylaws could be used to regulate firearm collections ... just as they are used to regulate collections of dogs and cats ...

Seriously, if this is an attempt to undermine the practice of straw purchasing and unregulated dealing, why not do something likely to be a little more effective in that regard?

[slackmaster]

5. There is a federal firearms license for collectors of curios and relics

I have one. It's otherwise known as a Type 03 FFL.

Generally it allows the holder to acquire and dispose of curios and relics (C&R) through interstate commerce. Privileges conveyed WRT state laws vary. Here in California it does exempt us from many of the restrictive laws including one handgun per month and the 10-day wait, but that applies only to guns designated by the federal government as curios or relics. I can have C&R firearms shipped directly to my home. This saves a lot of money and hassle.

IMO the classification of firearms as curios or relics is too restrictive. They have to be over 50 years old or on a very small list maintained by the BATFE. Many interesting firearms worthy of being part of a collection, e.g. the Dan Wesson revolvers with interchangeable barrels made in the 1970s, are not classified as C&R. Nobody is going to pay $1,200 or more for a Dan Wesson pistol kit and use it in a street crime.

Collectors should be allowed to decide what is suitable for a collection. People who collect cars, coins, stamps, etc. get them without restriction when they are intitially offered for sale. My FFL should empower me to do the same with new firearms.

People with such permits could buy as many of anything as their little hearts desire, once meeting the criteria for a collector permit (which should obviously include satisfying requirements for the safe/secure storage of their collections).

"Obviously?" :wtf: There is no federal storage requirement, and I have to comply with California's safe gun storage law. The main federal requirement is that collectors keep a "bound book" of firearms acquired under the license, similar to records kept by dealers (Type 01 FFLs).

[iverglas]

6. sorting it all out ...

Collectors should be allowed to decide what is suitable for a collection.

And I wasn't suggesting otherwise, in this context. Here, at present, that is just how it is. (With a collector's permit, one may collect any firearm that is not somehow completely banned, such as I imagine machine guns are. A collector may acquire a handgun, for instance, without being a member of a shooting club or requiring it for employment/occupation purposes, as anyone else who wishes to acquire a handgun must do.)

What I was suggesting was that Chicago could require that anyone purchasing "x" number of handguns within "x" period of time obtain a Chicago collector's licence in order to do so. (The question was why, if Chicago could make all these other rules, it couldn't make that one.) Then, anyone with a legitimate reason for acquiring that number of handguns within that period of time -- i.e. anyone not engaging in straw purchases -- would be able to do so legally, and the others, the ones the proposed rule is obviously aimed at, would not.

It just strikes me as a more direct and less easily circumvented way of achieving the purpose. A hundred people each buying 1 handgun/month under the proposed rule could still be putting over 1,000 handguns into illegal circulation each year, the way the proposed rule reads. My version would provide security in terms of who was buying (the requirements for getting a collector's permit) and where the purchases were going.


... the criteria for a collector permit (which should obviously include satisfying requirements for the safe/secure storage of their collections).
"Obviously?" There is no federal storage requirement, and I have to comply with California's safe gun storage law.

"Obviously", if one applies a smidgen of thought to it. A collection of handguns is a rather attractive target for people who can't get a bunch of handguns otherwise and want to get a bunch of handguns. Someone with a collection, i.e. a large number, should fairly obviously be subject to particular requirements to ensure that that doesn't happen. Since collectors presumably have the value of the collection in mind, one wouldn't expect the requirements to be too onerous an addition to whatever they already do.

I don't know what storage requirements there may be in Chicago. I simply proposed that collectors be governed by regulations that would exempt them from any multiple-purchase rule and also require them to meet certain standards in return for the exemption, if such standards did not already exist.

I'd also say that obviously a condition of having a collector's licence would be that a record would be kept by the issuing agency of all acquisitions and transfers. And that a "collection" would be better defined as "six or more handguns", or whatever, and not by reference to any number of acquisitions in any particular time period -- but that a particular number in any time period, without evidence of legal disposition of the ones previously acquired, would be automatically classified as a "collection", I suppose, and call for a collector's licence.

One would expect that people planning to engage in straw purchases would be unlikely to want to leave that paper trail. And I can't imagine why anyone legitimately engaged in collecting would object, or how s/he could: "collecting" is not covered by the second amendment, do we really think?


But anyhow, aw, c'mon:

Collectors should be allowed to decide what is suitable for a collection. People who collect cars, coins, stamps, etc. get them without restriction when they are intitially offered for sale. My FFL should empower me to do the same with new firearms.

And if I decide I want to collect samples of different anthrax strains? Anybody targetting stamp collections for theft to facilitate crimes?


If Chicago can limit the number of dogs and cats in a household on public nuisance grounds, which I'm sure it does, I don't know why it couldn't limit the number of firearms. (Well, I imagine there is a reason in municipal law, or Toronto might have done it long since.) The attraction that such a collection presents for criminals, and the potential for unauthorized access and resultant harm in general, doesn't look much different to me from the potential for harm from a collection of anthrax samples, in public nuisance terms.

[michreject]

7. - people who are selling handguns to other people

Not always true. There were several months last year where I bought more than 1 gun. I don't sell them. Firearms are a great investment.

I not only collect them, I shoot them in several types of competition matches.

[iverglas]

9. So what did you miss?

I said:

There are two kinds of people who would want to buy more than one handgun per month:
- collectors
- people who are selling handguns to other people

You said:

Not always true. There were several months last year where I bought more than 1 gun. I don't sell them. Firearms are a great investment.

Mm hmm. And buying something as an "investment" would not fall within the category "collectors" because ...? So, what I said would be "not true" because ...?

And your activities would have been grossly impeded if you had had to buy 2 handguns 5 weeks apart rather than 3 weeks apart -- or hell, maybe even only a few days apart if you started at the end of a month -- how?

Of course, that does prompt the question of how the proposed rule would be effective against straw purchasers anyhow. I guess one a month would be better than 100 a month.

[MrSandman]

29. There are two kinds of people...

Criminals and non-criminals.

[Remmah]

8. "there could be people who want to buy handguns for their entire family"

How do I marry into one of these families?

I can afford about one gun a "year" as long as I eat peanut butter and jelly once a week.

[iverglas]

10. there ya go

That's why I wonder who all these people are who want to buy more than one handgun/month.

I mean, even collectors. Twelve a year ... in ten years you have 120, and that's not even counting what other firearms you got.

It strikes me that, especially if we leave genuine collectors out of it, the 1/month rule just isn't connecting with the problem. Why not 3/year? How many ordinary people, really and truly, buy more than 3 handguns a year? (Why not 3/lifetime, for that matter?)

With a provision for legitimate exceptions, whatever they might be -- submit a request for an exemption to be able to buy more than the permitted maximum -- I doubt that this would have any impact at all on 99.9% of the population, or even 99% of firearms owners.

But like I said, I guess when it comes to straw purchases, it would be hard to make a living on 1/month, so something's better than nothing. But it would still impact only on straw purchasers operating as a business, and I don't know whether that's a significant proportion. I assume so, or there'd be no point to the 1/month rule at all.


Now as for collecting, let me just throw an irrelevant thought in here.

Whatever Brit mysteries I've been watching lately have had a couple of firearms in them. Shotguns, the traditional Brit thing. One in particular was quite a gorgeous object. I've tried to get google to find me a comparable image, but no luck. A very long double-barrelled thing, all lovely old wood and metal, kind of blunderbuss-looking, seemed to be all barrel. Somebody find me a picture. Anyhow, I can certainly see how, especially if there were family history, having such a thing would bring pleasure.

[aikoaiko]

11. Shotguns, in particular, can be very beautiful.

Try your local gun show. Thats where I get to see medium priced double barrel shotguns that are also beautiful.

Some of them are insanely expensive and I've never be clear why.


eta: Here is site with some of their inventory listed. I'd be happy to own any of them. You ahve to click around to find the actual pictures of the shotguns. http://www.williamlarkinmoore.com/Allinventory.htm

[Squatch]

16. I am particularly fond of side-by-sides with Damascus barrels

Not much practical use today (unless you load your own shotshells...the Damascus steel is weaker than modern steel), but they sure are nicely crafted pieces of art.

Here's a picture of a Lefever (I have a similar one). Notice the nice figure in the wood, the color case hardened action, and Damascus steel barrels.

[iverglas]

19. okay, that sort of thing

By "side by side", I'll guess you mean that the barrels are side by side (I gather there's another possible configuration). That's what the one in question was, but the barrels just looked a lot bigger than in the pictures I've found on line (and like yours there). Kind of cannon looking. I could draw it for you! Maybe it's just that the camera angle showed it kind of from above, and all the pictures I find are in profile ...

Any takers for this one?
http://www.williamlarkinmoore.com/images/P1010193. JPG
(copy & paste; don't want to clutter the board with slow-loading tangential stuff)

I'd take it as a gift. Here's your chance. Convert me, somebody.

[Squatch]

21. I have to admit...

I'm only very superficially following this conversation. What am I converting you to?

BTW, that's a very pretty shotgun you posted there. It's a Holland & Holland (one of the famous London high-grade gun manufacturers) that will set you back in excess of $10,000. Given that the scene on the action is of Pheasants and not Rhinoceri, I'd wager it was a shotgun suited for upland game and not a large caliber safari rifle.

[Squatch]

22. I was correct...

although I should have just looked at the root page and saved myself a bunch of trouble. $115,000 for a pair of shotguns is a little out of my price range, LOL.

[iverglas]

25. I'd meant to say

Yes, the pic was at the link aikoaiko gave, under English.

I just figured since that item was a two-fer, the buyer could spare one for me! Oh, and each one in the set has two barrels of its own or something, too. Surely a bargain at twice the price!

[Squatch]

26. There's another used English shotgun on that page

that has quite a few scratches on the stock...and yet, it's still listed at $55,000. Some people have money to burn, I s'pose.

[Silverhair]

36. Yes, there is another configuration. Over & Under.

On barrel atop the other. Side-by-side has a tendency to recoil slightly to the left or right depending upon which barrel is fired. That difference can make them a bit more difficult to shoot extremely well, if the shooter is good enough to feel the difference. Over & Under shotguns don't have that problem.

In really extreme examples, about a 70 years ago, there was a fashion for custom made multiple barrel configurations, having two shotgun barrels, and one to three rifles of differing calibers built in.

There are also some rifles built in the double barrel (both configurations) mode. They are usually very large caliber rifles - elephant guns. (I do not agree with the hunting of elephants at all.)

[iverglas]

41. a fine disclaimer

(I do not agree with the hunting of elephants at all.)

And I assure you, quite unnecessary. I'd never have thunk it. ;)

If I find -- if I ever manage to sort out the genealogy puzzle I created for myself when I discovered census and vital statistics resources on line last summer -- that I really am a descendant of the line of the Viscounts Monck (of England and Ireland) via an illicit union sometime in the mid 19th century, perhaps I will take a greater interest in these fine historical arms. (For some reason, my mother's father's father and his sister seem to have taken the name Monck as adults -- when she married extremely well and after his first wife and, apparently, all their other siblings and their estranged parents died in the 1870-72 smallpox epidemic or not much later, leaving me with no co-descendants to ask about it all -- after being born humble Hills in Cornwall. It's making me crazy.)

As things stand at the moment, I seem to be descended only from cabinetmakers and piano tuners, farmers, mine workers and domestic servants, and I don't think they spent a lot of time shooting clays, or elephants, so I'm lacking a personal reason for any interest. I would never deny the plain elegance of the things, and the quite understandable attraction of them and pleasure there could be in using them for what they were designed for, of course.

Of course, anybody looking to steal one of them wouldn't likely be planning on using it to corner the drug market by killing a few rivals or neighbours, and the people who own those lovely things (or the modern descendants of those things) aren't particularly likely to sell them on to someone who wants them for that purpose, or to take them up for that purpose themselves. That's why, up here, pretty much anybody who wants one can have one. People who want handguns are another matter, and are treated as such.

[Silverhair]

42. My ancestors were cowboys, old western lawmen, farmers, and Lakota.

Further back than four generations and it gets lost in the geneological fog of the Old West, especially Texas. Many people, in those days, that came to Texas were leaving something as much as they were going to Texas. Many books, of different types, had entries closed out with "GTT" - Gone To Texas.

Four cowpokes sat around a fire,
Said one, "Let's tell where we are from, and why"
Three guns spoke as one
Three cowpokes sat around a fire.

[Squatch]

43. What is that...Byron? Longfellow?

[Silverhair]

45. Something I read about 50 years ago.

I thought it was funny at the time. Of course it isn't meant to be taken seriously, but the humorous exaggeration rests on the truth that back then many people came to Texas to escape something.

[iverglas]

32. hee hee

Try your local gun show.

I do hope that wasn't sarcasm.

I might be wrong, but I don't think there are gun shows where I'm at. Mind you, my "local" PBS station advertises the hell out of a couple of those things, or at least it did back when that cute Bill Whatsit who had his own fishing show was the GM, so I could probably just hop in the car and be at one not much more than hour later, one way or another, depending on border traffic.

Hmm, when I get to your customs and they ask the purpose of my visit, do I say "to go to the gun show"? "But I saw it advertised on PBS!"

So nobody's going to take me up on making me a present of one of those six-digit models at your link, it seems ...

[aikoaiko]

44. Actually, it wasn't meant to be sarcastic

I assumed gun shows happen up north too. If there are none I wonder if its a cultural thing or a regulation thing.

If you get a chance, I would encourage you to go for the interesting sights if nothing else. In GA, gun shows are 7 bucks to get into.


eta: with a little more digging with Google, it seems that they have some in Ontario.

Feb 6 Orangeville Ontario - Fair grounds COFMC, John or Dana / Erica 519-942-4145/927-3831.
Apr 3 Orangeville Ontario - Fair grounds COFMC, John or Dana / Erica 519-942-4145/927-3831.
Jun 5 Orangeville Ontario - Fair grounds COFMC, John or Dana / Erica 519-942-4145/927-3831.
Aug 7 Orangeville Ontario - Fair grounds COFMC, John or Dana / Erica 519-942-4145/927-3831.
Nov 6 Orangeville Ontario - Fair grounds COFMC, John or Dana / Erica 519-942-4145/927-3831.
Dec 4Orangeville Ontario - Fair grounds COFMC, John or Dana / Erica 519-942-4145/927-3831.

[AGKISTRODON]

12. Frozen burritos

Frozen burritos actually save you more money than peanut butter and jelly!B-) You can thaw them on the muffler of your motorscooter! Any brand will do, with a shot of Texas Pete hotsauce,added.
My daughters HS graduation gift from me was a little Charter Arms .38 snubbie. Less than a year later, my MIL died, and on the way to her funeral, <150 miles> the car broke down in the middle of nowhere, little 2 lane road through the woods, 11 PM. A couple of sleazeballs showed up, and soon made clear how they wanted to "help", and what it would "cost". The little snubbie changed their attitude. My daughter and my ex could just well be alive today, only because of that little gun in the glove compartment. I couldn't be there to protect them, but I did the next best thing.
No one got shot, the bastards must have decided that my kid WOULD pull the trigger.
I bought the kid a fresh box of .38 hollow points for Christmas, she had used up a lot of ammo shooting cottonmouth mocassins in the yard.
It breaks my heart to hear of the stuff some of you urban folks suffer from. I just wish you would put yourselves in my shoes, every so often, too. When I hear how some of you diss "rednecks, hicks, and trailer trash", I don't see much hope.

[davepc]

13. Hey, us city folk are better then you bumpkins, deal with it!

And vote Democratic next Tuesday!

[AGKISTRODON]

27. Better than us?

You "city folk" are only better than us "Bumpkins" until your train won't run, your car won't start, and the chain on your bike wears out. If your toilet plugs up, to boot, Oh Well! When all else fails, best you call a redneck, or, get used to walking, and shitting in the yard.

[iverglas]

15. I think I hear you talking to me again

I mean, I hardly think that

When I hear how some of you diss "rednecks, hicks, and trailer trash", I don't see much hope.

could have been directed at the person whose post you replied to.

Of course, I hardly think you could be talking to me, either, since I've never done what you describe. Hmm. Come to think of it, neither has anyone else in this forum that I can recall.

Hearing voices?

[AGKISTRODON]

20. INNUENDO?

Hell, maybe I mispelled it, maybe not, but, I tend to look more for the message between your lines, than at what you seem to say, overtly.
At any rate, there must be some reason that you felt that anything I said was directed, at you, personally.
I may not have scored a "Bullseye", but I damned sure hit close enough to wake you up!
I sure wish there was a Canadian forum, where I could expect to exercise as much influence, as you seem to expect here!
:D

[Scout]

33. I sure wish there was a Canadian forum

there is

State & Country forums
Country: Canada

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=190

have at it, no one's stopping you.

[Squatch]

14. A slight adjustment, if I may:

You say:

There are two kinds of people who would want to buy more than one handgun per month:

- collectors
- people who are selling handguns to other people

I think it would be more logically correct to say:

There are two kinds of people who would want to buy more than one handgun per month:

- collectors
- people who are not collectors

Those people "who are not collectors" are not necessarily selling them to other people.

[iverglas]

17. and again ...

There are two kinds of people who would want to buy more than one handgun per month:
- collectors
- people who are not collectors
Those people "who are not collectors" are not necessarily selling them to other people.

Then who are they? (And what are they doing with all those handguns? Don't their trailers get kinda full after a while? hahahahaha.)

Really, we're not talking about somebody who wants to buy a handgun on January 1 and another handgun on January 2, and then never buys another one. We're talking about somebody who wants to buy two handguns in January, two handguns in February, two handguns in March, two handguns in April ... at a minimum.

Who, other than collectors and straw purchasers, are they?

Who, other than collectors and straw purchasers, buys even one handgun per month?

[Squatch]

18. Well, shoot, pardner (pun intended)

Who, other than collectors and straw purchasers, are they?

They could be:
-Legitimate business people (you know, gunshops, for instance)
-These guys
-Artists/engravers/hobbyists (who sell their wares not as part of a business)
-Gun clubs and shooting teams

[iverglas]

23. hahaha ha

These guys

That's cute. The gun-buy-back-ers would run afoul of the 1/month rule. Ah, those unintended perverse consequences.

Legitimate business people (you know, gunshops, for instance)

Grooooan. Are we imagining that gun dealers' purchases would be affected by the 1 handgun/month rule?? For some strange reason, I'd just assumed that the issue was, and the proposed rule related to, retail sales to individuals.

Artists/engravers/hobbyists (who sell their wares not as part of a business)

That one I'm not getting. These people need to buy more than 1 handgun/month? To engrave? And then sell? Well shoot me now, I didn't know such things happened.

Strikes me that if they're buying the things with the express intention of selling them on, regardless of how nicely they engrave them first, they are indeed engaging in a business, and, it would appear, in a straw purchase. They are buying the firearm not for their own use, but for sale to someone else. Value added, yes; nonetheless, buying to deal.

Gun clubs and shooting teams

And again, I'm assuming that the proposal applies to individuals. In any event, I beat you to it by proposing the ability to get an exemption for legitimate reasons. ;)

[Squatch]

24. I thought you'd get a kick out of that...

I didn't think your two choices were mutually exclusive, and tried to demonstrate that through examples of people who were not collectors.

[AGKISTRODON]

28. Your magnificent eloquence is still impressive

Your magnificent eloquence is still impressive, but, it does not stand up against the truth of reality.
Are you here to make a pragmatic, valid, contribution, or, are you here just because it feels so good to impress folks with your brilliance? Sheeat, I will allow that you are smart, but, are you relevant?

[Paladin]

30. Lay Off Iverglas

She's willing to devote a lot more time to you gun activists than practically anyone else on the other side of the issue, a damned sight more time than you warrant.

Or maybe you just want the Gungeon to fall to the next level: an NRA glee club, with all of you gunnies reduced to vigorously agreeing with one another, day in, day out. That's pretty close to where it is, at this point.....

[iverglas]

31. ooh dang

I think you just blew one of my covers. Not that I pretend to be what I'm not, of course, but it's pretty funny how many newbies assssuuuume I am.

Willing to devote time to 'em? Well ... let's say ... willing to skive off and be constantly in deep shit because I blow every deadline I've ever been given ...

But I'm so smart, you know, that the world can't live without me. Deadlines go by, boss clients huff and puff, all these years later they're still paying me. So I can spare the odd moment for our little friends and my amusement. The law does get boring oft times.

Say, go to that shotgun site and admire some of the objects there.
http://www.williamlarkinmoore.com/Allinventory.htm#Used English
(that didn't work; on edit: just go to
http://www.williamlarkinmoore.com/Allinventory.htm
and click on "used english")

I'd come out and say I want me one, but I imagine you're supposed to take care of them, and probably not leave them lying around where the cats will pee on them like everything else in my house ...

Just no good at that safe/secure storage stuff, me. And when the economics of it comes down to guns or butter, I'll still take the butter. And chocolate. Never peanut butter. Bleach.

[Therealhelmetcase]

40. Iver can take the heat...

...so not sure why you're trying to shoo us outta the kitchen. A glee club? How about people like me who've simply come to realize that the stereotypical knee-jerk "guns-R-bad" liberal position on firearm regulation that you seem to subscribe to (and I used to) is based on EMOTION not FACT, and is a political loser that only hurts our efforts to provide a valid political alternative to the Repuglicans?

[Paladin]

46. I'm Aware of Iverglas' Capabilities........

.....,I'm rather a fan of hers, "Therealhelmetcase." The point I was making was that if she ever tires of her Pearls Before Swine efforts here in the Gungeon, the forum will be the poorer for it, and people like you will miss her.

And the often-repeated notion that the gun rights movement is based on facts rather than emotion is, of course, bullshit. Both sides of this issue are fueled by huge repositories of raw emotion. This forum provides daily evidence of that......

[Therealhelmetcase]

48. Ah, baloney.

Find one thing that I've posted that's not factually supportable. The fact is, the facts are on our side. Compared to all the other issues where I defend liberal viewpoints, defending my pro-gun stances is relatively easy. It's pretty black and white--preventing law abiding citizens from possessing guns only helps criminals.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Indy Lurker]

35. Type # 3

I know a couple of guys who seems to buy a gun, use it for a few months, then decide they want something else, they also like to barter and trade, (such as these 3 old guns for one nice new one.) So they probably buy and sell 3 guns each a month each, but probably only add 1 or 2 a year at most.

[Silverhair]

37. Wrong. I bought four handguns in one month, and still have them.

You said:
"There are two kinds of people who would want to buy more than one handgun per month:

- collectors
- people who are selling handguns to other people"

In a typical year, I don't buy any guns at all. But a few months ago, a special situation arose and I bought four in one month. I haven't sold them to anybody, and I don't intend to.