Reasonable Gun Restrictions by ANTHONYT

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Well, you're suggesting some kind of reasonable restrictions. What are they?

Just for fun, then, here are some:

No sales to or possession by folks with criminal convictions (or maybe just felonies?). Attempts at purchase or possession by these people result in Federal prosecution. Background checks in place to identify these folks.

Background checks for ALL firearms purchases? No loopholes for person-to-person sales?

Quote:

Federal prosecutions of persons otherwise legally entitled to purchase firearms who knowingly purchase them for felons.

Additional Federal prosecution for use of a firearm in commission of a crime by a convicted felon.

This is unclear. You mean someone who was already a convicted felon then used a firearm in commission of another felony, or enhanced prosecution of someone committing a first-time felony with a firearm?

Quote:

No sales to folks who have been adjudged incompetent or insane (or whatever the term of art is currently). Reporting and background checks to identify these folks.

Again, reporting and background checks for every firearm sale in the country, bar none? Would you make it a felony to sell a firearm without a background check? (Actually, if you did, it would be an aggravated felony by definition, because it involved the use of a firearm in its commission. )

Quote:

Checks more stringent than regular background checks for those purchasing automatic weapons and, for example, silenced weapons. Possible higher licensing fees or bonds.

Done.

Quote:
Posted by Anthony:

The punchline, of course, is that these restrictions are in place.

Are they? I mean, I know most of them are, but they aren't ALL in place, are they?

This, for instance: "No sales to or possession by folks with criminal convictions"

Nope. Not true. I have criminal convictions for misdemeanor traffic violations, and I'm still allowed to own firearms.

Also, I can respond to a Craigslist ad and buy a handgun tomorrow from an individual seller (not a licensed FFL dealer) for cash with no ID, no background check, and no questions asked. In fact, I went to one gun show where this was the premise of it - all sales are person-to-person, no background checks required. None of this was breaking any law.

What about more stringent background checks and licensing/bonding fees for those purchasing semi-auto weapons or large-capacity magazines?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 5:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
There was another thread where militias were discussed. I have no idea when or what the title was, but in it I believe I supported the establishment of militias for purpose of a country's defence. A little along the swiss lines, where there is compulsory weapons ownership once you have received military training. I believe the swiss model is more what the founders of the constitution intended.

In order for this to work, the professional army would be more or less disbanded to be replaced by military trained citizens, who could form militias should the need for national defence arrive.

I would prefer that citizens did not have to keep their military grade weapons in their own home, but that some sort of community venue where weapons could be securely held and practised.

The militias could receive some federal funding, but would operate independantly from the government.

Community militias would vote before being involved in military action.

Individual gun ownership would be fairly restricted in my world, with there being lots of background checks, licencing, and restriction over the type of weaponry owned and amount of ammo able to be purchased.

In the real world, the US would never go for something like this, not in my lifetime. not until there are some serious changing in attitudes, and how do you do this, when words like 'inalienable rights' are used, I have no idea.

I like almost every part of this. I believe the Swiss keep guns in the home, though, and it makes tactical sense to do so, because if you stash them all in a neighborhood Keep, all one has to do to disarm the neighborhood is knock over the Keep. Harder to knock off every house all at the same time. :)

Also, I'd have a tiered licensing system with a floor and practically no ceiling. Minimum licensing requirements would get you a single-shot shotgun, a revolver, a bolt-action rifle. Next tier gets you to semi-auto pistols and carbines or pump-action shotguns. Next up moves you to higher-capacity magazines, etc., all the way up to and including full-auto machineguns, silenced weapons, sniper rifles, RPGs, and so on.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 5:49 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

I was thinking that you could have some pretty tight security around the keep, and that it would be easier to knock off a couple of houses and find yourself with some pretty high grade weaponry. But yes, the swiss do keep them at home. I believe they have some tight regulations about how they are stored and maintained. Switzerland, now there is a place with regulations. But would you call it a tyranny? Interesting thought.

I like your idea of tiered licensing system. I'd add that you couldn't have access to some of the higher tech stuff without the ongoing military training, which would also include psych evaluations (as they do in the military here). In that way you rid yourself of the risk of people with mental health conditions that might lead them to act in violent ways, because as the Aurora shootings show, there are plenty of people with undiagnosed conditions out there that are not going to show up in a mental health check.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 6:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

I like almost every part of this. I believe the Swiss keep guns in the home, though, and it makes tactical sense to do so, because if you stash them all in a neighborhood Keep, all one has to do to disarm the neighborhood is knock over the Keep. Harder to knock off every house all at the same time. :)

Also, I'd have a tiered licensing system with a floor and practically no ceiling. Minimum licensing requirements would get you a single-shot shotgun, a revolver, a bolt-action rifle. Next tier gets you to semi-auto pistols and carbines or pump-action shotguns. Next up moves you to higher-capacity magazines, etc., all the way up to and including full-auto machineguns, silenced weapons, sniper rifles, RPGs, and so on.

I was thinking that you could have some pretty tight security around the keep, and that it would be easier to knock off a couple of houses and find yourself with some pretty high grade weaponry. But yes, the swiss do keep them at home. I believe they have some tight regulations about how they are stored and maintained. Switzerland, now there is a place with regulations. But would you call it a tyranny? Interesting thought.

I know Mitt Romney doesn't call it tyranny!

Quote:

I like your idea of tiered licensing system. I'd add that you couldn't have access to some of the higher tech stuff without the ongoing military training, which would also include psych evaluations (as they do in the military here). In that way you rid yourself of the risk of people with mental health conditions that might lead them to act in violent ways, because as the Aurora shootings show, there are plenty of people with undiagnosed conditions out there that are not going to show up in a mental health check.

Yes, very much so on the training and psych evals as prerequisites for the up-tier stuff. I look at it as you would a driver's license. *This much* training and *this* fee gets you this gun. Here in Texas, a basic motor vehicle endorsement is kind of the default license for drivers. You can take classes, learn, train, and get commercial, haz-mat, Class C, Class B, limo, and other endorsements, which allow you to drive certain other classes of vehicles, but insurance requirements change, as do licensing requirements and fees. And virtually nobody complains about that, because nobody honestly thinks that a 16-year-old who just got his learner's permit should be piloting a nuke fuel-laden 18-wheeler through downtown at 80mph.

People talk a lot about "rights", but they don't even want to talk about "responsibilities". Sure, the Constitution says you have certain rights, but it's also implied that you have certain responsibilities that go with them.

Some worthless troll said earlier that the amendment says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", and that was all he needs to know. So I guess the bit about "A well regulated militia..." just means absolutely nothing to him. It says right there in the Amendment that said militia can be - MUST BE, in fact, for the security of the free State - regulated.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 7:11 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Background checks for ALL firearms purchases? No loopholes for person-to-person sales?

Hello,

This is something that has actually bothered me for some time. I think any responsible gun seller would want a way to check and make sure that the person he's selling a gun to isn't a felon. I think if I had access to the background check system I'd use it. I wouldn't mind seeing this become public access and mandatory even for person-to-person sales. My singular reservation is a lack of trust in the government not to break faith with law-abiding gun owners.

Quote:
This is unclear.

He means if YOU can buy a weapon legally, and you use that power to buy a weapon FOR a felon's use (or anyone not authorized to own a gun) then YOU are committing a crime.

He also means that if a felon (who isn't allowed to have a gun) uses a gun in the commission of a crime, they get extra punishment tacked on.

Quote:
Are they? I mean, I know most of them are, but they aren't ALL in place, are they? This, for instance: "No sales to or possession by folks with criminal convictions"

You left out the important additive he left in, didn't you? He added the felon bit in parenthesis, and you left it out.

But yes, all of the things he said are already laws, with the glaring escape clause of person-to-person sales allowing some of this to be avoided. (Which I addressed previously.)

Quote:
What about more stringent background checks and licensing/bonding fees for those purchasing semi-auto weapons or large-capacity magazines?

I hear a lot about further restricting 'semi-auto' weapons but I don't think a 1911 model .45 semiautomatic pistol is very much more dangerous than a Taurus 617 revolver. I don't think semiautomatics rate a special category of restriction merely by the virtue of being semiautomatics. A background check good enough for a Colt Python ought to be good enough for a Colt 1911, and I'm not sure why the 1911 might warrant additional fees. It seems rather arbitrary and to no practical purpose.

I'd hate to see an extra fee tacked on to high-capacity magazines, (some of them are quite expensive already) but I'm not especially opposed to a background check on them. Maybe the guy was institutionalized between the time he bought his AK and the time he bought his 75 round drum. I suppose this would encourage people to buy all their accessories at one time in order to save on background check fees.

I don't mind the idea of requiring certification in the weapon to be used, if the prospective gun owner is going to be dealt with honorably. I do worry, once again, that the government may not deal fairly or honorably with the gun owner. I don't mind the idea of requiring insurance to be carried, as long as the insurance is not framed or formed in such a way as to deny ownership to people who can't afford high fees.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 7:17 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Some worthless troll said earlier that the amendment says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", and that was all he needs to know. So I guess the bit about "A well regulated militia..." just means absolutely nothing to him. It says right there in the Amendment that said militia can be - MUST BE, in fact, for the security of the free State - regulated.

Hello,

Hey, I resemble that troll. This is really why I didn't bring up the Constitution at first, and tried to avoid arguing the topic secondly. Two people can read the very plain words and end up 180 degrees apart on the matter.

The government is tasked with preserving the general welfare and I think this must be balanced with the second amendment's admonition not to infringe on the right to bear arms.

But I don't trust them. I really don't. How can I, when even under a gun-happy Republican president, the military goes about disarming the population in contravention of their rights?

It makes me feel skeevy.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 7:30 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Edit: Personally I find your unedited post more palatable than your edited ones. Maybe that is because that is how Australians generally talk to one another ;)

Hello,

I've spent so long carefully cultivating a style of communication designed to be both precise and low-conflict that it never occurred to me someone might find it offensive, perhaps due to cultural mores.

Or, you know, I work so damn hard not to put my foot in my mouth or step on toes, I never thought all that hard work might be the very thing that pissed someone off.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 7:42 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Different strokes for different folks. I prefer a more direct style of communication because I know where I stand, and it annoys me to have to guess the tone and intent. Especially when communication is in writing, so you don't hear the tone or see the facial expression.

I am happy for you to call me out on perceived hypocracy or any other flaw you see in my argument and would also prefer to know if my posts have offended you or made you angry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2012 8:26 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Mike,

I didn't want you to think I was spouting off nonsense, so I thought I'd find some evidence for you.

Privately Owned 90mm Cannon

http://m18hellcat.com/m18hellcat/My_Hellcat.html
"My Hellcat" a website belonging to a man who restored a hellcat Tank Destroyer.

I don't know if this is the same Hellcat or a different one firing its main gun.

Another such video of the Hellcat. If you watch it for long enough, you'll hear the demonstrators talking about the tank being privately owned. They also talk about the gun and the type of ammo it is firing and also the price of the ammunition.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 2:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Quote:
Background checks for ALL firearms purchases? No loopholes for person-to-person sales?

Hello,

This is something that has actually bothered me for some time. I think any responsible gun seller would want a way to check and make sure that the person he's selling a gun to isn't a felon. I think if I had access to the background check system I'd use it. I wouldn't mind seeing this become public access and mandatory even for person-to-person sales. My singular reservation is a lack of trust in the government not to break faith with law-abiding gun owners.

This would bring us to title/registration issues, such as with vehicles. I can buy a car off an individual, but if I'm going to use it, it must have the title registered.

Of course, that brings up the whole "shall not be infringed" bit. But again, "well regulated"...

I've long thought the police could do a far better job than they're doing, both in practical terms and in PR terms. I go to the local gun show here, and there are police officers working the show - patrolling, doing security, etc.

Why don't they offer to run background checks for free for person-to-person sellers? It shows an extra measure of good faith on the parts of both the seller and the buyer if you can say, "Hey, wanna go over here and run an instant check to make sure everything's on the up and up?" Buyer knows he's getting a "clean" firearm that isn't wanted in connection with a murder spree or bank robbery, and seller knows he's not selling to someone who's not supposed to have such weapons.

Trick is, it has to be offered as a courtesy.

Quote:

Quote:
This is unclear.

He means if YOU can buy a weapon legally, and you use that power to buy a weapon FOR a felon's use (or anyone not authorized to own a gun) then YOU are committing a crime.

He also means that if a felon (who isn't allowed to have a gun) uses a gun in the commission of a crime, they get extra punishment tacked on.

Quote:
Are they? I mean, I know most of them are, but they aren't ALL in place, are they? This, for instance: "No sales to or possession by folks with criminal convictions"

You left out the important additive he left in, didn't you? He added the felon bit in parenthesis, and you left it out.

If it's an important additive on which the veracity of the statement rests, then it probably shouldn't be in parentheses... It should be "No sales or possession by folks with FELONY convictions."

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 2:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello Mike,

I didn't want you to think I was spouting off nonsense, so I thought I'd find some evidence for you.

Anthony, thanks for that info. I never think you're spouting off nonsense. I don't think you're genetically capable of doing so!

I knew there were privately owned cannons (show cannons and the like), but every privately-owned tank I'd come across had been "disarmed" or spiked, and a few quick searches seemed to indicate that such was the norm. Don Sherman wrote a piece for Automobile magazine about trying to buy a Russian T72 and have it imported, which never did work out for him, but part of the article talked about having to disable the tank's main gun for import to the U.S., which led me to believe that such was the norm.

Apparently it's not *impossible* for a private citizen to own an operational, armed tank, but it's not easy to do, either. So there's definitely some kind of "infringement" going on there, it would seem, or restrictions beyond a simple background check or waiting period.

I wonder if there isn't some size limit on the private ownership of cannons and howitzers. Perhaps 100mm is the limit; I have no real idea.

I remember seeing where Barret was working on a 25mm version of their .50 caliber sniper rifle, which if memory serves would qualify as artillery.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 3:02 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,

The punchline, of course, is that these restrictions are in place.

In some form, most of them are.

What's interesting about them, though, is that when I've brought them up in a discussion with folks who are reasonably anti-gun, they say they sound like a good idea, and wish such laws could be passed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 3:46 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I wonder if there isn't some size limit on the private ownership of cannons and howitzers. Perhaps 100mm is the limit; I have no real idea.

I remember seeing where Barret was working on a 25mm version of their .50 caliber sniper rifle, which if memory serves would qualify as artillery.

It appears that cannon using fixed ammo (rather than muzzle-loading cannon using separate powder and projectile) may fall under the same rules as machine guns, etc. Can't find anything about maximum caliber restrictions. Anything firing a projectile greater than 1/2 inch might qualify - but shotguns and firearms with a sporting purpose, as well as those listed as antiques, are exempt. BATF can apparently exempt or list pretty much anything as a "destuctive device".

Here's what you have to do to get a permit for a cannon that meets BATF's destructive device criteria (or to get a permit for a Molotov Cocktail, BTW).

"Q: What are the required transfer procedures for an individual who is not qualified as a manufacturer, importer, or dealer of NFA firearms?
ATF Form 4 (5320.4) must be completed, in duplicate. The transferor first completes the face of the form. The transferee completes the transferee’s certification on the reverse of the form and must have the “Law Enforcement Certification” completed by the chief law enforcement officer.

The transferee is to place, on each copy of the form, a 2-inch by 2-inch photograph of the transferee taken within the past year (proofs, group photographs or photocopies are unacceptable). The transferee’s address must be a street address, not a post office box. If there is no street address, specific directions to the residence must be included.

If State or local law requires a permit or license to purchase, possess, or receive NFA firearms, a copy of the transferee’s permit or license must accompany the application. A check or money order for $200 ($5 for transfer of “any other weapon”) shall be made payable to ATF by the transferor. All signatures on both copies must be in ink.

Fingerprints also must be submitted on FBI Form FD-258, in duplicate. Fingerprints must be taken by a person qualified to do so, and must be clear and classifiable. If wear or damage to the fingertips do not allow clear prints, and if the prints are taken by a law enforcement official, a statement on his or her official letterhead giving the reason why good prints are unobtainable should accompany the fingerprints.

Forward the completed application and appropriate tax payment to the Bureau of ATF, National Firearms Act Branch, P.O. Box 530298, Atlanta, GA 30353-0298.

Transfer of the NFA firearm may be made only upon approval of the ATF Form 4 by the NFA Branch. If the application is approved, the original of the form with the cancelled stamp affixed showing approval will be returned to the applicant. If the tax application is denied, the tax will be refunded.

Upon approval of the ATF Form 4, the transferor should transfer the firearm as soon as possible, since the firearm is now registered to the transferee.

[26 U.S.C. 5812, 27 CFR 479.84-86]"

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#tr
ansfer-procedure

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 4:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,

The punchline, of course, is that these restrictions are in place.

In some form, most of them are.

What's interesting about them, though, is that when I've brought them up in a discussion with folks who are reasonably anti-gun, they say they sound like a good idea, and wish such laws could be passed.

Yup, some of the anti-gun crowd are embarrassing with their lack of knowledge. A radio show yesterday went on for 10 minutes about how ridiculous it was that the Aurora shooter was using a "gas-powered assault rifle". They apparently think that this is a gun with some kind of outboard motor on it, from the way they were talking about it.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 5:35 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Anthony, I came back to check this thread but didn't read all the way through it, as it's become, to me, just another one of "those". I just have two things to say:

The first, and most important, is for me personally, PLEASE don't change your style! I adore the way you very politely snark at someone, it makes me smile and is so much better than those who snark nastily. In my opinion it's up to US to catch whether you're politely snarking or saying what you really think. Sometimes I can't figure out which, either, but I thoroughly enjoy it. Please don't change!

Second is that I noticed all the supposed "restrictions" in place now. They aren't abided by, and anyone who says otherwise is either lying or doesn't know what they're talking about. There are enough loopholes and ways to get around those restrictions that in many states they might as well not exist. Gun shows and person-to-person sales are a prime example, and I abhor it. IF said restrictions were actually enforced, it would be sufficient for me. Nobody mentioned the internet, either, which is another great way people (specifically the guy in question) get around supposed "restrictions".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 6:04 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Nobody mentioned the internet, either, which is another great way people (specifically the guy in question) get around supposed "restrictions".

Hello,

Actually Niki, I've found that purchasing a gun on the internet involves a lot more red tape than purchasing one person-to-person or at a gun show. This is because I can't buy a gun on the internet unless it is a blackpowder antique. Well, I can pay for it, but then it has to be shipped to a proper dealer who runs the necessary checks and collects a fee. If there is a way around this, I've yet to find it.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 6:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Quote:
Nobody mentioned the internet, either, which is another great way people (specifically the guy in question) get around supposed "restrictions".

Hello,

Actually Niki, I've found that purchasing a gun on the internet involves a lot more red tape than purchasing one person-to-person or at a gun show. This is because I can't buy a gun on the internet unless it is a blackpowder antique. Well, I can pay for it, but then it has to be shipped to a proper dealer who runs the necessary checks and collects a fee. If there is a way around this, I've yet to find it.

^This. Exactly this. I've bought two guns "off the internet". Both were shipped to an approved FFL dealer in my area, where I had to then go in, go through the checks, pay the fee, and only then could I walk out with my firearm. In one instance, I had to wait a week because for some reason I "pinged" in the system - no explanation of why, but someone put a hold on the transfer, and under the law, they have five days to explain themselves and deny the transfer outright, or it goes through. So after a week and no further action, my sale was finalized.

Never heard from anyone about why, so one assumes it's a glitch. Or I'm on a watch list. ;)

Anyway, I've heard several people claim that Holmes bought his guns "off the internet", and all I can say to them is that if he did so, and if he didn't go through an FFL (federal firearms license) dealer, then he was already a felon before he ever loaded the first round in the first magazine.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 9:47 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Gun shows and person-to-person sales are a prime example, and I abhor it. IF said restrictions were actually enforced, it would be sufficient for me. Nobody mentioned the internet, either, which is another great way people (specifically the guy in question) get around supposed "restrictions".

Pretty much all the guns at most gun shows are sold by dealers and must include a Federal background check. All the firearms I've seen for sale by private individuals at gun shows (and there aren't that many I've seen) are collector arms or hunting rifles that aren't in the so-called "assault weapon" category.

As Mike noted, any firearms you buy over the internet must be transferred to you through a licensed dealer, who will run a Federal background check.

Actually, the biggest ignorer of Federal firearms law may the Justice Department, which routinely fails to prosecute under Federal statutes that are supposed to kick in when firearms are used in violent crimes by previously convicted felons.

From what I've read, most of the firearms in the hands of criminals are purchased by strawman buyers, who are also seldom prosecuted by the Justice Department.

ETA: Everything I've found indicates that the Aurora, Co. shooter purchased his arms legally at retail locations and that all background check laws were followed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 11:33 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

If you don't have the same guns as the military and police, or shooters dressed in police uniforms using police weapons in movie theaters, you're DEAD.

Quote:
"The only amendment left in the Constitution is the Second one. If you take away the right to due process, habeas corpus, the prohibition against cruel and unusual treatment because they now torture, if they can take all these away, they can take away the guns. Probably won't be much longer. They certainly have a Police State, it's in place, and we no longer have any rights. They can bring any kind of charges against anybody at any time. Or they can simply dissappear them. There's no longer any protection from being thrown in a dungeon for the rest of your life, without ever being told why you're there, hahaha, much less a court being told, or a jury, or any evidence presented. So, as far as I can tell, the Constitution no longer exists for any constraints on the power of government, and the page has turned, hahaha. Or they'll kill you with a drone."
-Dr Paul Craig Roberts PhD, Assistant Secretary of the US Department of the Treasury, Infowars Radio, 25 July 2012
youtube.com/watch?v=eL-bI6nnauc

"We need to brainwash people to think about guns in a vastly different way."
-US attorney general Eric Holder, Massmurdering Butcher of Operation Fast and Furious and the OK City Bombing, CSPAN2, 1985

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 11:36 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello Mike,

I didn't want you to think I was spouting off nonsense, so I thought I'd find some evidence for you.

Privately Owned 90mm Cannon

http://m18hellcat.com/m18hellcat/My_Hellcat.html
"My Hellcat" a website belonging to a man who restored a hellcat Tank Destroyer.

I don't know if this is the same Hellcat or a different one firing its main gun.

Another such video of the Hellcat. If you watch it for long enough, you'll hear the demonstrators talking about the tank being privately owned. They also talk about the gun and the type of ammo it is firing and also the price of the ammunition.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

We have a rich guy in town who drives his tank on public streets, when he's not driving his race cars on public streets. He inherited American Clothing Company.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 1:43 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Pretty much all the guns at most gun shows are sold by dealers and must include a Federal background check.

Hello,

Pretty much the entire Earth is covered in water, but I still manage to be dry most of the time. There are plenty of private citizens selling all kinds of weapons at these shows. Some of them come with rifles slung over shoulders, looking for the best deal on a sale. Many have pistols in zipped cases, hoping for a good trade. Sometimes they will trade with and buy from each other. It's not so rare a jewel as you portray.

And no, none of this is pertinent to the theater shooting in any way, nor would any law or restriction on firearms sales have prevented a brilliant law-abiding citizen from doing what he did.

I read recently he was seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist, and if that is true then it means even a mental health professional failed to foresee this outcome.

Reasonable gun restrictions can only stop reasonable criminals. Jack in the box psychopaths with no serious criminal history are very difficult to predict.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 4:21 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
There are plenty of private citizens selling all kinds of weapons at these shows. Some of them come with rifles slung over shoulders, looking for the best deal on a sale. Many have pistols in zipped cases, hoping for a good trade. Sometimes they will trade with and buy from each other. It's not so rare a jewel as you portray.

Maybe gun shows are different where you are, but I go to several a year in Virginia and see maybe five or ten guys a show selling a gun (usually only one) privately. As I noted, they're usually selling collectable stuff like Garands, '03 Springfields, or Krags, or they're selling hunting rifles or shotguns. There may occasionally be someone with an AR-15 or pistol, but I haven't personally seen it here, and I've had my eye out for a good AR for Service Rifle target matches.

Making a big deal of private sales at gun shows, as Niki is trying to do, flies in the face of reality. Around here, folks aren't getting the guns used in crimes from private sales. They're getting folks to make strawman purchases at gun shops.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 6:01 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"High powered/high tech guns for hunting animals like deer just piss me off. I say arm the animals and then I'll consider it a sport."

FWIW I've thought for a long time now that it's only sporting if it's between evenly matched sides. I say, arm the hunters with paint-ball guns, and arm the paint-ballers with bullets.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 6:21 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

TROLL

"gun ownership"

The constitution says 'arms'.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 6:28 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Geezer,

My Dad has purchased a few guns from private individuals at shows, so maybe I've had more exposure to it. One of his prized possessions, a Sig 226, was a face to face sale from an ordinary fellow he ran into (a waiter, I think) who needed cash. Maybe the venues in South Florida are more social? I don't know. The community down there is pretty easygoing, with many having a common background and culture. You do need to be willing to sidle up to folks and chat them up a bit if you're going to sell or buy that way.

As for how criminals get their guns, I am no authority on that whatsoever. It makes sense, though, that someone must be buying them legally and then handing them over.

If so, then requiring background checks for private sales would probably take a big bite out of criminal firearms possession.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 6:31 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
TROLL

"gun ownership"

The constitution says 'arms'.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

Hello,

We can presume that since firearms were a common arm at the time, they were intended.

However, if the constabulary was similarly banned from firearms possession, I could be convinced to settle for a sword and cudgel.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 6:59 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I believe that citizens should be allowed to own tanks ... fighter planes ... grenade launchers or rocket launchers ... machineguns, anti-personnel explosives, anti-vehicle rockets ..."

But you draw the line at nukes? Why?

BTW - I was the person who was trying to point out that your view of why people should be able to have weapons (anyone with a sense of righteousness should be able to fight a revolution with as many arms as they can amass!) was a double-edged argument, instead of the uniformly 'good thing' you portrayed it as being.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 7:01 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"We can presume that since firearms were a common arm at the time, they were intended."

So we can agree that people have the constitutional rights to own this:

And probably not this: tanks ... fighter planes ... grenade launchers or rocket launchers ... machineguns, anti-personnel explosives, anti-vehicle rockets ...

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 7:21 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"We can presume that since firearms were a common arm at the time, they were intended."

So we can agree that people have the constitutional rights to own this:

And probably not this: tanks ... fighter planes ... grenade launchers or rocket launchers ... machineguns, anti-personnel explosives, anti-vehicle rockets ...

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

Hello,

You could certainly look at it that way. Or you could look at it as the people having the right to own the state-of-the-art arms of that era- then the match of the government's own arms, and equate it thusly.

This is why second-amendment arguments are unproductive. Ten people can twist the pretzel ten ways, and none of them will be moved to agree with any other. Not even when the writings of historic contemporaries are invoked as evidence.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 7:25 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Then you need to stop arguing second amendment and intent, like revolution. You stop arguing it and Ill stop arguing it. OK?

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 7:31 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I never intended to make arguments about the second amendment a feature of this thread.

But I must admit to you that resistance against a tyrannical government is something very much on my mind, and would be whether I lived in the United States, China, Great Britain, or any country where I felt that such a concept was not codified.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 7:41 PM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

The only purpose of police is to rob the citizens at gunpoint and protect the real criminals from arrest.

German Order Police used bullets to holocaust EVERYONE in world War 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnungspolizei

JEWISH German Order Police used bullets to holocaust jews in world War 2
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/ghettos/orderpolice.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=hitlers+willing+executioners

Aurora Colorado is a gun-ban Victim Disarmament zone, in violation of the US Constitution.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
-Famous Dead Guy

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 7:54 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I never intended to make arguments about the second amendment a feature of this thread."

Then what we'll discuss is the effects of the availability of different types of arms on the society, the potential positive outcomes, the potential negative outcomes, whether one prevails over the other, and what regulations (including outright bans) might be used to mitigate the negatives and/ or enhance the positives on their merits; without resorting to interpreting the constitution or its historical intent.

Also, I'm not sure if I missed it - did you reply to my question about nukes?

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 8:03 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I never intended to make arguments about the second amendment a feature of this thread."

Then what we'll discuss is the effects of the availability of different types of arms on the society, the potential positive outcomes, the potential negative outcomes, whether one prevails over the other, and what regulations (including outright bans) might be used to mitigate the negatives and/ or enhance the positives on their merits; without resorting to interpreting the constitution or its historical intent.

Also, I'm not sure if I missed it - did you reply to my question about nukes?

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

Hello,

Was that directed at me, the person who said that even grenade launchers made them nervous?

I don't even think governments should have nukes, never mind individuals.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term fits.)
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 8:06 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Just wondering. You left them off your list of things government has which you think individuals also should be able to have - I was wondering what that meant.

So, starting with handguns
- what are the positives?
- what are the negatives?
as you see them.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 8:45 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon
.svg

Well, OK - I'll kick it off. This is the big negative about handguns. To my mind, anything or set of things which purports to be a reason to have handguns with the current level of restriction had better overcome this big negative.

I know the usual arguments - supposedly, handguns deter far more (unspecified) crimes than the number of murders they are used for. The figure I have read from the NRA is something like 10:1. But that supposes a baseline level of violence that would make this country about 10x more criminal than anywhere else on the planet. It also supposes that the prevention of a property crime is a justification for allowing the condition for murder. And in places with 'stand your ground' laws crime rates haven't gone down. If guns were such a good deterrent, you would see some effect.

I sum, I don't buy the argument on the numbers of potential crimes prevented, I don't buy the argument that incipient property crimes rationalize keeping a condition for murder, and I don't buy the claim that handguns reduce crime at all.

If you include suicides and accidental killings, and the number of people who are permanently maimed from handguns, the cost of medical care and policing, the negatives get significantly worse.

Some of the other positives are sport, collecting, and rebellion.

Sport in my framework is basically play. Collecting is a hobby. Rebellion is political.

I don't think we should consider play and hobbies to be valuable enough to outweigh the large numbers of murders. The potential for rebellion is up for discussion, but I can't think of any that were won with handguns.

Concluding, since the negatives outweigh the positives, following from that, we should reduce the number of handguns or improve the quality of guns owners, or both.

SignyM: I swear, if we really knew what was being decided about us in our absence, and how hosed the government is prepared to let us be, we would string them up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 28, 2012 8:52 PM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

51 US senators voice concerns with UN arms treaty

Associated Press
Jul 26, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — A bipartisan group of 51 senators on Thursday threatened to oppose a global treaty regulating international weapons trade if it falls short in protecting Americans' constitutional right to bear arms.

In a letter to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the senators expressed serious concerns with the draft treaty that has circulated at the United Nations, saying that it signals an expansion of gun control that would be unacceptable. Gun control is a politically explosive issue in the U.S., where it has re-emerged since last week's shooting a Colorado cinema killed 12 people.

The world's nations are pressing to complete the first legally binding treaty dealing with arms trade and preventing the transfer of weapons to armed groups and terrorists. The 193-member U.N. General Assembly is expected to approve the treaty this month.

The senators said as the negotiations continue, "we strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country's constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense.

"As members of the United States Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard," they wrote.

The lawmakers insisted that the treaty should explicitly recognize the legitimacy of hunting, sport shooting and other lawful activities.

They also raised concerns that the draft defines international arms transfers as including transport across national territory while requiring the monitor and control of arms in transit.

The National Rifle Association, the powerful U.S. gun lobby, opposes the treaty, saying its members will never surrender the right to bear arms to the United Nations.

The treaty has been in the works since 2006. Abandoning the Bush administration opposition, the Obama administration supported an assembly resolution to hold this year's four-week conference on the treaty.

In April, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, Thomas Countryman, reiterated U.S. support for a treaty.

"We want any treaty to make it more difficult and expensive to conduct illicit, illegal and destabilizing transfers of arms," he said. "But we do not want something that would make legitimate international arms trade more cumbersome than the hurdles United States exporters already face."

The U.N. General Assembly voted in December 2006 to work toward a treaty regulating the growing arms trade, now valued at about $60 billion, with the U.S. casting a "no" vote. In October 2009, the Obama administration reversed the Bush administration's position and supported an assembly resolution to hold four preparatory meetings and a four-week U.N. conference in 2012 to draft an arms trade treaty.

Adoption of a treaty requires consensus among the 193 U.N. member states — a requirement the United States insisted on in 2009 — and diplomats said reaching agreement will be difficult.

With the conference scheduled to end on Friday, negotiators have been trying to come up with a text that satisfies advocates of a strong treaty with tough regulations and countries that appear to have little interest in a treaty including Syria, North Korea, Iran, Egypt and Algeria.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, told The Associated Press earlier this week that the U.S. wants export controls to prevent illicit transfers of arms and has been making clear its "red lines, including that we will not accept any treaty that infringes on Americans' Second Amendment rights." The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.

Associated Press writer Edith Lederer contributed to this report from the United Nations.

http://www.kvue.com/news/national/163943996.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 2:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Blame Dubya for that one. He apparently got a burr in his ass after being called out for serving in a "Champagne unit" in the Guard during 'Nam, thereby neatly getting around ever having to serve in the war, so he made sure that the Guard would be "real" fighters once there was no chance in hell he'd ever have to face anything more dangerous than a pretzel or a hurled shoe.

Why, when I mention national service, is it assumed I'm talking military service? Weapons training, of course, would be part of it, but that doesn't make it military, unless you consider police and Boy Scouts to be military outfits as well.

National service would be a one- or two-year stint - probably pre-college, after high school - where you'd have a choice how and where you served, within some limits. Peace Corps, Job Corps, volunteer firefighter (could sure use some of those about now, huh?), candy-striper at a hospital, crossing guard for a school, bus driver for same, etc. - you serve, you're paid (a pittance), you're trained, you gain some discipline and respect for hard work, and you help your country.

Of course the right will never support such a thing - it reeks of patriotism rather than selfishness!

I blame Dubya for quite a bit as it is, and though this surely fits the bill of his MO, I'm not ready to land it all squarely on his head.

To this day, the ads on the radio, even on WLS are so misleading it makes one sick. I just heard an ad for the National Guard 2 days ago where these people were doing nothing but cleaning up a chemical spill state-side, and those not in the Guard were speechless that the Guard took care of that. I think it was an effort to appease the Left Wing eco-people. You never hear an ad for the National Guard that tells you that you're more likely to go to the Middle East than a "real" solder.

I'd LOVE to be the guy helping people in the states during and after natural disasters. Evacuating people while forests were burning down or helping to supply aid and rebuild after a devastating tornado or hurricane. I'm just not going to be suckered in to going to the Middle East because that's also a duty of "Guarding the Nation".

With how you put it Kwick, I'm not inclined to say that I disagree with you. There's only two things that concern me that I don't know how to get around with your solution.

1) With the surplus of illegal guns, illegal citizens, and general "bad guys" already out there, how do you intend to keep the guns out of the wrong people's hands when we still can't manage to find a way to prevent illegal civilians and dead citizens from doing something as simple as voting?

2) With all of that paperwork and oversight, who's to say that if you had a bad day at work and didn't check your personal shit at the door (say a bad marriage-turned-divorce) that the government decides that based off of one incident that you're mentally unfit to ever carry a fire-arm and now you're barred from this right even though you've never broken any law?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." ~Shepherd Book

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 3:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

From what I've read, most of the firearms in the hands of criminals are purchased by strawman buyers, who are also seldom prosecuted by the Justice Department.

There should be semi-easy legislative fixes for that. As it stands, the law seems pretty vague, leaving lots of wiggle room. I can buy a gun FOR MYSELF, intentionally NOT buying it for any other person, and then I can decide after a day at the range that this gun is not for me, and I don't like it or want it. If I turn around and resell it a day later, am I now a straw purchaser?

With background checks on ALL gun purchases, and software that is already in existence and likely installed, it would be easy enough to set up "alerts" in the system to flag any buyers who routinely buy weapons and then resell them within a few days.

And, of course, it's also easy enough to game that system, too. Say the alerts are set at 15 days. I buy up weapons and hold them for 16 days. Or a month. Or a year. After whatever that period is, I'm back in business, selling away...

Or you can put a limit on the number of purchases AND resales that can be done in a year. In Texas, for example, if you sell more than a certain number of cars per year, you must have a dealer's license to do so. Somebody who is buying and selling more than a dozen guns per year might legally be classified as a gun dealer, and therefore responsible for all background checks on each transaction.

A large number of the things most people are upset about can be addressed with existing laws, or with quite minor tweaks to existing laws.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 3:38 AM

Quote:
Posted by Jack:

With the surplus of illegal guns, illegal citizens, and general "bad guys" already out there, how do you intend to keep the guns out of the wrong people's hands when we still can't manage to find a way to prevent illegal civilians and dead citizens from doing something as simple as voting?

Straw man. You're basing your argument off something you have no evidence of. The state of Pennsylvania has admitted in court testimony that they have been unable to find a single incident of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania or any other state.

You may as well be arguing that guns should be unregulated because Martians have invaded the U.S.A.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 3:44 AM

Quote:
2) With all of that paperwork and oversight, who's to say that if you had a bad day at work and didn't check your personal shit at the door (say a bad marriage-turned-divorce) that the government decides that based off of one incident that you're mentally unfit to ever carry a fire-arm and now you're barred from this right even though you've never broken any law?

Again, Jack, you're arguing from absurdity. Can you show me a single instance of someone "barred from this right" even though they've never broken any law?

Far as I know, you have to be a CONVICTED felon or have a domestic violence CONVICTION for your gun rights to be taken away. Under the eyes of the law, if you are CONVICTED, then you have indeed been found by law to have broken the law.

If I get a speeding ticket for driving 100mph on the open highway with no traffic around, I can argue that I wasn't driving dangerously or unsafely, but I cannot argue that I wasn't breaking any law in doing so.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 3:57 AM

Truly Kwick, I couldn't give you that example, save for any numerous occasions that something similar has happened in a sci-fi movie/TV show, or an Assmov, Orwell or Dick novel or short story.

Since the theoretical future we're talking about is, by your own words, just as impossible as any of these stories, why does your example get to be the only one excluded from this critique?

I'm only arguing from "absurdity" in your mind, because I'm arguing from the "other side" of your blind desires if we had this, some would say, equally absurd world you want to dive in to.

I've already said that your ideas have their merits and that I'm not inclined to fight you about your intentions. I'm simply bringing up things that WILL happen in that world if it goes through and nobody stands up and fights against those new issues.

All of what you say of the "rules" today in America seem kosher to me. But you're talking about completely changing the constitutional structure of the Nation. Not that it's a bad thing, but there will be many new rules based off of that restructuring.

Instead of Americans being born with a right to bear arms, they have to "serve" to bear arms. No doubt, this will entail more than a mere job. They will have to submit all proof of US birth, fingerprints, urine, blood, hair and saliva samples during their training. They will likely see government pshyciatrists on regular intervals
through their service, and they had better be on their BEST behavior during their "service" if they hope to get out with a card saying they can carry a gun.

This is not a "Right" or "Left" question here.....

Think about it.

I ALREADY HAVE THAT RIGHT..... simply by being born a citizen here.

Why would I, right or left, give that up and be a bitch of the Government for it?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." ~Shepherd Book

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 4:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Posted by Jack:

With the surplus of illegal guns, illegal citizens, and general "bad guys" already out there, how do you intend to keep the guns out of the wrong people's hands when we still can't manage to find a way to prevent illegal civilians and dead citizens from doing something as simple as voting?

Straw man. You're basing your argument off something you have no evidence of. The state of Pennsylvania has admitted in court testimony that they have been unable to find a single incident of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania or any other state.

You may as well be arguing that guns should be unregulated because Martians have invaded the U.S.A.

Wow Kwick.....

I see one straw. Impressive.

Unfortunately, there are 49 others missing, and last I checked, neither the Rethugs or Demons gave two shits about Pennsylvania.

I'm sure as hell not going to take Pennsylvania's competence or "fear factor" of states like California or Illinois and the tax-payer backed thugs who run them as gospel truth that there is no corruption there.

Seems like we're both battling with swizzle-sticks...

En Garde!

EDIT:

BTW... ask the Blacks in Flordia who were wronged if they agree with Pennsylvania's findings in your little blurb there.....

Ouch... that had to hurt!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." ~Shepherd Book

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 4:11 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
As for how criminals get their guns, I am no authority on that whatsoever. It makes sense, though, that someone must be buying them legally and then handing them over.

If so, then requiring background checks for private sales would probably take a big bite out of criminal firearms possession.

Might stop a very few, but I really doubt that the volume of guns in the hands of criminals would be much affected.

The Washington Post ran a feature last year on strawman purchases of guns in Maryland that ended up in D.C. What interested me about it was the low number of prosecutions, and minor penalties adjudicated, for the folks doing the buying, and the relative lack of punishment for the gun stores that cooked the books to hide large sales. Maybe they'd have their license pulled, but they could re-open under a new name pretty quickly. This stuff is Federal crimes, but for all the fuss the government makes about illegal guns, they don't seem to be trying too hard to enforce the laws already on the books to try and cut their numbers down.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 4:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
This stuff is Federal crimes, but for all the fuss the government makes about illegal guns, they don't seem to be trying too hard to enforce the laws already on the books to try and cut their numbers down.

My point exactly Geezer....

Enforce the current laws before foaming at the mouth to make new laws...

If ANYBODY was doing their job up to this point, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." ~Shepherd Book

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 4:29 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Ushomicidesbyweapon
.svg

Well, OK - I'll kick it off. This is the big negative about handguns. To my mind, anything or set of things which purports to be a reason to have handguns with the current level of restriction had better overcome this big negative.

The questionable assumption here is that, if handguns were removed from the picture, folks who wanted to commit assualt, murder, suicide, etc. would just say, "Darn. Since I can't get a handgun any more, guess I'll have to give up that idea." instead of just getting a long gun, knife, blunt object, rope, can of gas, car, bottle of pills, etc., etc., etc.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 4:38 AM

I think 1kiki is biased because she's only looking at the "big picture" in the US itself....

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/9/0042-9686_86_07-043489-table-
T1.html

Even in Canada, the suicide rate is doubled by hanging than it is by firearms.

Had my uncle hanged himself, he might not have "lived" for another 6 hours on life support on tax-payer dollars.

Unless you're willing to ban all prescription drugs, alcohol, steak knives, pesticides, buildings over one story, mercury thermometers, and any length of rope or shoe-string over 8" long, the handgun issue means nothing with suicide.

Even if you managed to do away with all of those, people are creative. I know some of us here think we're "just animals", but even if that's the case, we're the most cunning of all animals that ever lived. If we want to die, we will find a way, no matter how hard somebody tries to stop us.

EDIT:

Just for shits and giggles.... look at Cuba on these stats....

76.8% hanging deaths, while only 3.4% gun suicides....

Does anyone here really believe that this was some sort of spiritual or country pride reason of inflicting a more brutal death upon themselves?

No......

At least in America, these people would have been able to practically beg for suicide by cop bullet rather than tether the self-made noose around their own neck before kicking out the chair.

That speaks a lot about Cuban citizens and what they've had to endure the last 50 years or more.

So many of them willing to do that horrible death to themselves with no support, no third party.

Must have been great lives they lived up until that point, huh?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." ~Shepherd Book

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 5:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Posted by Jack:

With the surplus of illegal guns, illegal citizens, and general "bad guys" already out there, how do you intend to keep the guns out of the wrong people's hands when we still can't manage to find a way to prevent illegal civilians and dead citizens from doing something as simple as voting?

Straw man. You're basing your argument off something you have no evidence of. The state of Pennsylvania has admitted in court testimony that they have been unable to find a single incident of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania or any other state.

You may as well be arguing that guns should be unregulated because Martians have invaded the U.S.A.

Wow Kwick.....

I see one straw. Impressive.

Unfortunately, there are 49 others missing, and last I checked, neither the Rethugs or Demons gave two shits about Pennsylvania.

I take it you missed the part where the proponents of Pennsylvania's voter ID law admitted that they have been unable to find a single incidence of in-person voter fraud IN ANY OF THE 50 STATES, didn't you?

Quote:

I'm sure as hell not going to take Pennsylvania's competence or "fear factor" of states like California or Illinois and the tax-payer backed thugs who run them as gospel truth that there is no corruption there.

Seems like we're both battling with swizzle-sticks...

En Garde!

EDIT:

BTW... ask the Blacks in Flordia who were wronged if they agree with Pennsylvania's findings in your little blurb there.....

Ouch... that had to hurt!

I'm quite sure they'll agree that there is no verifiable voter fraud, which is why they feel "wronged" (your choice of words) by being disenfranchised for no legal or viable reason.

It's curious to me that you care more about the "rights" of convicted felons and domestic abusers to have guns (a constitutional right, you say) than you care about the rights of black people to be allowed to vote (also a constitutional right).

You and Geezer have argued that we could all but eliminate most problems with gun crimes by enforcing existing laws - in short, you've argued that while there ARE verifiable problems with gun issues and crimes involving guns, you see no need for any new laws at all. After all, it's only 30,000 dead people a year or so, so no big deal, and as you pointed out about blacks in Florida, it's not like you really give two shits about these people who are harmed.

But oddly, you seem to find a very real need for voter ID laws throughout the land, despite your own admission that you've done (and will do) zero research, you have no facts to offer, and even those who back such laws admit in court testimony that they are unable to find a single incidence of the only kind of voter fraud that voter ID laws would address: in-person voter fraud.

Further, while you decry and claim to HATE any government spending, you are perfectly willing to enact new laws that would set up huge bureaucracies to enforce them, despite clear admissions that there is not even a problem to address.

Tell us all again how very freedom-loving you are. You're pushing a right-wing authoritarian agenda here, and you're full of shit when you try to deny that.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"The groin cup and throat protector have about as much ballistic protection as the kneepads I wear when I'm doing a job that requires me to be on my knees." - Troll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 29, 2012 5:40 AM