Feds say neo-Nazi with guns was tracking community leaders

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. 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?

Reminds me of a quote I heard Gov (CT) Malloy recently about guns - "why background checks are not required for someone who buys a gun privately or at a gun show"

Umm..... "Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows ..... Connecticut...."

Thanks for playing, Malloy, perhaps you should brush up on current law before spouting....

Quote from Favrerox : Sorry, I guess I should have said Diamorphine and/or Methamphetamine. Neither of which are "illegal", but when they are obtained without proper authorization, readied for street use and sold without perscription; end up illegal. The same with guns. No one who willingly sells a gun without care or concern aside from the $$$ involved is going to care about or use any sort of BCG.

If they are the "same," will you agree to the same level of scrutiny, limitation, documentation necessary for guns as there are for Diamorphine and/or Methamphetamine?

Quote from Radeck : your lies and character assassinations are what is sad and nauseating I suspect you are referencing the AP article that was 100% wrong (they left out the words "DO NOT WANT" when he talked about segregation, which was the exact opposite of that they said he said) and being the scum that they are, when confronted about their lies, retracted it without publicizing their "error" as much as the original article, leaving the stories out there that other outlets based off the AP article, the result being that biased people like you now actually believe that crap !

I really do not know what you are referring to but I have heard Rand Paul myself. He has said repeatedly that he is against the part of the Civil Rights act that compels private businesses to not discriminate based on race in public accommodation. That is, not that has explicitly said he favors this -- i suspect he does, but that he believes, say, Walmart should be allowed under the law to put up "Whites Only" signs in their stores.

Quote from TRNT : 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? They = ? And please elaborate on this whole thing. Thanks.

When I say cost I don't mean dollar figure. I mean cost as in burden. The cost to the system of running a private sale BGC may actually be higher as well. To the private citizen the cost is higher because in the case of a purchase through an FFL the buyer is at the FFL's location already to get the gun. An added step when you are already there is just some additional time spent but little else.

For a private party sale how do you do the BGC at all? If you just let people phone in their own checks then the burden/cost is low. A fair price could be the marginal cost to the BGC system. But I think you can see that asking people to call in sales on the honor system would be largely ineffective. It wouldn't be a bad thing since it would let sellers feel better about their buyers but sellers and buyers who don't care wouldn't do it. So the burden in this case is low but the benefit is almost zero compared to what we have now.

Since most politicians understand the honor system wouldn't work they change the law to state all transfers must go through an FFL. Now there is an added cost to the private seller/buyer. They must travel to the FFL and pay the FFL to make the transaction legal. In places where there are many FFLs this is still a burden. In places where local laws have all but chased FFLs out of the area it gives the locals a back door way to prevent otherwise legal sales by adding a high burden to the transaction. In this case the effectiveness of the law is perhaps a bit better than in the earlier honor system case but not much. Someone who figures they won't pass the test is unlikely to try going the legal route but how much different is that than with the honor system? The burden to the legal buyer and seller is higher but the effectiveness is still questionable.

When we add registration (and assuming the registration database is relatively complete) we probably improve effectiveness (finally). However, the burden has gone up considerably. Even those who don't want to sell have to register for the system to be effective. The risk of honest people getting caught up in the system is high and the risks associated with registration, a hard to quantify but very real concern) is VERY high. You will likely create felons of those who refuse to register but otherwise would be legal gun owners (ie if you leave them alone there will be no problems). So the benefit is higher but the burden both hassle/cost and risk (confiscation) is much higher.

You compared to big airports in your analogy. That would be like saying only one of the two big gun stores in town requires back ground checks. Yes, that would be a issue. But that's not what we have. Your airport analogy would be better if, instead of two major airports, you picked say JFK and a small strip in Texas. JFK expects many international flights and is serviced by major public airlines. We have immigration control at that airport. The small Texas strip is not a likely destination for any major carriers and only a private or charter type flight is going to land there. It doesn't have immigration control. A plane from Mexico could fly up there and land at the little strip. Should we force all possible airstrips to have immigration control because any of them could be used for international flights?

Quote from TRNT : I really do not know what you are referring to but I have heard Rand Paul myself. He has said repeatedly that he is against the part of the Civil Rights act that compels private businesses to not discriminate based on race in public accommodation. That is, not that has explicitly said he favors this -- i suspect he does, but that he believes, say, Walmart should be allowed under the law to put up "Whites Only" signs in their stores.

he is arguing form a purely libertarian perspective / philosophy to minimize government interference in general, NOT not that he specifically supports segregation...in a way he has a point...these laws had a time and place in the past....today, just like unions, they become a hindrance and a tool for blackmail and graft. In today's culture, if walmart wants to do as you say, as a private business, his argument is they should be allowed to do so...they would be stupid to do it as public backlash and boycotts would quickly put them out of business, but that is their free choice should they want it.

As with unions dealing with unsafe work environments, these laws (and many others) have outlived their usefulness and have become tools and clubs for people with an agenda (usually leftist / statist), rather than actually looking to improve the human condition.

Quote from TRNT : 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

by that description and definition ability to Vote without proving who you are is a loophole.

You must be the person you identify yourself as to vote. You are not required to prove so.. If we followed the current voter laws.. we could be required to ask the person if they can legally purchase this handgun. Would that suffice?

Quote from TRNT : If they are the "same," will you agree to the same level of scrutiny, limitation, documentation necessary for guns as there are for Diamorphine and/or Methamphetamine?

Do you mean that if get my undergrad, apply for Gun school and take 4 years of gun training to allow me to use firearms as effective as any drugs out there? Which would include any fully automatic firearm, unlimited magazine size, unrestricted ammo type, the authorization to carry when and where I wish (even schools or hospitals), and a "Hippocratic" oath that if I see anyone in trouble anywhere, anytime I MUST use my training to help them; then yes!

Quote from Radeck : he is arguing form a purely libertarian perspective / philosophy to minimize government interference in general, NOT not that he specifically supports segregation...in a way he has a point...these laws had a time and place in the past....today, just like unions, they become a hindrance and a tool for blackmail and graft. In today's culture, if walmart wants to do as you say, as a private business, his argument is they should be allowed to do so...they would be stupid to do it as public backlash and boycotts would quickly put them out of business, but that is their free choice should they want it. As with unions dealing with unsafe work environments, these laws (and many others) have outlived their usefulness and have become tools and clubs for people with an agenda.

I didn't claim that he supports segregation (certainly not originally). So where is this lie that you accused me of telling?

But let's test your consistency: from a purely libertarian perspective / philosophy to minimize government interference in general, NOT not that I specifically support abortion but I think individuals should be allowed to have abortions if they so CHOOSE.

Now would you label me "pro-abortion"? If you do, then how could you in good conscience complain about calling Rand Paul a pro-segregationist.

(See, a dastardly logic such as calling pro-choice people pro-abortion works fine at the time, but then it will come back and bite you in the rear end later on.

Quote from Favrerox : Do you mean that if get my undergrad, apply for Gun school and take 4 years of gun training to allow me to use firearms as effective as any drugs out there? Which would include any fully automatic firearm, unlimited magazine size, unrestricted ammo type, the authorization to carry when and where I wish (even schools or hospitals), and a "Hippocratic" oath that if I see anyone in trouble anywhere, anytime I MUST use my training to help them; then yes!

Please rewrite the above but this time at my level. Thanks.

Quote from TRNT : I didn't claim that he supports segregation (certainly not originally). So where is this lie that you accused me of telling? But let's test your consistency: from a purely libertarian perspective / philosophy to minimize government interference in general, NOT not that I specifically support abortion but I think individuals should be allowed to have abortions if they so CHOOSE. Now would you label me "pro-abortion"? If you do, then how could you in good conscience complain about calling Rand Paul a pro-segregationist. (See, a dastardly logic such as calling pro-choice people pro-abortion works fine at the time, but then it will come back and bite you in the rear end later on. Please rewrite the above but this time at my level. Thanks.

I think the other poster has a point. You said, "Of course the sad news is that politicians such as Rand Paul would like to allow segregated counters again."

So you are correct when you say, "I didn't claim that he supports segregation (certainly not originally). " but you instead claimed he wants it which is all but the same as supporting it.

The abortion logic doesn't really work because if you are one who sees abortion as murder then libertarian ideals don't prevent you from being against murder.

Quote from TRNT : Please rewrite the above but this time at my level. Thanks.

Not sure what you want exactly...

Quote from DJPlayer : by that description and definition ability to Vote without proving who you are is a loophole. You must be the person you identify yourself as to vote. You are not required to prove so.. If we followed the current voter laws.. we could be required to ask the person if they can legally purchase this handgun. Would that suffice?

I am not sure. The analogy breaks down because we do not have the FFL/private seller contrast.

But call it a loophole; I really do not care. I am in principle not opposed to voter IDs except:

1. It has not been demonstrated that it is a problem.
2. It does create the carnage that guns at the wrong hands do.
3. It has been used politically and in a partisan fashion. A party that salivates at black and poor people stay in line for 6 hours before they can vote has lost ALL credibility re that issue with me. They can say today is Friday and I will bet my money that it is not.
4. I am for national IDs (you? I think I have asked this Q before. Have you answered it before?). Let's go ahead and institute a national ID and then after a few years require IDs for voting, welfare, gun purchase, ...... etc, AND grandfather those older than a certain age. Basically take politics and partisanship out of this equation and I will support such notion.

Quote from TRNT : But let's test your consistency: from a purely libertarian perspective / philosophy to minimize government interference in general, NOT not that I specifically support abortion but I think individuals should be allowed to have abortions if they so CHOOSE. Now would you label me "pro-abortion"? If you do, then how could you in good conscience complain about calling Rand Paul a pro-segregationist.

failed comparison...the murder of an unborn innocent child is NOT a valid idea of "choice", any more than the murder of anyone else is a valid choice. I know you libs do not consider killing an unborn baby as murder, but millions of others, like me, DO, whether you accept that or not is irrelevant....to us, the murder of a baby is NOT a permissible "choice", like the choice of whether or not to put up "whites only" signs...they are not remotely comparable in any way shape or form.

You have been on TP for enough years, and been on enough abortion threads, to understand (even if not agree) that the anti-abortion people are against it because they consider the unborn baby a human life just like any other, and murdering it is not a "choice". So either for all these years you have failed to understand the basic principle others have been arguing with you about, or you DO, but purposefully make these failed comparisons just to egg people on (if not outright troll). As to which it is, that is between you and yourself.

Quote from ZeeDuck : I think the other poster has a point. You said, "Of course the sad news is that politicians such as Rand Paul would like to allow segregated counters again." So you are correct when you say, "I didn't claim that he supports segregation (certainly not originally). " but you instead claimed he wants it which is all but the same as supporting it. The abortion logic doesn't really work because if you are one who sees abortion as murder then libertarian ideals don't prevent you from being against murder.

Huh? Are you merely unhappy with the word "want"? Ok here: Rand Paul supports laws that would allow Walmart to deny services to say blacks and put up up say "Whites Only" signs.

Ok with you now?

And your last ("logical") point about abortion simply does not follow. What if I see segregation a sin as serious as murder? Then what?

Look here is the argument: if a person is for ALLOWING X as a choice, could that person legitimately be labeled pro X?

Many rightwingers are for allowing the communist party under the law. Are they pro-communists? (There are many other examples so please do not pick on this particular one.)

Quote from Radeck : failed comparison...the murder of an unborn innocent child is NOT a valid idea of "choice", any more than the murder of anyone else is a valid choice. I know you libs do not consider killing an unborn baby as murder, but millions of others, like me, DO, whether you accept that or not is irrelevant....to us, the murder of a baby is NOT a permissible "choice", like the choice of whether or not to put up "whites only" signs...they are not remotely comparable in any way shape or form. You have been on TP for enough years, and been on enough abortion threads, to understand (even if not agree) that the anti-abortion people are against it because they consider the unborn baby a human life just like any other, and murdering it is not a "choice". So either for all these years you have failed to understand the basic principle others have been arguing with you about, or you DO, but purposefully make these failed comparisons just to egg people on (if not outright troll). As to which it is, that is between you and yourself.

Ok, let's continue testing your position in another way. Are you for allowing under the law for communists to form a party and to run for office as communists? If so, do you consider yourself pro-communism?

How about Rand Paul? He is for the CHOICE of segregation. Would you then agree that Rand Paul is pro-segregation?

How about those who are for situational ethics? How about labeling them pro-situational ethics?