Gun control as an election issue; we should:

[Padraig18]

Poll question: Gun control as an election issue; we should:

Please vote.

[Padraig18]

1. I'm detecting some '3rd rail' sentiment in these votes.

:)

[lcordero]

5. 3rd rail? No

Feingold is leaning against it renewing the AWB because of disinfo.

I favor abolishing the Machine Gun Act, the Gun Control Act of 1968, licensing schemes, permit schemes, and Carry & conceal schemes.

People who have made mistakes should have all of their rights back when they have already paid their debt to society.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

12. better idea - make sure every Dem has an AW

they will never steal an election again. I'm only half kidding.

[lcordero]

56. well I'm serious about it

[RoeBear]

13. You're a crazy extremist...

...:toast:

[lcordero]

53. :D

[savior93]

2. gun show loop hole?

there is no gun show loop hole. the dealers there have to follow all the laws that other dealers have to. back ground checks and pistol permits are required for all purchases through the dealers. i can't tell you the number of times i was stuck a gun show for hours until my background check went through. private sells are banned but not illegal. i can sell guns through my local newspaper if i wish. the INTERNET is slowly killing gun shows any way. much better prices

[Padraig18]

4. yes, there IS a gun show loophole.

Your background check was done because of a state law, and not a federal law. A uniform federal law would close the 'loophole' on gun shows, whicg currently are regulated by state law as regards this issue.

[savior93]

11. NICS

the back ground check is called NICS, this stands for NATIONAL instant check system. it is a federal program.

[Padraig18]

14. True, but immaterial.

At this point, it's a STATE decision on whether to requite that it be used at gun shows. You should try Googling it, if you doubt me. :)

[savior93]

18. NICS

can you name a state that exempts itself from this program? which state can i go to and buy a gun without a NATIONAL instant background check?

[Padraig18]

20. That is NOT the point.

The use the NATIONAL system, but not because of FEDERAL LAW! Gun show background checks remain a matter of STATE law, and yes, I CAN name a state--- Indiana.

Education on this issue is a wonderful thing---that's why I suggested you try the Google search engine to ascertain the facts of the matter.

[savior93]

26. link please.

i would like the link to the site that says Indiana residents are not required to fill out form 4473. that could be interesting. so are you saying Indiana is suppling the nations criminals with firearms?

[Padraig18]

28. I've suggested 3 times that you Google the issue.

I have no intention of doing the research for you; if you think I'm wrong, then prove it.

Have a nice day. :eyes:

[savior93]

30. google

i am not the one making claims i cant back up. if you have done the grueling research educate us all. do tell, where is this info?

[Padraig18]

32. Bye.

Snarkiness just cost you a thoughtful reply.*waves bye*

[savior93]

37. snarkiness

i am sorry if i was snarky. i am haveing cat trouble. it is snowing here in n.c. and my young male cat cant go out. he is driving my old female cat and every one else in this house crazy. it is enough to make a monk snarky. good luck

[Padraig18]

44. You're forgiven, and I also apologize.

I'm recovering from the flu myself, and I'm still not feeling the best in the world. Shake hands? :hi:

[savior93]

50. yes indeed

i will shake your hand. however the info i dug up in the mean time says that as of Oct. 1 2003 all Indiana ffl holders are required to comply with the FBI NICS program. i do see your point about private sells though. i recently sold some of my guns but i went through a dealer. i did not like the sound of some of the callers i had when i advertised in the local paper. i hope you feel better

[Fla_Democrat]

33. I "Googled it", and am still confused

Your point is that it is up to the state, but the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence claim "the Gun Show Loophole" is....

The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone in the business of selling guns to obtain a federal firearms license (FFL) and keep a record of their sales. However, this law does not cover all gun sellers. If a supplier is selling from his or her private collection and the principal objective is not to make a profit, the seller is not "engaged in the business" and is not required to have a license. Because they are unlicensed, these sellers are not required to keep records of sales and are not required to perform background checks on potential buyers, even those prohibited from purchasing guns by the Gun Control Act. The Gun Show Loophole refers to the fact that these unlicensed sellers are not required to perform a criminal background check on potential buyers. This makes it far easier for guns to fall into the hands of criminals and even children. For example, guns used in shootings at Columbine High School and the day care center shooting in Granada Hills, CA were purchased through unlicensed dealers at gun shows – no background checks were required.

http://www.gunfree.org/content/coalition/coal_gunshow.html



The Children's Defense Fund states...

What is the gun show loophole?

The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone in the business of selling guns to have a Federal Firearms License (FFLs), keep a record of sales, and perform Brady background checks on potential customers to screen against sales to criminals and juveniles. However, as the law currently stands, private dealers who are not "engaged in the business" of selling guns for a profit are not required to have a license. Thus, these unlicensed sellers at gun shows are not required to keep a record of sales or to perform Brady background checks on potential buyers

http://www.cdfactioncouncil.org/gunshow%20loophole.htm



So, from Googling, it states that the problem with gun shows (and newspaper ads, and private contact between individuals, etc.) is that the people selling the firearms are not dealers, and hence not subject to the NICS.

Clearly supporting RoeBear's opinion in post 17.

"If there is a loophole it's a private sale loophole."

So, what am I missing???? :shrug:

[Padraig18]

34. What you're missing:

Some STATES have chosen to close this exception (18, I believe), but 32 have not; hence, some would like the 'loophole' to be closed by federal legislation, so that ALL buyers would have to be checked, and all sellers licensed.

[savior93]

38. gun show?

what dose this have to do with gun shows. every show i have attended has banned private sells. they are loaded with police and attendants. it is the last place i would go if i were a felon and looking for a gun to purchase

[Padraig18]

40. That was a private decision by the operators of the show.

Not all operators do what the ones you went to did.

[Fla_Democrat]

39. Oh, so you want total gun control, gotcha

"ALL buyers would have to be checked, and all sellers licensed"

Even those that are not at gun shows? If not, why not? Is not the private seller at the gun show not the same as the private seller at the VFW dance? The private seller running an ad in the paper? The private seller dealing with an old classmate at a high school reunion?

It seems that there is no "Gun Show Loophole", as pointed out by several posters, and more a "non-FFL" loophole.

It seems that the people who are required to do the background check have to do it at gun shows, and at their place or business. People who do not have to do the background check, don't have to do it regardless of whether the gun is sold at a gun show, in a newspaper, or out of their car trunks. Even you say....."all sellers licensed."

Sorry, can't support that, thanks for clarifying though. I guess "Not push for any new gun-control legislation at all." is the closest choice that meets my beliefs. :hi:

[Padraig18]

42. Look, I'm NOT for more control.

The statement was made specifically about GUN SHOWS, not individual, private sales (see: context). Look at my candidate avatar; my position is his position.

[Fla_Democrat]

51. Then please tell me the difference

between an unlicensed seller at a "gun show" and an unlicensed dealer in a classified ad.

The seller at the gun show you want to do the background check is a private seller. The person who is in the business, has to do a background check, no matter where he is, yes, even at a gun show.

Again, I go back to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.....


http://www.gunfree.org/content/coalition/coal_gunshow.html

"The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone in the business of selling guns to obtain a federal firearms license (FFL) and keep a record of their sales. However, this law does not cover all gun sellers. If a supplier is selling from his or her private collection and the principal objective is not to make a profit, the seller is not "engaged in the business" and is not required to have a license. Because they are unlicensed, these sellers are not required to keep records of sales and are not required to perform background checks on potential buyers, even those prohibited from purchasing guns by the Gun Control Act. The Gun Show Loophole refers to the fact that these unlicensed sellers are not required to perform a criminal background check on potential buyers. This makes it far easier for guns to fall into the hands of criminals and even children. For example, guns used in shootings at Columbine High School and the day care center shooting in Granada Hills, CA were purchased through unlicensed dealers at gun shows – no background checks were required."


I will check in to Howard Dean's position, since it is your position as well.

Yep, here it is....

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/cg/index.html?type=page&pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_sensiblegunlaws

I don’t think we need a lot of new federal laws. But we do need to do a few things at the federal level, like requiring Insta-Check on all retail and gun show sales. We also must do a better job of enforcing the laws on the books. President Bush promised to be tough in enforcing gun laws, but his Administration has prosecuted only about 2% of all gun crimes and they are virtually ignoring 20 of the 22 major federal gun laws on the books. That is an abysmal record, and as President, I’d make tough enforcement a reality, not just political rhetoric.

After that, I would let the states decide for themselves what, if any, additional gun safety laws they want. Just as we resist attempts by President Bush to dictate to the states how we run our school systems and what kind of welfare programs to have, we need to resist attempts to tell states how to deal with guns beyond existing federal law and fixing a few loopholes and problems.



Sorry Dr. Dean, can't support that, just for the reasons stated above. If you wish to distinguish between the private seller, and the FFL dealer, I might reexamine the issue with you again. :hi:

[RoeBear]

17. I hope you'll come back to this thread...

...I just want you to know that there is no 'gun show loophole'.
If there is a loophole it's a private sale loophole. Can I explain that to you?

[formernaderite]

36. Thank you....

...for pointing out an obviously idiotic anti-gun screed talking point.
What is it with some on the left? This issue is bewildering to me, precisely because we're so pro-choice on every other issue.
Once upon a time I lived in DC...my neighbors were assaulted with a gun, my car was broken into numerous times...I left before I got married. DC has some of the strictest gun laws around...in fact you can't own a handgun. Does anyone actually think a would be criminal gives a shit?
Of course not. The point is not to hang a banner in your city advertising the fact that every private law abiding citizen is unarmed and therefore an easy target. Before I went blue collar, I had a secretary who lived in DC too. After my neighborhoods mini-crime wave she offered to get me a non-registered weapon. I declined but inquired where she'd get one...someone who gets them from China.
People who don't want guns shouldn't get them, nor let their kids come to my house. City's and states with legislators that want to impose their own personal queasiness around guns on others are completely selfish and politically motivated. Keep your hands off of my rights.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

19. like Dean says, leave it to the states

I support Dean 100% on this issue.

[savior93]

43. it dose not matter anyway

what would it matter any way as far as crimes go. people who want them will get them regardless of laws. firearm violations especially federal ones are seldom prosecuted. how many felons caught with guns are prosecuted each year? few and far between. making crimes federal dose nothing

[savior93]

3. assault weapon ban

has anyone actually been prosicuted under this? i doubt it. it dose nothing.

[pocoloco]

6. No-Brainer Issue

Plenty of time to sort it out after the election!

[sandnsea]

7. Talk about our murder rates

Probably that would be the best place to start. Just start talking about it and get the discussion going again.

Also talk about 600+ gun models to choose from and that we have absolutely no intention of taking them all away. And Democrats might want to start our own Smart and Safe group to say what it is we really mean about gun regulations.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Other.

Enforce existing laws, but also require a child safety lock with handgun purchases. It would only add a few dollars cost to a handgun purchase, and I think it would be worth it for the lives saved.

[Padraig18]

9. If these numbers hold up:

Right now it's 81% in favor of no new g-c laws, or closing only the gun-show loophole and extending the AWB.

[Monte Carlo]

10. We need to bring the "well-regulated" back to the militia.

We need to stop pretending that guns are something that transcend regulation and standardization. They are tools designed to put deep holes in things from long distances. They can be used to protect life and freedom to be sure, but they have an equal capacity to take both away.

I think we need to remember what certain guns are designed for. Rifles, certain pistols, shotguns, etc., are all used for hunting; nothing wrong there. What are M16's and Uzi's designed and used for? Anti-personnel purposes. Are you trying to tell me that we need these things to float around in the ether, free from public knowledge? A public, which it seems to me, has an interest in protecting itself?

[Colin Ex]

15. I watched "My Waking Life" last night

In it, there's a scene where a gas station employee is talking to a bartender, and he tells his story about how some guy on drugs comes after him. The gas station guy shoots the crazy guy several times.

Upon hearing this story, the bartender says something about how a well-armed populace is important. He drops a one-liner you'd expect to hear from a guy at a gun show.

The gas station guy pulls out the gun and says "I've been keeping it with me since then. I don't even know if it still fires."

The bartender says, glancing away, "Why don't you try it?" The gas station employee pulls the trigger and shoots the bartender. Blood flies everywhere.

The bartender, near death, reaches under the counter, pulls out a gun, and shoots the gas station employee. His blood sprays everywhere and both of them die.

Just thought I'd share. Everyone can decide how relevant that is on their own.

-C

[Monte Carlo]

23. That's cheery.

That reminds me of a scene in Boogie Nights. It's certainly tragic.

I've never owned (or even shot) a gun, but I like to know that I can if I feel the need to.

[savior93]

24. relevance

it is relevant to the movie makers imagination. also perhaps to the Darwin Award commute

[Colin Ex]

35. I strongly suspect

that we are deriving two very different meanings from that scene.

-C

[savior93]

45. the flick

i guess i will have to rent the flick and see for myself. thanks

[sandnsea]

22. Did grandma have a tommy gun?

I agree. We've got to get common sense back into the gun debate. We have 6 federal laws and 19 banned guns. Alot of the laws people say violate the 2nd Amendment are very old. Nobody complained about them until the Republicans and the NRA got together to create an issue.

The National Firearms Act of 1934

The violent atmosphere of the Prohibition Era as well as the attempted assassination of President-elect Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933 inspired the passage of the 1934 and 1938 firearms acts. Provisions of the 1934 Act include:

Tax on the manufacture, sale anbd transfer of sawed-off shotguns, sawed-off rifes, machine guns and silencers.
Requires the purchasers of those weapons to undergo FBI background checks and get approval from local law enforcement officers.
The Federal Firearms Act of 1938

Provisions of the 1938 Federal Firearms Act include:

Required annual licenses for manufacturers, dealers and importers of firearms and handgun ammunition.
Ban on firearms sales to known criminals.
The 1968 Gun Control Act

The assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy, along with rising crime and violence, led to the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 include:

Prohibits convicted felons, fugitives, drug addicts, minors, mentally ill people, anyone dishonorably discharged from the military, undocumented immigrants and people who have renounced their U.S. citizenship from buying or owning a gun.
Requires serial numbers on all guns.
Bans mail-order sales of firearms and ammunition.
Sets minimum ages for purchases at 21 for handguns and 18 for long guns.
Bans imports of small, cheaply made handguns known as "Saturday Night Specials," as well as some semi-automatic assault rifles.
Prohibits imports of foreign-made military surplus firearms.
Requires licensed dealers to keep records of firearm transactions and authorizes federal officials to inspect dealers' records and inventory.

The Brady Act of 1993


The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

Bans the manufacture, sale and possession of 19 types of semi-automatic assault weapons and copycat models, as well as other semiautomatic guns with certain characteristics.
Outiaws magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Bans juvenile possession of a handgun or handgun ammunition, with limited exceptions, and makes it a crime to sell or give a handgun to anyone 18 or younger.
Toughens requirements for firearms dealer licenses.
Bars firearms possession by someone subject to a restraining order because of threats of domestic violence.

The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban of 1996

Prohibits anyone convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense from buying or owning a gun.

The gun lobby has fought hard to block sensible gun laws. In 1986 they passed the Firearms Owners' Protection Act:

Allows gun owners to transport their firearms across state lines if they are unloaded and not readily accessible.
Bans future sales and possession of machine guns by private citizens.

[worldgonekrazy]

16. Give a little lip service but don't make an issue of it

A majority of the country actually does support stricter gun control laws, so it is a good idea to tap into that sentiment a bit. However, the cross section of the country that is anti-gun control are much more hard lined in their views, so rather than risk alienating some of these potential Dem voters (because they are pissed at W. now), the Dems ought not make a big issue of it.

That is why Dean is the man for the nom. ;)

[IndianaGreen]

21. We should abolish the federal intrusion in what was a state's prerogative

Regulating the militia, which was every citizen in each State (all of whom were armed), was a role that was given to the States, not to the federal government.

Kerry is the most radical gun grabbing candidate the Democrats will ever nominate for President. He is unelectable!

[anti-NAFTA]

25. I voted for no new legislation for two reasons

1. Because new legislation would kill the nominee's chances in rural states.
2. Because I agree with Dean's leave-it-to-the-states approach.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

52. I agree with your approach

both one and two, good points.

[onecitizen]

27. This election we need to........

stay as far away as we possibly can from that issue. It is a loser for us. This year is different. We cannot afford some of our pet issues. We HAVE to win. We have to.

[IndianaGreen]

29. Kerry vs. Dean on guns: Rove wins

Kerry is the most radical gun grabber that the Democrats could possibly nominate. Kerry is unelectable!

October 31, 2003
Kerry vs. Dean on guns: Rove wins

If Kerry wins, whenever he trots out the "I'm a hunter line" Bush surrogates will say, "Kerry thought that liberal Howard Dean was too supportive of gun rights. Imagine what havoc he can cause as president." If Dean wins, any statements he makes in answer to Kerry's "charges" will be used to make gun owners suspicious of him despite his record of being supportive of the 2nd amendement.

http://www.patiopundit.com/archives/003688.html

[arewethereyet]

31. accept that the 2nd ammendment exists and won't go away

and that its a good thing because it allows you to kill anyone you fear that enters your home. Even if they're sneeking in under cover of the Patriot Act.

[lcordero]

55. Hey, I like your way of thinking:D

[arewethereyet]

58. you have to think "big picture"

sure its criminal when idiots leave weapons around where kids can get them so lock them up when it happens (I never seem to hear of this happening). But its the same problem with wrestling, knives, "Jackass" stunts and the like. Bad things are going to happen to un-parented children. Fix the problem, require responsibility in the parents.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. We need to give this issue a rest

for this election cycle.

Given all the one-issue voters, we need to lay off so that economically disadvantaged rural voters won't vote against their own interests (and ours).

I truly believe that if people aren't so scared about their own economic futures, they won't cling to their guns so much.

[billbuckhead]

47. What is Dr Deans official position on the NRA?

Does Dean still still pretend the NRA doesn't exist? Has Dean ever commented on the NRA blacklist?

[Padraig18]

49. Why should he?

I'm not aware he's under any obligation to do so.

[bluestateguy]

46. I generally oppose gun control

It's not so much that agree with the Right's arguments, as it is that I feel progressive ends are best achieved when gun rights are protected.

[MrSlayer]

48. I think people need to understand what gun control means.

Too many people believe it means you won't be able to have a gun. We need to explain to the yahoos that putting a limit on the amount of guns you can buy at a time will limit the amount that go on to the street illegaly. No one needs to buy 50 9mm Glock pistols a month unless he intends to sell them. It's just ridiculous. No one wants to take your hunting rifle away, no one wants to make you unable to protect your home. We need to get these points across.


Edit: Spelling.

[lcordero]

54. gun control means keeping both hands on the weapon

:D

[IndianaGreen]

57. I suggest you re-read the Second Amendment

the part about the right to bear arms cannot be infringed.