Feds say neo-Nazi with guns was tracking community leaders

Quote from TRNT : BTW: for full disclosure, I voted for Obama partly because he is black.

Isn't that an irrational reason to vote for the president? How is that different than voting for a president because he is good looking or not fat? Sorry to go off topic but while I can see voting for someone because you like their ideas. Voting due to something like color or build seems very superficial though I respect your honesty in the mater.

Quote from DJPlayer : I realized we are doomed because of people that think this way. Neither of these people were "dumb" in anyways.. just not politically involved.. So they based their opinion on the majority.

it's really sad. that is why it is annoying when celebrities take up a cause. they already have a base that will lap up anything they spew out.


bho has acted more like a celebrity than a potus.

Quote from TRNT : Right now a criminal could use the gun-show loophole and buy a gun. If we adopt a UBGC, he can no longer do that. And that, to most of us, is a good thing.

Right, because someone willing to sell to a random person will not be willing to do so simply because it's illegal. Sure.

Quote from TRNT : You are kidding me. In one post you say even a UBGC does not help a bit (was it you or someone else?), and here you say we can solve the gun-show loophole problem easily? Come on!

first it's not a loophole.. it was intentionally designed this way. It wasn't some freak accident that they discovered this occurred.

Quote : Look, "gun-show loophole" is a proxy for all the other related and similar loopholes too. If the private individual who can no longer sell a gun to a felon in gun-show because supposedly you closed that loophole can then go out for a few minutes and sell the same gun to the same felon, what problem do you think you have solved by forbidding private sellers to sells gun in gun-shows?

this is absolutely endless.. what if they want to buy.. a baseball bat? how about a ninja sword? sai blades? shuriken? a battle mace? how about swithblade (which is legal in some states).

Let's go back to the argument of voter fraud. We have very few cases of it.. (mostly because the system is so open it's difficult to catch them). The argument is that the number of cases don't justify the implementation. We have the same scenario here.. except somehow a very few cases justify broad modifications to the system. If Voter ID were implemented it would be extremely difficult to commit in anyway though. If stop felons from illegally purchasing guns at gun shows.. in all likelihood they will just go elsewhere and succeed. Again though.. certain groups are determined to go after the 1% again (actually .7%, number of jailed individuals who acquired handguns from gun shows)..

I can make a better argument to force people to wear standard bicycle helmets while driving in the interest of saving more lives.

Are we truly interesting in saving lives or merely pushing an agenda?

Quote from ZeeDuck : Do you believe in absolutism? Do you believe if a law is not 100% effective then it shouldn't be allowed? Do you believe that some treatments are worse than the cure? Would you agree that amputation is an extreme way to solve arthritis? Background checks and registration are both examples of laws that cause some level of pain to the law abiding and are not 100% effective when stopping illegal transfers. We have a balance between protecting legal gun owners and their rights and stopping crime. Background checks at FFLs are relatively easy to implement and control even without registration thus the cost to benefit ratio looks reasonable (I say this in absent of hard data). The private sale equivalent is harder to do. Without a list of who owns what a private sale law doesn't really work. It seems like it would be as effective as asking people to collect sales tax at a yard sale. OK, so then let's demand a list. Well how do you get that list going and make sure it's not full of holes? What about the potential down side of the list? It can (and has been) used for confiscation or or types of forced relinquishment of arms. The use of back ground checks at FFLs seems to be something that has relatively little negative impact and is easy to enforce. Back ground checks on private sales seems about impossible to enforce without relatively large and burdensome rules. Thus the one probably makes sense because the good vs harm ratio seems to favor good. In the other case the good vs harm ratio looks to have reversed.

We have gone over this on the Podium more often than I would like to admit. We are not talking about the fact that no laws are 100% foolproof or 100% efficient. In my opinion we are talking about gashing holes in the system. I have often likened the present system of requiring BGCs from FFLs but not from private sales to advertising that we check visas at Kennedy but not at LaGuardia.

Quote from ZeeDuck : Isn't that an irrational reason to vote for the president? How is that different than voting for a president because he is good looking or not fat? Sorry to go off topic but while I can see voting for someone because you like their ideas. Voting due to something like color or build seems very superficial though I respect your honesty in the mater.

If the next presidential nominee (GOP or Dem) is a woman, I am more likely to vote for that nominee because she is a woman.

I consider role model to be very important. I think having a black president not only worked as a role model for our black population, it also helped with healing some of the ill-feeling left from the time that we did not consider blacks full humans or did not allow them to sit at lunch counters with whites.

Of course the sad news is that politicians such as Rand Paul would like to allow segregated counters again.

Here is another one: if we have candidates who has come from humble backgrounds, I am more likely to vote for them.

One more: candidates whose both parents were not born in the US are less likely to get my vote.

I am sure I have a lot more like these.

Quote from Favrerox : "Private sales" of guns (not gun shows, flea markets, etc) is the same as "private sales" of heroin/cocaine/meth/etc. Why not make the drug dealers do BGCs on their buyers as well? It'll do about as much good.

Are they, really? Heroin/meth are illegal. Do you consider guns illegal?

Quote from ConservativeNYer : Right, because someone willing to sell to a random person will not be willing to do so simply because it's illegal. Sure.

Well it works for FFLs. Or do you deny that?

Quote from DJPlayer : first it's not a loophole.. it was intentionally designed this way. It wasn't some freak accident that they discovered this occurred.

Well, IMO that does not preclude something from being a loophole. In fact I suspect gun enthusiasts and the NRA often intentionally create these loopholes in order to make otherwise meaningful laws inoperational and ineffective. BTW: Lapierre called it a loophole in 1999. (Did other prominent and mainstream gun-enthusiasts correct Lapierre at the time?)

IMO, it is loophole in this sense: a felon who cannot buy a gun from an FFL because he would not pass the BGC can go next door to a gun-show and buy the same gun without being subjected to a BGC. To me that is an open and shut case of a loophole.

Here is a dictionary definition, BTW:

M-W.com

2: a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded

Quote from TRNT : We have gone over this on the Podium more often than I would like to admit. We are not talking about the fact that no laws are 100% foolproof or 100% efficient. In my opinion we are talking about gashing holes in the system. I have often likened the present system of requiring BGCs from FFLs but not from private sales to advertising that we check visas at Kennedy but not at LaGuardia.

But we have a case where the additional laws you are advocating come with a potentially very high burden or a very low effectiveness.

Your analogy is flawed because the cost-benefit of checking immigration at either large airport is the same. The cost benefit of background checks is much different for FFLs vs private sales. It's relatively easy to regulate FFLs and without BGC it's rather obvious that gun stores would be the go to purchase place for prohibited buyers.

The cost-benefit of the private sale BGC is not as clear. Without registration the system is all but meaningless since, unlike FFLs where you can demand records, with private parties there are no records to review. Thus we have a burden without meaningful benefit. This means the cost benefit is very poor and thus we shouldn't have that law.

The cost-benefit of private sales with registration is also poor. The benefit in tracking gun sales is better though no where near 100%. The cost however is very high as it runs the sort of risks that come with registration as well as the risks associated with prosecution of inadvertent non-compliance etc.

It's easy to see how the majority would want such a system. The sad truth is the majority also likely has no idea what the effectiveness and cost benefits of such a system might be.

I've seen it mentioned in a number of articles that something like 70% of NRA members are in favor of this. This is cited as evidence that we should do it. I think it was an even higher number of NRA members wanted universal concealed carry laws and more than 50% saw no benefit to limiting magazine capacity or having an assault weapons ban. Why should we listen to them when it comes to BGC but not when it comes to other things they want?

More than 50% of the general public wants back ground checks but of those poled, how many know what the current laws are? How many think that there are special rules that allow people to not have back ground checks at gun shows?

Quote from TRNT : Well it works for FFLs. Or do you deny that?

Talking to you is infuriating. Their livelihood depends on it. Of course they follow the rules. Someone selling a gun in a parking lot may not, law or not.

Quote from TRNT : Let's then drop the pretense, then. Do you think BGC requirement for the FFLs have made a "tiniest bit of difference"?

Sure but they are already accountable for the firearms they buy - e.g. there's already a distinct record that they purchased weapons.

Quote from TRNT : Then let's add registration to UBGCs. I agree with your logic. If UBGCs without registration are useless, let's not have ANY BGCs -- not even for FFLs. Or, let's require registration along with UBGCs. Are you on board with that?

nope. no registration. a MYRIAD of issues with it - including the fact that not many will register - but the most serious being that registration has been used as a precursor to confiscation. Sure sure sure I'll hear the "it will never happen here!"; spare me the comedy.

A BGC requirement only works when there are repercussions to illegal sales - illegal sales aren't documented, but say if a gun showed up somewhere (crime scene) and you didn't transfer it legally (e.g. BGC could be the legal handoff of liability), then you could face serious consequences. Of course this requires that we have an accurate list of who has what, and keep that list accurate. With wholesalers and dealers this is already the case - but their inventory turns are high - and are only interested in weapons for sales. BGC is a cost of doing business. What incentive would a place like, say, Cabelas, have to not run a BGC? $ Millions in fines, civil lawsuits (possibly), etc - plus there is already a direct record that the retailer has weapons with serials X, Y, Z, etc - the manufacturer keeps these records (not sure if they are recorded to the gov't).

Quote from ZeeDuck : But we have a case where the additional laws you are advocating come with a potentially very high burden or a very low effectiveness. Your analogy is flawed because the cost-benefit of checking immigration at either large airport is the same. The cost benefit of background checks is much different for FFLs vs private sales. It's relatively easy to regulate FFLs and without BGC it's rather obvious that gun stores would be the go to purchase place for prohibited buyers. The cost-benefit of the private sale BGC is not as clear. Without registration the system is all but meaningless since, unlike FFLs where you can demand records, with private parties there are no records to review. Thus we have a burden without meaningful benefit. This means the cost benefit is very poor and thus we shouldn't have that law.

There maybe a disconnect here.

Let's stipulate on your claim that the cost of requiring BGCs for private sales is more than those for FFLs. But what about the benefits? Do you claim the benefits are less too?

But IMO there is even a bigger disconnect. Just like my Kennedy/LaGaurdia example, the gun-show loophole totally negates any benefits that we might get from FFL BGCs. At least that is what my logic tells me. Then why do we even have BGCs? So that we may feel good? So that the NRA uses them in their demagogic arguments?

Quote from Dr. J : Sure but they are already accountable for the firearms they buy - e.g. there's already a distinct record that they purchased weapons.

They = ? And please elaborate on this whole thing.

Thanks.

Quote from ConservativeNYer : Talking to you is infuriating. Their livelihood depends on it. Of course they follow the rules. Someone selling a gun in a parking lot may not, law or not.

I did not ask if they follow the rules. I asked if it works?