I bought a new rifle last week

[Squatch]

to replace my aging 30-06 that was a hand-me-down from my Dad. I saved some money and bought a really nice bolt action Ruger.

In order to purchase the rifle, I had to fill out some paperwork, including a form that the clerk used to call in for an instant criminal background check. As the extent of my criminal sprees has been a run of a couple speeding tickets, my background check came back clear and I was able to purchase the rifle. I was able to take it out that afternoon, bore sight my scope on it, and zero it out to 200 yards. So, I'm ready for hunting season.

Why do I bring this up? Well, my actions speak to the actions of nearly all gun owners in this country. They are law abiding citizens who have no nefarious purposes in mind for their new acquisitions. Nearly all firearms transactions not taking place on the so-called "black market" are just like mine, routine, boring, and completely legal.

I, for one, am satisfied with the current system. As a law abiding citizen, I appreciate the ease with which I can exercise my right to conduct business without any impediments. I do not consider the background check an impediment, but an affirmation of my qualification to exercise that right.

I do not want to see the current system changed because of the violently criminal actions of a statistically insignificant minority. For years I've lamented the "clarification" (as * likes to say) of some of our civil rights because of the actions of another statistically insignificant population of bogeymen terrorists.

In any case, my thoughts and prayers go to the families of today's victims of this senseless violent act.

[JuniperLea]

1. You should no more be ridiculed for being a responsible gun owner

Than any man who is responsible for the actions of his penis. You can commit a crime with both guns and penises.

I bet you dimes to donuts that I can walk about a block from my office building and buy a gun without all that. I wouldn't, but any criminal would.

This argument has been going on for decades without change on either side. I think it's time to get some strong laws into action that make life a living hell for anyone who uses a gun during a crime. Just like using a penis during a crime. Guns and penises are harmless in the hands of the right people.

[rzemanfl]

5. My guns have always been way the hell more responsible than

my penis-which tends to have a mind of its own. Never had a gun that said "I'm loaded, you need to shoot me, right now!"

[JuniperLea]

7. There ya go!

And no one gave you a permit to carry that thing either!

[rzemanfl]

13. Several Congressmen said they'd get me one if I gave them the

dimensions and a description though.

[enki23]

49. eh?

[xchrom]

2. and my self -- i am grateful that i don't live

around anyone who owns a gun.

[Squatch]

3. How do you know they don't?

Did you snoop around in your neighbors' homes to determine that they are not, in fact, gun owners?

[xchrom]

6. i live in a small condo building

my neighbors are also my friends.

none of us are gun owners -- and we're all anti-gun.

serendipity.

[Squatch]

Are you just "anti-gun" or, are you more accurately "anti-criminal"?

[xchrom]

15. both -- anti-gun and anti-criminal.

[KIDGLOCK2]

84. Pink Pistols

Might want to check out these folks , they refuse to be victims

[iverglas]

85. pink pistols

Might want to check out what's been posted about those folks in this forum. Some of us refuse to be stooges for right-wing scum.

[jlseagull42]

91. See, that's what one of my neighbors thought.

Guy like you was at our apartment building social and he mentioned that guns scared him and that he didn't like them - you could hear that he was expecting us to follow along with him. We're all Democrats, and are engaged in a rollicking Bush-bashing session. There were 7 people at the table. I remain quiet. My neighbor pipes up, "I have a big ol' K31 rifle and a Nagant revolver, because I collect historical things." Girl across from him goes, "I have a revolver that goes in the nightstand." Guy and his girlfriend says "We both have shotguns we use to bust clays with." Everyone looks at me, and I say "(sigh) Two 9mm pistols, an AK-47, and a combat shotgun. Happy now?" The one remaining girl doesn't own one, but her dad taught her to shoot when she was little. This guy was obviously floored - I guess what he got wasn't what he was expecting - he replied with "You all scare me." But he took it in stride, and no friction came of this talk.

I'm happy that I live in a building with responsible people like this. :)

[iverglas]

92. ah yes, "responsible people"

Girl across from him goes, "I have a revolver that goes in the nightstand."

(I had imagined that it was not lawful in most places for children to possess handguns, but I guess I was wrong.)

And when that responsible person's handgun is stolen by one of those ubiquitous burglars (one who has the sense to do his/her burgling when the occupant is not home) -- even burglars being smart enough to know where to look for that sort of thing, since they know as well as she does just how "responsible" people like her really are -- and when it is used, say, to threaten or harm the occupant of the next home said burglar breaks into ... well, what will she be responsible for then?

I know. Nothing. She was a responsible firearm owner. She ain't responsible for nuttin'.

[Bluebear]

11. .

.

[karlrschneider]

33. Do you live in San Quentin?

...

[Bluebear]

4. 'I, for one, am satisfied with the current system.'

Squatch, are you satisified with the ease by which people can get AK-47's? Ammunition which serves no purpose other than to maim? Satisfied with the NRA trying to block all manner of gun locks?

[Squatch]

8. Well, my AK-47's only purpose was to punch little holes in paper targets.

It was a Romanian knockoff. I sold it a few years back because it was really a piece of junk.

But, to answer your question, I have absolutely no problem with a law-abiding citizen's ability to buy an AK-47 (semi-auto, that is. Fully auto rifles belong to a whole subcategory of firearms that require additional federal permits to purchase)

[Bluebear]

12. OK well put down that beer in your sig beofre you shoot, hear?

:hi:

[sandnsea]

30. Here's what I would bet

If semi-auto's were part of that earlier fully auto legislation, you'd be arguing about some other gun issue the NRA trumped up.

[Squatch]

35. I don't follow.

?

[sandnsea]

37. Really?

Much like the meandering excuses for war in Iraq, the gun owners have concocted mandering excuses to argue "gun rights". When they began to lose on machine guns and automatic weapons, they decided they supported those gun restrictions, it's just the semi-auto that the 'gun grabbers' are being ridiculous about. Again, I would bet if semi-autos were part of that earlier legislation, the NRA would trump up some other 'gun grabber' outrage.

The NRA is a gun lobby. It's their job to prevent gun laws that will harm gun manufacturers and concoct ways to get votes for the legislators who they count on to block those laws.

[Squatch]

39. You can still own automatic weapons

provided that you pass the requisite background checks and pay for additional permits.

[sandnsea]

40. And if the NRA told you that was an outrage

You wouldn't be satisfied with them belonging in a different category for firearms. Despite what you posted above.

"Fully auto rifles belong to a whole subcategory of firearms that require additional federal permits to purchase."

[Squatch]

42. I would thank you not to presume that you can think for me.

Good night.

[sandnsea]

44. I said "I would bet"

but you didn't seem to understand 'trumped up NRA outrages', so I clarified further. You asked.

[benEzra]

59. I'm afraid your scenario is imaginary...care to provide citations?

Much like the meandering excuses for war in Iraq, the gun owners have concocted mandering excuses to argue "gun rights". When they began to lose on machine guns and automatic weapons, they decided they supported those gun restrictions, it's just the semi-auto that the 'gun grabbers' are being ridiculous about. Again, I would bet if semi-autos were part of that earlier legislation, the NRA would trump up some other 'gun grabber' outrage.

I'm afraid your scenario is imaginary, since the law restricting automatic weapons was passed 72 years ago, and the NRA and gun owners were OK with it even at the time. The NRA never opposed the NFA Title 2 restrictions on automatic weapons, and I challenge you to provide citation to the contrary.

The NFA Title 2/Class III restrictions on automatic weapons have NEVER never controversial. Banning NON-automatic civilian weapons, however, is ridiculous on its face. Self-loaders have been considered ordinary civilian firearms for more than a century, and guns with over-10-round magazines have been on the civilian market since the freaking 1860's. THAT is why the proposal to start banning self-loaders and over-10-round firearms in the early 1990's, and legislate 19th-century-fogey stock styling, met with such stiff opposition from gun-owner groups.

There IS a line in the sand, beyond which further restrictions on what civilian firearms the law-abiding can own become completely unacceptable. The extensive NFA Title 2 restrictions did not cross that line. Most of the Gun Control Act of 1968 did not cross that line. Background checks did not cross that line. The 1986 restrictions on armor-piercing handgun ammunition did not cross that line. But bans on self-loaders, legislating stock styling, and mandating pre-Civil-War capacity limits does cross that line, and we gun owners will NOT give in on that.

[Sapere aude]

22. Gun locks don't protect people, people protect people.

That statement of yours is ridiculous in my estimation. My gun came with a gun lock. I have to put it on and I do. The law that made the store give me a gun lock is not what puts the lock on the gun, I do and if I wanted to do that I could just as easily bought the simple lock. I could just as easily not put the lock on.

The laws you propose are what I call feel good laws. You feel good that you did something about the little girls that got killed. You forced the store to give me a lock and that won't keep kids safe.

You should look into why people kill kids.

[benEzra]

60. You do realize that actual AK-47's cost $15,000 and require a special

Squatch, are you satisified with the ease by which people can get AK-47's?

You do realize that actual AK-47's cost $15,000 and require a special government approval process, and possession of one without a BATFE Form 4 is a 10-year Federal felony under the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act, yes? And that all AK-47's manufactured after 1986 are restricted to military and government use only?

AK-47's are NOT easy to get in this country. Afghanistan, yes; Iraq, yes; the United States, no.

You can get a civilian carbine that LOOKS much like an AK-47, but to be U.S. legal, it cannot function like one; they function just like any other U.S.-legal civilian rifle, and is completely incapable of automatic fire (the AK's whole raison d'etre) and like all other U.S.-legal civilian rifles, cannot be easily converted to do so.

Here's my civvie AK lookalike:



That's a Romanian SAR-1 self-loading carbine, not an AK-47, although cosmetically it's almost a ringer for an AKM. Ballistics are similar to a .30-30 Winchester, or about half as powerful as a .30-06 deer rifle. And no, it doesn't fire any faster than an ordinary self-loading hunting rifle, or an ordinary pistol or revolver.

Ammunition which serves no purpose other than to maim?

And what ammunition would that be?

Satisfied with the NRA trying to block all manner of gun locks?

AFAIK, the NRA has not supported restrictions on gun locks in any way. What they do oppose, and rightly so, is outlawing the keeping of a loaded firearm for defensive purposes--since that is the primary reason most of us own guns, after all (followed closely by recreational target shooting, and hunting as a distant third).

My wife and I keep our guns in a safe when not in use, FWIW.

[spoony]

76. What ammo is that?

Hollow points? The purpose of those is to stop the bullet in the thing you're shooting at and not have it go out the other side and kill (or "maim") whatever is behind it. If anything, regular bullets maim more than HPs.

[mike_c]

9. this is where the collective needs of society need to be considered...

...along with the individual rights of gun owners and prospective gun owners. I agree with everything you said, and I congratulate you for being a rational, responsible gun owner-- and for being in the majority of gun owners in that respect.

The problem is that there is no sure way to identify who is NOT going to be a rational, responsible gun owner. A criminal background check is imperfect at best-- everyone who shoots someone in the commission of a crime-- including when the shooting is itself the crime-- commits SOME crime for the first time, and might simply not have done so yet when they buy the gun. Some people are perfectly sane and sober when they buy a gun, but not at some later time when they use it irresponsibly. And so on.

Since we cannot reasonably expect to prevent the actions of that minority, and those actions lead to often irreparable harm-- like today's shooting of young girls-- we must ask whether the collective rights of everyone to be safe from harm outweigh the rights of individuals to have their guns-- the actual agent that creates the harm. If we agree that individual rights are more important than the collective right to safety from violence, then we simply have to accept that things like this shooting will happen-- they are the price of maintaining individual rights. If we don't want to accept shootings like this, then I don't see any way to reasonably do so without making guns a lot harder to own.

[Squatch]

14. Instead of "collective right to safety", use "National Security"

and see how close that argument is to this current admin's line of reasoning in limiting or civil rights.

(No offense to you, personally, of course.)

I do understand your argument, though. :toast:

[mike_c]

19. yep-- and I would argue that the rights of individules generally DO...

...outweight the collective rights to "national security" in many cases, and that the occassional heinous attack is the price we must be prepared to pay in order to safeguard our liberties.

[sendero]

20. If there was any .

.... way to do that, any way to make guns less accessible that would actually keep them out of the hands of psychos, I'd agree.

But there is not. The toothpaste is out of the tube and no matter what you do, up to and including gun confiscation, criminals would find a way to get a gun.

There are some problems for which there is no solution. It is as simple as that.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

21. Yes, but by those collective needs of society, shouldn't anything that

kills have tougher government restrictions. How about cars, knives, alcohol, red meat? These are all things that kill Americans routinely. Just like most gun owners, most people handle those responsibly. Should we take away someone's right to those items, because they may kill?

[sandnsea]

24. Well, gosh, they do

Licenses to drive cars, insurance in case damage is caused, numerous safety regulations, and they aren't protected from lawsuits if they create a defective product. Licenses to sell alcohol, age restrictions, etc. There are even laws about the sales of meat and inspectors to make sure the meat is safe.

But not guns, no no no. :sarcasm:

Despite the fact that we place limitations on every other right, can't touch the 2nd amendment. :sarcasm:

On edit:

Sarcasm tags added.

[Squatch]

25. But, as I've demonstrated, there *are* laws on the purchase

of firearms.

[sandnsea]

27. As there should be

Most of DU agrees there should be. Most of DU would be agreeable to listen and negotiate reasonable laws to help reduce gun crime. It's the extremists that make it difficult and from my view, most of the extremists are NRA gun nuts who screech the 2nd Amendment while they're busy dismantling the rest of the Bill of Rights.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

26. Actually, there are limitations on who can own and purchase guns.

Along with what guns are legal to own. Are you seriously saying there are no limitations on gun ownership? If so, I suggest reviewing your state's gun laws.

If someone buys a gun on the black market, then that's an entirely different issue, isn't it?

[sandnsea]

28. There's no 2nd Amendment movement??

Are people really going to pretend there aren't extremists who advocate repealing all gun laws in order to 'protect the 2nd Amendment'???

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

29. That has nothing to do with the original argument.

Yes, they exist. Yes, I support the right to gun ownership. Do I advocate repealing all gun laws? No. Does the average gun owner advocate repealing all guns laws? No.

No one is pretending anything, despite your insistence on the matter.

[sandnsea]

34. See post #23

I'm not referring to the average gun owner because the average gun owner doesn't run around ranting about the 2nd Amendment and gun grabbers. The average gun owner supports reasonable regulation. I was responding to a post that tried to make the case that other harmful products aren't regulated, and I pointed out they are. I went one further and said that our supposedly inalienable rights are all regulated to some degree. There's no reason for guns not to be regulated as well, despite the insistence from 2nd Amendment extremists that guns are sacrosanct. Guns are regulated and there's nothing unconstitutional about them being regulated.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

36. Okay...

First, you stated guns weren't regulated. When shown that you were wrong, you became fixated on a small minority of gunowners, the extremists who don't believe in any gun control. Now you're stuck on that for some reason, even you were the one that brought it in out of left field, and you're trying to pick a fight where there is none.

So basically, I'm just going to leave this thread and let you argue with yourself some more.

[sandnsea]

38. I should have added the sarcasm tag

I also should have known better than to think it would be apparent to people who thrive on picking apart 'gun grabbers'.

Oh no no no, can't touch the guns. :sarcasm:

Get it now?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

45. Yes, you enjoy looking for a fight where there isn't one.

Good night.

[sandnsea]

46. Taking away cars, knives, alcohol and red meat?

You're the one who concocted a phony argument to pick a fight. I'm not going to apologize for bringing it.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

47. I would never in a million years expect an apology from you.

I'm a realist.

As for my "phony argument," I was merely pointing out the absurdity of "for the good of society." I'm guessing that went over your "gun grabber" (your words, not mine) head.

[sandnsea]

50. Items that ARE regulated

for the good of society. So you had no point and it's a shame you have to attack me to hide your embarrassment.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

51. And so are guns. I never said guns weren't or shouldn't be regulated.

I feel the current gun restrictions are sufficient. I stand by what I said.

I am neither embarassed or attacking you. That is only in your head, my friend.

[sandnsea]

53. Ooooh, taking away rights isn't the same as regulating

I see. :eyes:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

55. No, they're not.

We regulate guns. Personally, I believe in regulating guns. I live in NJ, which has fairly strict regulations on guns. I'm fine with those regulations.

It is also my right as a citizen to bear arms.

Two seperate things, and a fairly simple concept, as well.

[hydrashok75]

90. Surely it's not hard to see...

...how one of those ostensibly separate (at least in your mind) things can infringe or unjustly interfere with the other? What exactly do you think it means to "bear arms?"

You can't really bear arms anywhere in NJ. You can't defend yourself anywhere outside your home unless you're an agent of the state.

Does that strike you as just? Sounds like tyranny to me.

[krispos42]

56. In nearly all states, you need a licence to carry concealed

And gun makers can be sued if they make a faulty product as easily as the auto makers. You need a licence to sell guns for a living (called an FFL), and to transfer guns through any type of shipping service. There are age restrictions on gun purchasing and ownership.

What you can't do is sue a gunmaker for the actions of the gun owner. And there is good, solid logic behind this because gunmakers cannot sell directly to the public. Gunmakers sell their guns to FFL holders, usually in bulk. The FFL holders are either distributors or retailers. If they are distributors then the gun lots are broken down and sold to other FFL holders for retail sale. In either case the gun makers are a couple of steps removed from the actual selling of the gun to the public, and are not responsible for how the gun is used, anymore than Ford is if your kid decides to run down a couple of pedestrians.

There are also a number of restrictions and limitations on guns as well. Full-automatic guns are virtually impossible to obtain legally, and only with a special government licence. Legally buying a full-auto anything will cost you five figures, easy.

In some states (e.g. California, New York, Massachusettes) you have magazine-capacity restrictions and mandatory registration of firearms. There are states that have mandatory gun-storage laws including use of locking devices. There are some states that collect information for the badly-named 'ballistic fingerprinting' system.

There are also numerous laws on transportation of a firearm. For example, in South Dakota you can wander around the prairie with a fully-loaded gun on the cab of your pickup truck perfectly legally, as long as it is not concealed. Try doing that in California and you'll be someplace you really don't want to be with a guy named "Rocks".

And much ink has been spilled over banning so-called 'assault weapons' to turn the Red Sea a nice shade of 'brick'. Because GOD FORBID a semi-automatic firearm have an ergonomic protruding pistol-grip on it.

So there are a log of gun laws on the books. I believe California has some 114,000 words in their guns laws, while Wyoming has about 3,200. And I know where I want to be at 2am Saturday morning after a night of drinking. The bad part of Jasper sounds pretty safe to me!

You can see a summary of a state's gun laws here: http://www.nraila.org/gunlaws/ For a real brain-twister, look up New York.

Look, two-thirds of all non-governmental firearms in the world are owned by US citizen, some 220 million guns. We really aren't doing all that bad, considering.

[benEzra]

64. Let's see...

Licenses to drive cars, insurance in case damage is caused, numerous safety regulations, and they aren't protected from lawsuits if they create a defective product. Licenses to sell alcohol, age restrictions, etc. There are even laws about the sales of meat and inspectors to make sure the meat is safe.

Let's see.


License required to carry a gun. Check.

Numerous safety regulations. Check. (Do I really need to list all the pertinent regulations for you?)

Gun manufacturers aren't protected from lawsuits if they create a defective product. Check. (The lawsuit preemption bill specifically allows such lawsuits.)

Licenses to sell. Check.

Age restrictions. Check.

Inspectors to ensure gun dealers are complying with the law. Check.



You were saying?

[thirdpower]

65. Actually...

You don't need a license, insurance, or registration to purchase a vehicle nor to use it on private land. You only need those to use it on public roads.

I could also raise and butcher my own meat w/o having to follow FDA standards as well as brewing as long as I don't sell it.

Firearms are not protected by laws if it is defective. They are protected from lawsuits by organizations and cities for the illegal actions of criminals. The same as if NY tried to sue Ford for the deaths caused by drunk drivers.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DIKB]

16. I'm not trying to harp on you

but you're sending two different messages.

Offering condolences while referring to them as "statistically insignificant."

The realist in me agrees with you mathematically, however referring to anyone's losses as being "insignificant" can be terribly cold-blooded.

This issue is very divisive and has a tendency to polarize people. The vast majority shouldn't be punished because of the actions of a few psychopaths. I agree that a background check is an affirmation, yet I am at a loss as to how to implement any additional qualifications/restrictions without infringing upon people's freedoms.

However, the NRA is wrong in it's "No Restrictions Whatsoever" approach, allowing fully automatic assault rifles to be freely accessible.

Just as in most scenarios, the balanced middle-ground is the best approach, not over-regulation or under-regulation.

[Squatch]

17. I was referring to the criminals/terrorists as statistically insignificant

Sorry for the confusion.

[DIKB]

18. Ah

I thought you meant the incident itself. Such as school shootings/horrific slayings.

Language and interpretation can be tricky buggers.

[benEzra]

63. Automatic assault rifles have been tightly controlled for 72 years now...

However, the NRA is wrong in it's "No Restrictions Whatsoever" approach, allowing fully automatic assault rifles to be freely accessible.

Automatic assault rifles, and all other automatic weapons, have been tightly controlled for 72 years now, by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act, which FWIW the NRA has always been OK with.

I'm not sure what you're thinking of, but NO automatic weapons are freely available in this country, at least not legally. To purchase an automatic assault rifle, you have to obtain Federal permission in the guise of a BATFE Form 4; they cost $15,000 to $75,000 due to the McClure-Volkmer Act; and all post-1986 specimens are restricted to military and police only, regardless.

If you're thinking of the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch, that topic pertains to non-automatic civilian rifles, shotguns, and handguns, not to military assault rifles.

[sandnsea]

23. You support reasonable gun regulation

The background check is perfectly reaonable to you. That is true of literally ever gun owner I know. That's quite a bit different from the 2nd Amendment extremists who don't want a single law impeding their ability to buy any weapon they want. I wish people like you would organize so that we might find some real cooperation to begin to truly solve gun crime.

[razors edge]

43. Your second amendment extremists

are not looking for a quick way to replace the saturday night special they ditched last night after knocking over the 7-11 so I don't see how agreement with them on regulation would reduce crime.

I am not a member of the NRA and never will be since it is no more than another gun registry that can be confiscated from them any time the ATF wants. I seriously doubt that drug dealers or other street criminals are members or donating cash to the NRA.

They look at the right to own a fully automatic 50 BMG as being the same god given right as abortion is to liberals. As they will ask, when was the last time you heard of a robber carrying 50 lbs of rifle and ammo that cost 10,000.00? I have fired the BMG and it's impressive, like an adrenaline rush, that is why they pay that much for them, no other reason.

Guns may be efficient but the killer instinct does not need them, and criminals generally do not rely on them as their only means of aggression. If I were robbing a bank and had to get away and was prepared to kill to do so, a gun is handy but if it jammed I would have to find another means to accomplish the task, and thats just life.

I am more concerned with the high level of trained killers we are producing and turning to the street when no longer needed. A wounded vet missing a leg or arm and sporting a bad case of PTSD will most likely seek a gun for protection, and he ain't going to go thru a background check.

[Swamp Rat]

48. "the NRA... is no more than another gun registry"

EXACTLY! :thumbsup:

If Martial Law is declared, all my friends who didn't listen to me will be the first ones to receive a vistit by the ATF.

Btw, they confiscated our guns (members of the NRA?) here in New Orleans during the hurricane Katrina disaster, and the Chief of Police said he will do it again the next time.

[razors edge]

52. do you remember mike malloy's

interview with the black guy who told about the immediate aftermath with whites "patrolling" their neighborhoods, then the next day they spread out and started shooting suspected looters. Then the blacks would pick up their own guns, patrol their neighborhoods, and then the gun confiscations started. That was surreal, but all too believable.

[Deep13]

67. Reminds me of something.

There was a number of people (mostly Black) trying to escape NO over a bridge to a neighboring town. The police of that town refused to let them cross the bridge and threatened to SHOOT them if they did not turn back. Do citizens now need permission to walk to the next town? Suppose they kept walking. Don't you think they had a right to defend themselves in a meaningful way rather than choosing between being shot on the one hand and starvation on the other?

[Redneck Socialist]

70. No fan of the NRA, but...

they don't support the "...right to own a fully automatic 50 BMG ..."

As far as I know the NRA has no problem with the current restrictions on the ownership of fully automatic weapons. There are plenty of good reasons to hate the NRA but they don't advocate a machine gun in every pot.

[benEzra]

61. I thought that by your definition,

You support reasonable gun regulation...The background check is perfectly reaonable to you. That is true of literally ever gun owner I know. That's quite a bit different from the 2nd Amendment extremists who don't want a single law impeding their ability to buy any weapon they want. I wish people like you would organize so that we might find some real cooperation to begin to truly solve gun crime.

I thought that by your definition, anyone who supported background checks and restrictions on automatic weapons, but who opposed restrictions on modern-looking non-automatic rifles, was one of those "2nd Amendment extremists"?

IMHO, the position of "no restrictions on anything for anybody" is a straw man. The gun issue is about whether or not to further restrict ownership of non-automatic civilian firearms under .51 caliber by the law-abiding, not about ownership of automatic weapons or repealing background checks.

I support the background check system. I am OK with the National Firearms Act. I oppose banning civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out, or mandating 1860's capacity limits. Would that "extremist," in your view?

[bamademo]

31. I'm against hunting but I believe in gun ownership

As a divorced woman who was violently raped in the past, I now am a strong advocate of personal protection. I will kill without guilt anyone who breaks into my home and threatens me with bodily harm.

[karlrschneider]

32. I recently acquired (via inheritance) a nice .357 S&W revolver.

To add to my collection. I've wanted another since my first one was burgled from my house while
I was in Japan but they're pricey. I am pleased. :D

[StraightDope]

41. Recommended...

As a voice of reason to counter the emotional zealotry of the anti-gun crowd.

[BrotherBuzz]

54. Replace an aging 30-06?

Jeez Louise, not counting civil war era wall hangers, my collection of rifles and shotguns averages age is 77 years old; all in in fine condition and ready to be pressed into service at a moment's notice. A vintage 30-06 would always welcome addition. What's wrong with the 30-06? Does it lack the bells and whistles and sex appeal it's young rival possesses? Oh the humanity, will nobody speak up for the fine old reliable and well crafted weapons of yesterday?

Oh, want to part with that old useless crappy aging rusty relic? ;)

[Deep13]

66. Steel barrels and receivers can fatigue with use.

I can see why someone might not trust an '03 Springfield, for example, that is left over from WW I.

[aikoaiko]

57. Am I a "black marketeer" gun dealer?

This isn't directed at Squatch in particular, but I replied to him.

I listed my Kel-tec .380 in the local newspaper with a price. I'm going to use the money toward the purchase of another gun. Kel-tecs pistols, for those of you who don't know, are generally considered inexpensive, but mostly reliable shooters. Some might consider them "junk guns" because they are inexpensive, not cosmetically pleasing, the gun's dimensions are tiny, and they come in small calibers, but I don't. I carried it for almost 2 years with every expectation that it might help me save my life if I needed to.

Kel-tec .380 (coincidentally, almost to scale)


I got a phone call from "Bill" who said he was helping his girlfriend "Hillary" (not their real names) find a small pistol to carry. I told him about the gun and we agreed to meet at a gas station located between our two residences. I met them both there and Hillary inspected the pistol and worked the action. She said she liked it. I told her that the only two requirements were that she show me a GA drivers license to prove her state residence and I couldn't know that she was a felon or otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm. Hillary handed me her license and the money. I handed her the license back, and Bill asked if everything about his was legal. I explained the law as best I could (including some of the laws pertaining to carrying a pistol), and we thanked each other before we drove away.

As I understand the law, this was a perfectly legal transaction between a non FFL and another state resident. If I had access to the NICS (National Instant Check System), I would have made the call, but as a non-ffl I cannot get access to that data. I have no desire to put guns in criminals hands, but I didn't want to lose money on the transaction either by selling it via an FFL dealer.

So there you go.

[Wickerman]

58. so, what are you carrying in the meantime?

If you are going to put the proceeds toward a new gun aren't you taking a huge chance by being unarmed in the meantime?

Oh, and completely off topic, why Bill and Hillary?

[aikoaiko]

62. I'm carrying my .357

The keltec .380 is a great pistol for carrying in shorts or my shirt pocket in the summer. But now that I'm wearing pants with big pockets I can throw in my Taurus 651 .357. Its made from titanium and pretty light for a .357.


Weight: 17.3 oz
Length: 6-1/2"
Width: 1.378"
Height: 4.28"

About Bill and Hillary: I didn't mean to offend, its just that I've been thinking about them and their impressively loyal relationship a lot lately and when I thought of pseudonyms they came to mind. I'd like to think that they would carry if they didn't have armed security and Secret Service protecting them.

[iverglas]

68. what fun

I have no desire to put guns in criminals hands, but I didn't want to lose money on the transaction either by selling it via an FFL dealer.

Gosh, which impulse won out?

Surely not the purely selfish one.

Surely you didn't put a few dollars ahead of the lives that could be lost or ruined if your pious desire not to put guns in criminals' hands just didn't stop it from happening.

Surely we hardly need any further demonstration of why laws are what is needed, laws that would require upstanding fellows like yourself, who would of course obey a law if only there were one, to do the right thing. Seems like nothing else is likely to do the trick.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted sub-thread

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

[aikoaiko]

72. You must have those strange CAN specs on again...

Please take them off now so that you can read more clearly and not skip important sentences.

(hehe, I like using your favorite taunt on you).

The sentence before the one you quoted was:
If I had access to the NICS (National Instant Check System), I would have made the call, but as a non-ffl I cannot get access to that data.

Currently, I am prevented from having access to the same database that FFLs have access to. I would have gladly made that phone call even if it weren't required. No law would be necessary.

[iverglas]

73. uh, so?

If I had access to the NICS (National Instant Check System), I would have made the call, but as a non-ffl I cannot get access to that data.

So somebody else is responsible for what you did?

Oooooo.

[thirdpower]

74. And she hops some more..

First she claims he "doesn't care" but dodges around the issues when proven wrong (again).

Keep dancing.

[iverglas]

75. not too big on logic, really, are you?

Person sells gun to other person without having a clue whether said other person is disentitled to possess gun.

Person who sells gun apparently not acting under duress, or out of irresistable impulse or in a state of automatonism, or under the influence of delusions as to the nature of the situation.

Hmm. I wonder what the LOGICAL conclusion is?

[thirdpower]

77. So now you're denying some more....

Your logic is obviously faulty. Since you keep implying he "didn't care" or committed a crime.

Keep dancing.

[iverglas]

78. use that dictionary now

Since you keep implying he "didn't care" or committed a crime.

Oh, but first, retract the part about committing a crime. Your assertion that I implied that he committed a crime is false and you have precisely nothing with which to substantiate it or even claim to have drawn a mistaken impression from.

I am not implying anything about whether he cared or not.

I am CONCLUDING, from the available FACTS (taking the ones presented at face value and assuming they are true), that the person who sold a firearm to a stranger in a parking lot DID NOT CARE whether that person was entitled to posess the firearm or not. I would further CONCLUDE that he DID NOT CARE about any crime that stranger might commit with that firearm, and DID NOT CARE about any victims of that crime.

A person who DID CARE about such things WOULD NOT SELL FIREARMS TO STRANGERS IN PARKING LOTS.

It's really that simple.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted sub-thread

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

[aikoaiko]

81. Why do you hate parking lots?

;-)

I realize that this type of unregistered sale of firearms between state residents is a pet peeve of yours and would like to see change in the US. I can understand your position, and sometimes sympathize.

My point about the unaccessible NCIS database was not to discuss blame (again, such strange specs you have these days), but rather to point out there is still room for change, easy change, low cost change, within the existing system for addressing concerns such as yours.

You wrote, "A person who DID CARE about such things WOULD NOT SELL FIREARMS TO STRANGERS IN PARKING LOTS". If I had known the woman was prohibited, I would NOT have sold the firearm to stranger, or an acquaintance, in a parking lot or anywhere else. I still don't understand why you hate parking lots, or strangers, either? I think your argument is stronger if you dropped the stranger and parking premises, and instead say that your conclusion is based on me not using available means to check on whether the buyer was prohibited because of cost to me and, in your opinion, cost is an insufficient reason to not use those available means.

I've sold other things too to strangers in a parking lots, but it doesn't mean I don't care if the person is prohibited from using the item or might commit a crime. I've sold plenty of cars to strangers in parking lots, and I didn't check to see if they lost their license for driving while intoxicated and I've sold knives at flea markets without checking to see if the buyer was a parolee prohibited from owning one. I still care about drunk driving and assaults with knives. How you ever sold an item to stranger that could be used to commit a crime? Did you not care? Is that the point? Do you feel guilty?

So again, why do you hate parking lots. Is it a Canadian thing?

[iverglas]

82. why would you think

say that your conclusion is based on me not using available means to check on whether the buyer was prohibited because of cost to me and, in your opinion, cost is an insufficient reason to not use those available means.

that this was my conclusion, when I have said nothing remotely resembling that?

How you ever sold an item to stranger that could be used to commit a crime? Did you not care? Is that the point? Do you feel guilty?

No. Not applicable. What? Not applicable.

The only thing I recall ever selling to a stranger was a book, when I worked in a book store ...

[aikoaiko]

83. why? because ....

You wrote in Post #78 to Thirdpower:
I am CONCLUDING, from the available FACTS (taking the ones presented at face value and assuming they are true), that the person who sold a firearm to a stranger in a parking lot DID NOT CARE whether that person was entitled to posess the firearm or not. I would further CONCLUDE that he DID NOT CARE about any crime that stranger might commit with that firearm, and DID NOT CARE about any victims of that crime.

A person who DID CARE about such things WOULD NOT SELL FIREARMS TO STRANGERS IN PARKING LOTS.

Here, it really seems like your arguing that I could not care have cared because I sold the a gun to someone I didn't know in a parking lot. But really, it seems like you think I didn't care because I didn't use an FFL middle man to sell the pistol because it would have cost me some money.


You wrote to me in Post #68:
:aikoaiko quote:I have no desire to put guns in criminals hands, but I didn't want to lose money on the transaction either by selling it via an FFL dealer.

Gosh, which impulse won out?

Surely not the purely selfish one.

Surely you didn't put a few dollars ahead of the lives that could be lost or ruined if your pious desire not to put guns in criminals' hands just didn't stop it from happening.

Of course, that post reads sarcastic to me so its not exactly clear what you were trying to say.

[iverglas]

86. y'know, I just find myself puking almost constantly these days

No, no; really, I'm just constantly amused. Not amazed, note.

You said to me:

You wrote, "A person who DID CARE about such things WOULD NOT SELL FIREARMS TO STRANGERS IN PARKING LOTS". If I had known the woman was prohibited, I would NOT have sold the firearm to stranger, or an acquaintance, in a parking lot or anywhere else. I still don't understand why you hate parking lots, or strangers, either?

I still don't understand, of course, why you would pretend to think, and why you would claim out loud, that I hate parking lots or strangers. It seems to me that, based on anything I have said, only a very, very stupid person would think that I hate parking lots or strangers, and only a very, very evil person, who was not actually so stupid as to think that, would say it out loud. That's just how it seems to me, of course. There may be a world of options I'm not considering, that you could bring to my attention and persuade me of; certainly I would reach no firm conclusion or make any public claim in this regard without having seen all the available information and heard all the available argument.

I wonder whether there is anyone else who doesn't understand why you engage in such a pretence / make such a claim. I suspect not.

I'll bet you don't cook lasagna with your spouse in the shower. Damn, why do you hate your spouse? What have you got against cleanliness?


Here, it really seems like your arguing that I could not care have cared because I sold the a gun to someone I didn't know in a parking lot. But really, it seems like you think I didn't care because I didn't use an FFL middle man to sell the pistol because it would have cost me some money.

Everywhere, and everytime, it really seems, and oddly enough it really is, that I have concluded that you put your own one hundred per cent selfish desire for as much money as you could get your hands on above the interests of everyone who might ever be in the vicinity of that firearm in not being placed at risk of harm.

Now, if you want it any clearer, I'll see what I can do.

[aikoaiko]

87. you're funny Iverglas.

lol. You think I am either very, very stupid, or very, very evil beause I teased you.

Now that's funny.

By the way, is it possible to have an 80% selfish desire, or 50%, or 10%.

You don't have to answer that... this is a good point to end this subthread.

[iverglas]

88. to be honest

I don't usually expect such demagoguery from you, but there's been such a plague of it hereabouts in the last little while that something that might be cute in another context kinda loses its cuteness possibly through no fault of its own. When you're being poked in the eye with a stick, you might fail to recognize a tickle in the ribs ...

So how many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?

[thirdpower]

89. None.

They'll sit there complaining about how women are underrepresented in the maintenance field while wondering when the repair guy is going to show up to do it.

[crazed_ss]

71. Congrats on the new Purchase Squatch

I just got a new rifle too.. 74 bucks at big 5 Sporting goods.
A Vintage Russian M38 Mosin Nagant Rifle in excellent condition with matching numbers. Even came with all the genuine Russian accessories. It's awesome.. like owning my own little piece of history.

It's the top one in this pic..

[Xela]

80. Mauser Action

Love the look of mauser actions, but I think I would have gone for a CZ.

Congrats on your purchase,

Xela