HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » When the fuck are we goin...

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:30 PM

When the fuck are we going to have some laws passed on guns?

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by tammywammy (a host of the General Discussion forum).

When is the insanity going to stop?

How many more people have to be shot because they are of color, because they are gay, disabled, muslim - or in Az some man who was from India was shot and killed because someone with a gun thought he was a Muslim.

How many more Presidents are going to be shot? I always always worry about our President.

How many more kids are going to go to school only to be shot because someone snuck a gun into the school?

How many more members of Congress have to be shot because they are of the wrong political party?

When is enough enough?

Why does the NRA have so much control over our country?

Laws are being passed to take guns to college, sporting events, BARS. All of this is just a tragedy waiting to happen.


I have had enough. Yes - I know the majority of people are responsible gun owners - but it's too fucking bad that a few people had to ruin it for everyone. Fuck Guns!

RIP Trayvon. I'm so sorry this happened to you

82 replies, 8117 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 82 replies Author Time Post
Reply When the fuck are we going to have some laws passed on guns? (Original post)
jillan Mar 2012 OP
sadbear Mar 2012 #1
XanaDUer Mar 2012 #8
gratuitous Mar 2012 #13
Throd Mar 2012 #2
USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #33
appal_jack Mar 2012 #69
Aerows Mar 2012 #3
Codeine Mar 2012 #7
Mojorabbit Mar 2012 #18
Drahthaardogs Mar 2012 #28
TheWraith Mar 2012 #29
Johnny Rico Mar 2012 #39
banned from Kos Mar 2012 #46
savalez Mar 2012 #77
L0oniX Mar 2012 #4
butterfly77 Mar 2012 #5
Tesha Mar 2012 #6
rhett o rick Mar 2012 #9
sikorsky Mar 2012 #10
jillan Mar 2012 #14
sikorsky Mar 2012 #19
Post removed Mar 2012 #26
jillan Mar 2012 #43
Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #62
jillan Mar 2012 #65
X_Digger Mar 2012 #70
slackmaster Mar 2012 #75
guitar man Mar 2012 #32
jillan Mar 2012 #44
OPOS Mar 2012 #52
Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #63
jillan Mar 2012 #66
slackmaster Mar 2012 #73
guitar man Mar 2012 #67
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #36
Johnny Rico Mar 2012 #40
savalez Mar 2012 #56
X_Digger Mar 2012 #58
Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #60
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #11
Speck Tater Mar 2012 #12
jillan Mar 2012 #16
The Doctor. Mar 2012 #23
X_Digger Mar 2012 #15
jillan Mar 2012 #17
X_Digger Mar 2012 #20
Johnny Rico Mar 2012 #42
sendero Mar 2012 #21
TheCowsCameHome Mar 2012 #22
Chorophyll Mar 2012 #24
felix_numinous Mar 2012 #25
The Doctor. Mar 2012 #27
jillan Mar 2012 #41
guitar man Mar 2012 #49
jillan Mar 2012 #53
X_Digger Mar 2012 #61
guitar man Mar 2012 #74
OPOS Mar 2012 #51
jillan Mar 2012 #55
MrSlayer Mar 2012 #30
X_Digger Mar 2012 #35
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2012 #37
slackmaster Mar 2012 #64
uponit7771 Mar 2012 #31
Fla_Democrat Mar 2012 #34
LonePirate Mar 2012 #38
Really people... Mar 2012 #45
Atypical Liberal Mar 2012 #47
jillan Mar 2012 #50
slackmaster Mar 2012 #57
Edweird Mar 2012 #59
jillan Mar 2012 #68
slackmaster Mar 2012 #72
OPOS Mar 2012 #80
jimlup Mar 2012 #48
Odin2005 Mar 2012 #54
fujiyama Mar 2012 #71
sadbear Mar 2012 #76
X_Digger Mar 2012 #79
sadbear Mar 2012 #81
badtoworse Mar 2012 #78
tammywammy Mar 2012 #82

Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:33 PM

1. There will never be meaningful federal gun control legislation passed in this country ever again.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:41 PM

8. Sadly I agree nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:46 PM

13. Sadly, I disagree

Your subject line is one word too long.

Our national religion is the High Church of Redemptive Violence, and we'll give up guns and violence about the time that Muslims give up their Korans and mosques, Christians give up Bibles and churches, and Mormons give up the Book of Mormon and temples. We cluck our tongues over the totally foreseeable and wholly preventable deaths and maimings, but because we love guns and violence more than we hate premature death, meaningful regulation of firearms is relegated to the never-never land of that quaint old document, as meaningless as the right to a speedy trial or due process.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:33 PM

2. What laws would you propose?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:34 PM

33. +1 The most important question of all

unanswered so far.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:04 PM

69. Let's ban crime instead!

 

Because, you see, if crime were illegal, criminals wouldn't dare commit it, right?



Let me be perfectly clear: everything I have read so far about the Trayvon Martin case thus far indicates that he was the victim of insensate racism, disproportionate violence, and very possibly also premeditated murder. Zimmerman should certainly have been arrested the day of the shooting, and a jury should be now examining the facts of this case.

But short of vaporizing every gun, nay every weapon including shoes, fists, bats, knives, etc.; the problems of power, privilege, and violent crime will persist. The roots of the problem here are racism, white privilege, class entitlement, an overly-entitled cop-wannabe (Zimmerman), and a Police Department that apparently tolerates the murder of a black man by a white perpetrator who was expressly disobeying the guidance of a 911-dispatcher.

Changes in gun laws are not even remotely solutions for the cases of Trayvon Martin, Gabby Giffords, or for that matter, MLK or JFK.

Anyone here who wishes to build alliances advocating for better mental health care, a PD more focused on stopping violence, a wider social safety net, etc.: I'm your enthusiastic ally. But start talking about further erasing civil liberties as a solution to this (or any) crisis, and you lose me and thousands (maybe millions) like me.

-app

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:34 PM

3. Never, hopefully

 

I'm as liberal as they come, but if you charge into my space with a weapon? Mine's going to be there.

It's naive to think we can stuff the toothpaste back in the tube with respect to guns.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:40 PM

7. +1. Aerows is awesome. nt

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:50 PM

18. +10000 nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:12 PM

28. It always amazes me when people are so ready to give up their rights.

Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment is a personal right, not a collective one. Remember the Patriot Act? I hated that too.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:13 PM

29. Not to mention it's naive to think we can coerce people into being good.

That not allowing people to have guns is going to be any more effective than not allowing them to have marijuana or cocaine. Violent people commit violent acts, and have since the weapon of choice was a rock or a stick. England disarmed by law, and it did nothing to curb their crime problem or their murders. Using that money for mental health services would be a hundred times more effective.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:21 PM

39. +1

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:30 PM

46. YES + 500. Dems want to lose? Ban guns!

 

We will LOSE big time.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:16 PM

77. In all fairness,

none of the victims that the OP referred to "charged into anybodies space". To use your analogy, I think the OP's point was that instead of putting a cap on the tube, legislators are squeezing it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:35 PM

4. I'm sure the Iragis, Afgans and Paks feel the same way.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:38 PM

5. They did

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=JEB+BUSH+AND+FLORIDA+guns&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFYQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Farmsandthelaw.com%2Farchives%2F2005%2F04%2Fjeb_bush_signs.php&ei=prRnT7SmJoXi0QHVy9XtCA&usg=AFQjCNGQ4IhWu-OfZb24MMql627j5M6rrQ&cad=rja


Jeb Bush signs "no retreat" into FLA law
Posted by David Hardy · 27 April 2005 07:26 AM

Jeb Bush just signed into law the Florida no-retreat bill, which provides that a person need not retreat from an attack, may "stand his ground" and use deadly force if he reasonably believes he or another person is threatened by death or serious physical injury. (The retreat requirement imposes a restriction on self-defense: in addition to a threat of death or serious injury, the defender had to show they had tried to retreat, or that retreat exposed them to greater danger. Court decisions had already removed that requirement within the defender's home or business).

What's remarkable is the press coverage. It's ... actually pretty balanced. Am I the only one noticing a certain change from the days 10-20-30 years ago, when Brady Campaign or Nat'l Coalition to Ban Handguns could make any claim it wanted and have it favorably reported (Forget having their press releases reprinted as news stories: there was one hiliarious case where it went the other way, an AP story was so one-sided that one gun

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:42 PM

9. Never, our society is progressing backwards. nm

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:43 PM

10. There are thousands of gun laws...what would you suggest?

 

Please don't be offended, I'm not defending that guy who shot the kid, but how do you think we should 'fix' it?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sikorsky (Reply #10)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:46 PM

14. By not having laws saying it's okay to shoot someone that you don't like.

By having background checks so the Jared Loughners of the world would not be able to buy a gun.

By not allowing guns into places like bars where people get drunk and then argue. Or onto college campuses.

By limiting the amount of rounds that can be shot from one clip.

By limiting assault weapons as we did in the 90s. You don't need an assault weapon to kill a deer.


That would be a nice start right there.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:53 PM

19. Well, I see you have no knowledge about guns, so I think I'll just skip this discussion

 

Since none of those "suggestions" have any relevance to the incident that prompted your post.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #14)


Response to Post removed (Reply #26)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:26 PM

43. WE do NOT have background checks in Arizona - and who do you think you are calling me 'dear'?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #43)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:59 PM

62. Yes you do. It is a federal law.

 

WE do NOT have background checks in Arizona

Jillan, I'm afraid you don't understand the gun laws.

All firearms sold new must be sold through a FFL - Federal Firearms License - dealer. Such dealers often sell used firearms also, but that does not matter.

Any time anyone buys a firearm through an FFL, they must, by federal law, pass the NICS (National Instant Check System) background check.

Loughner bought his firearm at a FFL dealer and he passed the NICS background check.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #43)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:01 PM

65. Not at gun shows. Undercover police have gone in and purchased guns without a background check.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #65)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:06 PM

70. Yes, federal law applies at gun shows.

You'll notice this bit from the article you posted- "private and unlicensed sellers".

That's who is not required to do a background check. If any federally licensed dealer sells a gun to someone other than another dealer, an NICS background check is performed, regardless of venue.

Venue has nothing to do with the applicability of federal firearms law.

I understand what you're getting at, but you're overreaching a bit.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #65)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:13 PM

75. Please read the article more carefully. Private, unlicensed people can sell used firearms...

 

...without a background check on the buyer. That is true in most states. In fact there is no legal way for them to use the federal National Instant Check System that gun dealers are required to use.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:31 PM

32. ...

By having background checks so the Jared Loughners of the world would not be able to buy a gun.


Loughner went through a background check and passed it. If he didn't, he could have gotten one off the street

By not allowing guns into places like bars where people get drunk and then argue.

Agreed, I know it's against the law to pack inside a bar in my state, and most places.I doubt we'll see any laws requiring metal detectors/detailed weapons searches at bar entrance though

Or onto college campuses.

Colleges are allowed to set their policies, many prohibit guns on campus. However, that hasn't stopped the criminals from taking them onto campus anyway. Again, you want a gun free zone, metal detectors and guards doing searches at all entrances is the only way to get close to that goal

By limiting the amount of rounds that can be shot from one clip.


By clip I'm assuming you mean magazine. I doubt it would make much difference,the VT shooter accomplished his horrid task with standard 10 round mags.

By limiting assault weapons as we did in the 90s. You don't need an assault weapon to kill a deer.


"Assault Weapon" is a made up term to describe ordinary rifles and shotguns that have been dressed up with a few cosmetic and ergonomic features. They have no extraordinary power that other common weapons don't have.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guitar man (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:27 PM

44. WE do NOT have background checks in Arizona - all you need is an gov't id.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #44)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:49 PM

52. Not exactly true

 

New York doesnt have background checks either. The Federal Government under the aegis of the FBI does the background check. Arizona has no permiting process that allows for modes of carry: Open/Concealed.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #44)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:00 PM

63. Untrue. If you buy through an FFL you must, by federal law, undergo a NICS check.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #63)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:02 PM

66. But they are not being done - here -

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #66)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:12 PM

73. As stated in the cited article, "private and unlicensed sellers" don't have to do background checks

 

Nobody is denying that.

Gun dealers, who are required to have federal firearms licenses, have to do background checks on all sales to non-licensees.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #44)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:03 PM

67. To purchase a firearm at a licensed dealer

Background checks through NICS are required in all 50 states, it's federal

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:44 PM

36. Much of what you want is already in place or shown to be ineffective

Its illegal to use deadly force unless you are in reasonable fear of your life. There is no law that says "it's okay to shoot someone that you don't like"

Loughner passed a background check

Those who carry are not allowed to imbibe in those states that allow patrons of drinking establishments to carry inside. That includes restaurants, not just bars.

Clip restrictions are meaningless and ineffective. If the cops can have a greater than 10 rd magazine, no reason the rest of us should not.

Limiting assault weapons did nothing in terms or crime reduction. Also its a misnomer, since nothing available to the public is selective fire. Hunting rules strict the qty of rounds in the gun, so no one kills Bambi with a 30 round magazine, even if they are using one of the evil black plastic guns.


All the above aside, what Zimmerman did was inexcusable. It does not appear to be self defense in the least. The gun was not the problem, Zimmerman was.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:23 PM

40. I was going to do a point by point refutation, but others have beat me to it.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johnny Rico (Reply #40)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:54 PM

56. How about the "background check" one?

Some posts claim that Loughner passed a background check and some claim that AZ doesn't do background checks.

So somebody's make stuff up. Which is it?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Reply #56)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:56 PM

58. They're talking past each other..

Loughner did pass a background check (there was nothing in his background that would legally preclude his purchase of firearms), but AZ does not require a background check for person-to-person sales. Only when purchased from a federally licensed dealer, as Loughner did.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:57 PM

60. It's not OK to shoot someone that you don't like.

 

By not having laws saying it's okay to shoot someone that you don't like.

It's not "okay to shoot someone that you don't like."

Whenever there is a shooting, there is an investigation. Now in the Zimmerman case it looks like the police were extremely slack in their initial investigation, but you can bet there is going to be a rigorous one now.

No one gets a free pass when they shoot and kill someone. Even in clear-cut cases of self-defense you can almost always bank on tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses.

Floridia's "stand your ground" law simply means that when people are presented with a reasonable threat of violence they do not have a duty to run away. I personally think that is great. There is nothing wrong with running away from bad people doing bad things, but we should always honor and respect those few who stand up to bad people doing bad things, especially when they do so at great personal risk to themselves.

By having background checks so the Jared Loughners of the world would not be able to buy a gun.

Jared Loughner bought his firearm from a Federally Licensed firearm dealer - The Sportsman's Warehouse's in Tucson. As such, he must have (and did) undergone and passed the NICS federal background check.

By not allowing guns into places like bars where people get drunk and then argue. Or onto college campuses.

All of these laws concern people with Concealed Carry Permits. While the specifics vary by state, this means that you must be 21 years old and have undergone a background check. Such people are many times less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime, than anyone else you will encounter in public.

The law concerning "bars" was mostly aimed at restaurants that happen to serve alcohol. For example, if you carry a concealed firearm and you go to the Outback Steakhouse, Longhorns, Red Lobster, Applebees, Ruby Tuesday's, or any other countless restaurants that have bars on the premises, before many CCW permit holders would have to leave their firearms in their cars.

It was illegal before and it is still illegal for anyone to drink and carry a firearm. Thus the only CCW permit holders who would be carrying firearms into bars are people who are the designated drivers.

As for college campuses, I go to school at the University of Alabama Huntsville. I have class in the very same building where Amy Bishop shot 6 people, killing 3. Guns are not allowed on campus by the University. This did not stop Amy Bishop at all. The only people who are stopped by such policies are the people who obey the rules.

If a person has been judged fit by the state to walk down main street with a gun, surrounded by hundreds of his fellow citizens, there is no reason why he can't walk down main street on a college campus the same way.

By limiting the amount of rounds that can be shot from one clip.

The point of the second amendment was to make sure that the people possessed military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use. Civilian weapons should have the same ammunition-holding capacity as the military-grade small arms.

By limiting assault weapons as we did in the 90s.

The assault weapons ban was a disaster for the Democratic Party. President Clinton said so himself.

But worse, the assault weapon ban literally accomplished nothing. Nothing. About the only thing it changed is you could no longer buy an assault weapon with a bayonet lug, as if there were a big problem with drive-by bayonettings.

All the manufacturers and importers of such weapons did was change the US-made parts count to comply with the letter of the law. I bought my first AK-47 variant after the passage of the ban specifically because of the ban - I wanted to get in while the getting was good. It has no bayonet lug, and it has a US-made pistol grip and a US-made fire control group. Other than that, it is identical to pre-ban civilian AK-47s.

Note also that the ban made these firearms hugely, hugely popular. Prior to the ban the AR-15 platform was not a very popular weapons platform. Today it is the most popular centerfire target rifle in America.

You'll also note that there are only about 300 homicides every year committed using any kind of rifle, let alone assault rifles. This is half as many people as are killed each year using hands and feet. There is no serious rifle-crime problem in the United States. Even if you made every assault rifle in the country vanish overnight it would hardly make any difference in violent crime in the United States.

You don't need an assault weapon to kill a deer.

Bear in mind that the second amendment is not about hunting. The second amendment is about keeping military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use in the hands of civilians. The second amendment is about killing people in preservation of liberty, not deer.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:43 PM

11. When it happens it will seem out of the blue

 

But we are moving towards a cultural turning point IMO.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:45 PM

12. And there will inevitably be those who will say ...

 

that if Trayvon had been carrying a gun he would have been safer.

And that's bullshit!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Speck Tater (Reply #12)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:48 PM

16. Oh yeah - that argument was made when Gabby Giffords was shot.

Never mind that there was someone there with a gun that almost shot the wrong person.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Speck Tater (Reply #12)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:08 PM

23. Around here, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who'd say that.

 


That's just a deliberate mischaracterization some people use to pretend all pro-2nd advocates are crazy. But I agree, there are crazy people who might say something stupid like that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:48 PM

15. Not likely..

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #15)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:49 PM

17. That is so depressing.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:56 PM

20. Ehn, depends on your perspective..

Crime (even crime with guns) continues to drop, even with relaxed firearms laws.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-jun-2011

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:25 PM

42. I disagree; it's actually quite encouraging!

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 06:58 PM

21. Let's pass laws on racism..

.... while we are at it. Once you are in unicorn-skittles land, anything goes.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:02 PM

22. This FL thing will open some eyes.

.....unfortunately too late for this young man.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:08 PM

24. This country loves its guns.

Personally, I don't understand the fascination and I won't go near one. But a good portion of DU seems to be enamored of firearms, and it always surprises me.

To your point about that poor kid in Florida, I have NEVER heard of a neighborhood watch volunteer running around armed. This guy seems to be a loose cannon (unfortunate pun) and it was a matter of time before he shot someone. Too bad he didn't shoot himself first.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:08 PM

25. The insane hate, bigotry and ignorance

threaten our civil liberties and Constitutional rights. Our right to bear arms is meant for a populace that can self-govern. Our rights to free speech, freedom of the press--everything--is being threatened because these rights are being abused by an increasingly hostile and intolerant sect of our population.

Sometimes I wonder if the RW has created this insanity just so it can justify taking our rights away from us. I guess I am trying to make sense of it all. I feel so helpless against such deep ignorance and hate.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:09 PM

27. There are many laws. A simple Google would have informed you of that.

 


What other ones would you propose?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #27)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:23 PM

41. How about background checks before someone could purchase a firearm for starters?

Gabe Zimmerman would have appreciated that law.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #41)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:39 PM

49. background checks are already required

to purchase a gun from a licensed dealer. Something I've been a proponent of for quite a while is to provide a practical way for private individuals selling guns to access the NICS system for use in private sales so law abiding citizens could run the same check on anyone they are selling a gun to.

The black market... well, there's not much that can be done about that....

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guitar man (Reply #49)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:50 PM

53. They are not required in Arizona -not sure about other states.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #53)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:57 PM

61. They are required when you purchase from a federally licensed dealer. n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #53)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:12 PM

74. If buying from a federally licensed firearms dealer

yes they are required. If the dealer isn't doing the checks before selling the guns, he's violating federal law.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #41)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:45 PM

51. NICS- National Instant Crime Check System

 

The FBI has been doing them since 1998 at least in this mode.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.

Before that I believe there was a waiting period for Handguns but not for Longguns (rifle/shotgun).

And I believe you mean Trayvon would have appreciated Zimmermann not having access to a firearm, which I agree
In Zimmermanns case I'm not sure how such a check would have stopped him from purchasing a gun since from what I read his prior arrest charges were dropped in 2005. those charges were oddly dropped IMO as Assault and Battery of a Police Officer is usuallly a throw the book at crime.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OPOS (Reply #51)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:51 PM

55. I was referring to Gabe Zimmerman, Gabby Giffords aide that was shot and killed.

You do not need anything other than a driver's license in Az to buy a handgun of any kind.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:20 PM

30. The "stand your ground" law was the problem here.

 

Not necessarily any gun law or lack thereof. Many people predicted what happened to this kid would happen because of this idiotic law. Expect more of it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #30)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:36 PM

35. Actually, no the defense that Zimmerman is relying on would be precluded by FL law..

[div class='excerpt']776.041 Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


.. assuming Sanford PD weren't covering for his sorry ass.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #30)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:47 PM

37. Actually it is not

Since under it deadly force still needs to be justified.

Read the law, do not listen to the media and other shrill voices on this.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #30)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:01 PM

64. I disagree. I don't believe Zimmerman's behavior can be justified under Florida law because...

 

...he initiated the confrontation with Trayvon Martin.

I believe the law, at least so far, has been misapplied. Perhaps a case can be made that the law as it stands is confusing for the police. Or perhaps the police involved in this incident are corrupt or lazy.

The Astute Reader will note that nobody has suggested that the shooting was MORALLY right.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:31 PM

31. We FIRST need a more progressive congress PERIOD and we can get all the laws we want passed

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:35 PM

34. Because there are none now

Oh, wait, never mind.










Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:47 PM

38. It will never happen so long as some people use irrational fear to pit people against each other

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:29 PM

45. If all

 

If all the crazy people who think all guns should be taken away were right about all the stuff they said would happen none of you would even be here to argue your point time to get off the guns are bad guns kill its always the guns crap!!!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:37 PM

47. Violent crime is at a decades-long low.

 

I have had enough. Yes - I know the majority of people are responsible gun owners - but it's too fucking bad that a few people had to ruin it for everyone. Fuck Guns!

Would you be willing to apply this to any other Constitutionally-enumerated right?

"Yes - I know the majority of people are responsible with their free speech, but it's too fucking bad that a few people had to ruin it for everyone. Fuck the KKK! Fuck Westboro!"

"Yes - I know the majority of people get a trial by their peers, but it's too fucking bad that a few people had to ruin it for everyone. Fuck the prisoners at Guantanamo!"

As President Obama has said, "Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land."

We cannot destroy a Constitutionally-enumerated right because of people like Zimmerman.

As you note, the majority of people are responsible gun owners. In fact, over 95% of firearm owners aren't involved in violent crime every year - they can't be - there simply aren't enough violent crimes to go around even if every single violent crime were committed by gun owners.

It's not fair to the overwhelming majority of people to punish them for the actions of a tiny minority.

Why does the NRA have so much control over our country?

Because when people such as yourself start suggesting that the 40-80 million of us who own firearms should be penalized because of the actions of people like George Zimmerman, we organize, we fund-raise, we lobby, and we vote. And we do so in a collective manner unmatched by any anti-gun group that has ever existed. I refuse to have my rights and multi-generational tradition of firearm usage harmed because of the actions of criminals.

Laws are being passed to take guns to college, sporting events, BARS. All of this is just a tragedy waiting to happen.

Laws are being passed to allow CCW permit holders to do those things. And CCW permit holders are many times less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime, than the rest of the public you are going to encounter in your travels.

And you may also be interested to know that violent crime has been on a decades-long decline, in spite of record numbers of firearms in circulation.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #47)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:42 PM

50. You are incorrect. You do not need a permit to carry a weapon into a bar in all states - google it.


And as far as free speech being taken away - why don't you talk to OWS protesters in New York? Google it.

We don't have to change the constitution, but why can anyone in my state walk into a gun show and buy a machine gun with just a driver's license and no background check? Where in the constitution does it say that?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #50)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:54 PM

57. It's not legal to transfer a machine gun in the manner you described ANYWHERE in the US

 

It's true that there are no background checks for private sales of used ORDINARY firearms in Arizona, but that does not apply to machine guns or other items covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

All sales of firearms, new or used, from legal gun dealers (i.e. federally licensed dealers) in Arizona are subject to a background check on the buyer. That is federal law - The Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended by the permanent provisions of the Brady Act and several other pieces of legislation.

http://azccw.com/purchasingfirearminarizona.htm

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #50)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:56 PM

59. "anyone in my state walk into a gun show and buy a machine gun with just a driver's license and

 

no background check"

No they can't. If you believe that you are wrong. If you were told that is was by a liar. That is absolutely, categorically, and demonstrably false. I challenge you to substantiate that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to jillan (Reply #68)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:09 PM

72. jillian, this may seem "picky" to you but neither of those stories involves sales of machine guns

 

Yes, there are no background checks required on private sales of used firearms within the state of Arizona. But the National Firearms Act requires that all machine guns be registered with the federal government, and that all transfers go through a federal background check, require payment of a $200 transfer tax, and several other significant hoops.

I have a Federal Firearms License BTW. It's my responsibility to know and comply with all federal and state gun laws.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Reply #50)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:21 PM

80. First of all, lets dispell your hysteria

 

You cannot anywhere in this country walk right into a gun store/show and buy a Machinegun, even in Arizona. the process to get the Automatic Weapon is an Exhaustive DOJ/FBI background check etc. Approval can take months.

The Process
Since the National Firearms Act of 1934, individuals buying machineguns have required the same procedure for each machinegun.
1) Federal transfer form with fingerprints and photographs for the background check.
2) One-time transfer tax of $200.
When your form is approved, a Federal stamp in the amount of $200 is attached to your form certifying approval. This form is your ‘permission slip’ to own that specific machinegun.

Eligibility:
1. You must be a US citizen over 21
2. You must not have been convicted of a crime
3. You must live in a state and jurisdiction that does not prohibit machineguns.

States that prohibit machineguns:
California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New York, Rhode Island, Washington


There are storage requirements like a approved Vault, your local LEO must be informed about it and there are travel restrictions, use restrictions, etc. Since the 1934 act there has been 2 cases where a registered Machinegun was used in a crime. A Police Officer in 1980's used his registered MAC-11 to murder a confidential Informant, and a Doctor who used a MAC-11 to kill a love rival, this out of over 350,000 registered auto weapons. a Machinegun can cost easily 15,000.00 to start. you dont find the owners typically go through the registration process and then shoot up a 7-11 or campus. many dont even shoot them but buy them as investments as the prices go only up each year because of the finite amount available.

Gunshow NICS are easy. Here in NY it takes all of 10 minutes by phone to either approve or disapprove the sale of a firearm. Obviously diferent states, different laws, but federally the checks are done daily

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:37 PM

48. Completely Agree and I'm surprised at how hard this message is to say even here... /nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:50 PM

54. Do that and kiss the purple states goodbye.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:06 PM

71. For the while being

I'd say the issue is comatose since its appeal is extremely limited. I don't think there is much interest among politicians in bringing this issue up, except for Feinstein and Schumer. Even both of them have shut up about it for now.These are two safe Democratic states. Pushing for gun control laws is a killer electorally in the midwest, the south, mountain states, and among less urban areas of what are traditionally blue states as well.

Face it, this country loves its guns. Yes, the fascination (from an outside perspective) is kinda bizarre, but makes sense given the history of this country.

It could be argued that the Democratic loss of congress in '94 was partly due to the Clinton administration pushing gun control legislation. Gore's loss of OH, TN, AR, VW, and several other states can also be attributed in part to his stance on the issue.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:16 PM

76. Maybe we should lean on "responsible" gun-owners to push for harsher penalties

for criminals who use guns during their respective crimes. After all, those criminals give ALL gun owners a bad reputation, and really, it seems to me that gun-owners feel they are the only ones with any credibility on the issue anyway. Are they already doing this? If they are, why haven't they been more successful?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #76)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:19 PM

79. Actually, they have.. via.. get this.. the NRA.

The NRA has repeatedly lobbied for 'sentence enhancements' for the use of a gun during the commission of a crime.

I don't know if anyone has studied the effectiveness of such measures, but anecdotally, they're often bargained away by prosecutors- they're something of a 'Sword of Damocles' to hold over criminal suspects.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #79)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:22 PM

81. Certainly such a powerful lobby would have more success?

Sounds like only nominal effort to me. How about a serious effort then? Anyone?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:17 PM

78. You should educate yourself on the subject

 

From your postings in this thread, I would say you have much to learn.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jillan (Original post)

Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:24 PM

82. Please repost in Gun Control & RKBA

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink