Slickdeals.net

Slickdeals.net (http://slickdeals.net/forums/index.php)
-   The Podium (http://slickdeals.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Feds say neo-Nazi with guns was tracking community leaders (http://slickdeals.net/f/5869690-feds-say-neo-nazi-with-guns-was-tracking-community-leaders)

124nic8 02-21-2013 07:10 PM

Feds say neo-Nazi with guns was tracking community leaders
 
Feds say neo-Nazi with guns was tracking community leaders [nbcnews.com]

Quote:

New details about the case of Richard Schmidt, the owner of a sporting goods store in Bowling Green, Ohio, dramatically highlight what law enforcement officials say are major loopholes in the nation’s gun laws. Schmidt, 47, is a convicted felon who spent 13 years in Ohio state prison for a homicide after being convicted of killing a man and wounding two others in a shooting during a traffic stop, according to state prison records. Under federal law, Schmidt, who was released on parole in 2003, is barred from possessing any firearms.

Yet when FBI agents last December searched his home and store, they discovered a cache of 18 weapons that included AR-15 assault rifles, 9 mm Ruger and Sig Sauer pistols, shotguns, high-capacity magazines and more than 40,000 rounds of ammunition. Schmidt was originally reported to have been arrested on charges of trafficking in counterfeit goods, but was indicted last month on four federal charges —including possessing illegal weapons, body armor and ammunition. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
....

Dettelbach, who is overseeing the case, said that federal agents have been unable to determine how and where Schmidt obtained his weapons, prompting officials to conclude he likely acquired them at gun shows or through private sales -- where under federal law no background checks are required.

The investigation into Schmidt was conducted by a FBI Joint terrorism Task Force whose agents said they discovered he was tracking African American and Jewish leaders in the Detroit area. When agents conducted their search, they said they found evidence suggesting Schmidt harbored neo-Nazi sympathies, including a video of the 2005 national meeting of the National Socialist Movement — in which speakers wore black swastika arm bands and gave the Nazi “Sieg Heil” salute. “This is a war! This is a battle for our survival!” one speaker shouts on a video of the meeting obtained by NBC News. Other seized items, according to federal search warrants, included a list of national Jewish-owned businesses and paraphernalia from the “Waffen SS,” Adolph Hitler’s military force in Germany.
....

Federal law does not require such checks for private sales or gun show purchases. Seventeen states have mandated them for handgun purchases at gun shows, though Ohio is not among them. Only six states require background checks for all firearms purchases.

A new study by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research has found that 80 percent of those convicted of gun crimes acquire their weapons through private sales – making it virtually impossible for federal agents to trace where they come from or who is providing them.


80%! And yet there are still those who oppose UBC. Why?

Mods, if appropriate, please move to mega-thread.

DJPlayer 02-21-2013 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57746090)
Feds say neo-Nazi with guns was tracking community leaders [nbcnews.com]



80%! And yet there are still those who oppose UBC. Why?

Mods, if appropriate, please move to mega-thread.

So first I skimmed the Johns Hopkins reports which read more like an MSNBC piece rather than any legitimate study at all.. (because it's not a study, it's a report written specifically to cite reasons for more gun control).

so I then I came upon the quote you're referring to:

"Data from a national survey of inmates indicated that nearly 80 percent of those who had used a handgun in a crime had acquired it through a transaction with an individual who was not a licensed gun dealer"

no luck w/ the national survey of inmates.. but the first link I received was from the BJS. Which does contain the info from the Prison Inmate Survey.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Quote:

• In 1997 among State inmates possessing a gun, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source.
to be more specific (keep these are just the in-depth details to exactly what you quoted).

Quote:

Street/illegal source 39.2%
Friends or family 39.6%
Gun show 0.7%
Flea market 1.0%
Pawnshop 3.8%
Retail store 8.3%

I'll keep citing where your Hopkins report got their info..

Quote:

Less than 2% of inmates reported carrying a fully automatic or military-style semiautomatic firearm
Quote:

n 1997, 14% of State inmates who had used or possessed a firearm during their current offense bought or traded for it from a retail store, pawnshop, flea market, or gun show (table 8). Nearly 40% of State inmates carrying a firearm obtained the weapon from family or friends. About 3 in 10 received the weapon from drug dealers, off the street, or through the black market. Another 1 in 10 obtained their gun during a robbery, burglary, or other type of theft.
This statistics even cite the number could be larger for illegal purchasing stating:

Quote:

Between the two surveys the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 was enacted. The act requires background checks for persons purchasing firearms from
federally licensed firearm dealers. Changes in how inmates obtained firearms, when the two surveys are compared, may or may not reflect the requirements in the Brady Act. Inmates may have procured their firearm or entered prison before the Brady Act became effective in 1994.
so the actual statistics include people that may have purchased a gun before the Brady Act even went into effect...

so you think UBC will stop criminals from purchasing via: The 39.2% illegal street sales? The 39.6% from friends and family?

Try reading the actual data next time rather than the partisan B.S., which was named: "The Case for Gun Policy Reform in America". I'd encourage you to go through the statistics on inmates though.. they go on mention what characteristics were more prevalent in gun offenders. Some of them being parents being welfare recipients, low income, singe family homes, urban dwellers, parents were regular drug users, minimal education etc..

Radeck 02-21-2013 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57747014)
Street/illegal source 39.2%
Friends or family 39.6%
Gun show 0.7%
Flea market 1.0%
Pawnshop 3.8%
Retail store 8.3%

Great job DJ....more proof of how low the liars at nbc and other freedom-hating scum will sink to, including outright lies about data, to manufacture a crisis where non exists....the EXACT same thing they are doing with the $44 billion "sequestration" out of $3.7 trillion spending and how it is a "catastrophe" and "draconian"...

note the additional bonus points for the media dirt bags with "neo-nazi" references....I wonder if they referred to Dorner (the serial killer cop) as an Obama-loving neo-marxist / communist (rhetorical question)

nothing but lies and more lies from the media, leftist hack groups, and this administration.

hoser83 02-21-2013 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57746090)

A new study by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research has found that 80 percent of those convicted of gun crimes acquire their weapons through private sales – making it virtually impossible for federal agents to trace where they come from or who is providing them.



80%! And yet there are still those who oppose UBC. Why?

Please help me understand this. If those 80% are through private sales, how is UBC suppose to help?

Dumpsterdiver 02-21-2013 11:14 PM

Are the idiots still arguing the feds should regulate intrastate commerce?

Rebound 02-21-2013 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoser83 (Post 57747816)
Please help me understand this. If those 80% are through private sales, how is UBC suppose to help?

There are 300 million private guns in America. Don't you think that's enough to be certain that the government can never take them all away? Because aren't the people against UBC really against it because they're paranoid about the government knowing whether they have guns or not?

If I buy or sell a car, I have to transfer its title, plain and simple. So why not put the same requirement on a gun transfer? Why not require a background check, whether a gun is sold in a store, gunshow, or just sold to a friend?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57750168)
Are the idiots still arguing the feds should regulate intrastate commerce?

The fact that gun fans call people who disagree with them "idiots" leads me to believe that they are an angry, violent-prone bunch of people.

hoser83 02-21-2013 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57750496)
There are 300 million private guns in America. Don't you think that's enough to be certain that the government can never take them all away? Because aren't the people against UBC really against it because they're paranoid about the government knowing whether they have guns or not?

If I buy or sell a car, I have to transfer its title, plain and simple. So why not put the same requirement on a gun transfer? Why not require a background check, whether a gun is sold in a store, gunshow, or just sold to a friend?

I'm not at all concerned with the bolded part above. When the majority of the weapons in the OP are obtained from private sale by convicted criminals, can you honestly tell me that you think a background check/title transfer would be enforced by the private seller?

124nic8 02-22-2013 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoser83 (Post 57750632)
I'm not at all concerned with the bolded part above. When the majority of the weapons in the OP are obtained from private sale by convicted criminals, can you honestly tell me that you think a background check/title transfer would be enforced by the private seller?

It'd be likely if that seller were held liable if the gun was used in a crime.

hoser83 02-22-2013 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57750784)
It'd be likely if that seller were held liable if the gun was used in a crime.

So the sellers that convicted gun criminals are purchasing from are going to follow the title/background check process, i.e be selling guns actually tied to a title? How do you expect to enforce this?

JackHandey 02-22-2013 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57750784)
It'd be likely if that seller were held liable if the gun was used in a crime.

You must be joking... Seriously? With increased penalties, it just means the price will go up.

DJPlayer 02-22-2013 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57750496)
There are 300 million private guns in America. Don't you think that's enough to be certain that the government can never take them all away? Because aren't the people against UBC really against it because they're paranoid about the government knowing whether they have guns or not?

I think the argument is rights.. If I have a right to something (aka obviously 100%) rurther pushing through un-needed regulations is a diminishment of that right. Why are people paranoid against Voter ID laws? Will the state/government be providing free transfer of title?

Quote:

If I buy or sell a car, I have to transfer its title, plain and simple. So why not put the same requirement on a gun transfer? Why not require a background check, whether a gun is sold in a store, gunshow, or just sold to a friend?
If it's vehicle insurance vs. healthcare insurance it's unfair.. Gun laws vs. voter ID and that's unfair.. but registration of vehicles and firearms is somehow fair. To quote the logic you've followed time and time again.. one is a choice and one is a constitutional right. To make it more difficult to own would be a violation to my 2nd amendment rights. In addition the prime reason for vehicle title transfers is the taxes the state collects. I cant' even privately sell a car for less than they assume I should. They then assume I'm trying to loophole around taxes.

Quote:

The fact that gun fans call people who disagree with them "idiots" leads me to believe that they are an angry, violent-prone bunch of people.
I cited the facts to you and you didn't really mention a word.. when you specifically spoke about jailed criminals who owned guns I cited the percentages of where they came from:

Quote:

Street/illegal source 39.2%
Friends or family 39.6%
Gun show 0.7%
Flea market 1.0%
Pawnshop 3.8%
Retail store 8.3%
good luck regulating pawn shops and flea markets.. At the only one where you could find a legal dealer is at a gun show.. which accounts for less than 1%. You're going to attempt to regulate 100% while only truly affecting less than 1%. Maybe it's not that those that oppose are angry and violent.. maybe they just know the statistics and are angry because your argument doesn't seem to make any logical sense (in diverting crime, murder etc..).

Seems liberals in general like to concentrate on anything that is 1% of the population or smaller? why is that?

Dr. J 02-22-2013 06:41 AM

"federal agents have been unable to determine how and where Schmidt obtained his weapons,"

/thread

On a side note, I don't disagree with UBGC but I also believe it won't make the tiniest bit of difference.

Dr. J 02-22-2013 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoser83 (Post 57751006)
So the sellers that convicted gun criminals are purchasing from are going to follow the title/background check process, i.e be selling guns actually tied to a title? How do you expect to enforce this?


bingo

this is why UBGC is toothless. It *requires* registration to have any weight at all.

TRNT 02-22-2013 06:49 AM

Quote:

Federal law does not require such checks for private sales or gun show purchases. Seventeen states have mandated them for handgun purchases at gun shows, though Ohio is not among them. Only six states require background checks for all firearms purchases.
I really do not care if gun-show loopholes are closed in some states. I guess that would finally prevent some to use the "gun-show loophole" phrase. But as long as any private sale is allowed to happen without a BGC, then the loophole remains and such loophole makes a mockery of even the requirement that the FFLs use BGCs. In fact if we do not have universal BGCs, we might as well also drop the crappy law that says FFLs need to conduct BGCs. While at it, I say we should also drop the other crappy law that says sale to "known" (wink wink) felons is prohibited (not to mention the one that prohibits sale of guns to "known" (wink wink) out-of-staters). As some say, "why deny felons the means to protect their families?" After all, when the gov becomes a complete dictatorship, don't felons also feel the oppression?

TRNT 02-22-2013 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57752982)
I think the argument is rights.. If I have a right to something (aka obviously 100%) rurther pushing through un-needed regulations is a diminishment of that right. Why are people paranoid against Voter ID laws? Will the state/government be providing free transfer of title?

Will gun enthusiasts object to paying sales taxes on those sales?

If >50% of people want those regulations, how would you be able to characterize such as "unneeded"? Why do the majority have to prove to you anything before exercising their rights (of passing laws)?

TRNT 02-22-2013 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57753376)
On a side note, I don't disagree with UBGC but I also believe it won't make the tiniest bit of difference.

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

TRNT 02-22-2013 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57753416)
bingo

this is why UBGC is toothless. It *requires* registration to have any weight at all.

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?

Danman114 02-22-2013 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57753376)
"federal agents have been unable to determine how and where Schmidt obtained his weapons,"

/thread

^ This.

The idea that the Feds would see this Neo-Nazi possessing illegal guns and conclude that some otherwise honest, hardworking American would sell him a gun via private sale/gun show, and not some Neo-Nazi scum bag friend is not surprising to me, but probably should be disturbing to others...

DJPlayer 02-22-2013 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57753536)
Will gun enthusiasts object to paying sales taxes on those sales?

If >50% of people want those regulations, how would you be able to characterize such as "unneeded"? Why do the majority have to prove to you anything before exercising their rights (of passing laws)?

>50% of people do not want ObamaCare, how would one be able to claim it is "needed" when the majority claims it is not need (and not wanted).

We all know it's not difficult to sell the general public on issues given certain hand picked messages. Everything sounds good in theory, until the details comes to light. Are tax payers (as in all taxpayers) willing to pay for the enforcing this.. not only enforcing but making transfers free and accessible to all? Even raising the minimum wage sounds good until you think about further repercussions. If people had a more in depth logic of thinking, maybe we'd have more common sense public beliefs out there.

by VAST majority the public wants cuts in spending equal to increases in revenue. To many political agendas going on today..

DJPlayer 02-22-2013 07:11 AM

in addition I purchased a hand gun from a friend more than a decade ago.. we went to local gun retailer and had the registration changed. But I'm also not a criminal.. nor was my friend (the seller). We both LCC. I have taken Handgun safety training courses.. etc.. etc..

Would a criminal on a low economic scale (transfer is not free) comply with the same regulations?

TRNT 02-22-2013 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57753742)
>50% of people do not want ObamaCare, how would one be able to claim it is "needed" when the majority claims it is not need (and not wanted).

We all know it's not difficult to sell the general public on issues given certain hand picked messages. Everything sounds good in theory, until the details comes to light. Are tax payers (as in all taxpayers) willing to pay for the enforcing this.. not only enforcing but making transfers free and accessible to all? Even raising the minimum wage sounds good until you think about further repercussions. If people had a more in depth logic of thinking, maybe we'd have more common sense public beliefs out there.

by VAST majority the public wants cuts in spending equal to increases in revenue. To many political agendas going on today..

I apologize for being sloppy. We do not gov by plebiscite. We have a representational democracy. When I said that I meant "through" their representatives. Yes, it is sometimes possible that a law with less than 50% support among the population be adopted -- heck we sometimes elect a president with less than 50% popular vote but that is what our democracy is. (And please do not say we are not a democracy. I am sick and tired of that phony baloney claim.)

TRNT 02-22-2013 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57753794)
in addition I purchased a hand gun from a friend more than a decade ago.. we went to local gun retailer and had the registration changed. But I'm also not a criminal.. nor was my friend (the seller). We both LCC. I have taken Handgun safety training courses.. etc.. etc..

Would a criminal on a low economic scale (transfer is not free) comply with the same regulations?

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.

empiretc 02-22-2013 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57753742)
If people had a more in depth logic of thinking, maybe we'd have more common sense public beliefs out there.


:iagree:



most just want to jump on the popular bandwagon.

DJPlayer 02-22-2013 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57753890)
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.

We could fix that issue even easier that UBGC. Only dealers can sell at gun shows.. Problem fixed. Wow that was easy.. There are a very very few private gun owners at gun shows.. we're talking about people selling their very own collection of weapons. So they are given the option to go to a gathering where people are looking for guns.. rather than hitting craigslist, newspapers etc.. and fishing for possibly individuals interested.

So let's say I have 10 person weapons and I want to sell them.. Then I must go to a licensed dealer with each weapon and each seller and transfer title. Which of course there is a cost to. But the current and only defense in my state vs. voter ID is that people would have to drive to the DMV (described as an inconvenience). Which was why it wasn't implemented in the last election.

We can't cherry pick the inconveniences.. when dealing with rights.

ZeeDuck 02-22-2013 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57750496)
There are 300 million private guns in America. Don't you think that's enough to be certain that the government can never take them all away? Because aren't the people against UBC really against it because they're paranoid about the government knowing whether they have guns or not?

If I buy or sell a car, I have to transfer its title, plain and simple. So why not put the same requirement on a gun transfer? Why not require a background check, whether a gun is sold in a store, gunshow, or just sold to a friend?

The fact that gun fans call people who disagree with them "idiots" leads me to believe that they are an angry, violent-prone bunch of people.

It's certainly unlikely that the government could actually take away all those guns. However, they could take otherwise legal and law abiding owners and make them felons with new restrictions. California has shown they are willing to do just that. Is that a good law? Didn't one of the father's of the US legal system suggest it's better to let one guilty man go free than convict 10 innocent men (or something like that). What would happen is in an effort to crack down on the small minority who use guns illegally we would risk making felons out of many people who would never do harm to people who aren't trying to do harm to them. It should disturb people to consider passing such a law once the ramifications are clear.

DJPlayer 02-22-2013 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 57753918)
:iagree:

most just want to jump on the popular bandwagon.

which is how the simple minded typically work. I will actually quote 2 females from the 2008 election. Why are you voting for Obama? response: "all the celebrities are.. and most other people are.. everyone can't be wrong." I actually had 2 separate people say this to my face and not as a joke in anyway. After they fire stopped spurting out my eyes.. 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.

TRNT 02-22-2013 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57754132)
We could fix that issue even easier that UBGC. Only dealers can sell at gun shows.. Problem fixed. Wow that was easy.. There are a very very few private gun owners at gun shows.. we're talking about people selling their very own collection of weapons. So they are given the option to go to a gathering where people are looking for guns.. rather than hitting craigslist, newspapers etc.. and fishing for possibly individuals interested.

So let's say I have 10 person weapons and I want to sell them.. Then I must go to a licensed dealer with each weapon and each seller and transfer title. Which of course there is a cost to. But the current and only defense in my state vs. voter ID is that people would have to drive to the DMV (described as an inconvenience). Which was why it wasn't implemented in the last election.

We can't cherry pick the inconveniences.. when dealing with rights.

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!

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?

TRNT 02-22-2013 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57754214)
which is how the simple minded typically work. I will actually quote 2 females from the 2008 election. Why are you voting for Obama? response: "all the celebrities are.. and most other people are.. everyone can't be wrong." I actually had 2 separate people say this to my face and not as a joke in anyway. After they fire stopped spurting out my eyes.. 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.

Well, that is just two people. There was a survey that showed 30% or so of Ohio republicans believed Obama was a foreign born Muslim. Are you worried about that?

And do you know how many* republicans still believe that Saddam had WMDs at the time we invaded Iraq and that Saddam was involved in 9/11? Thanks to Faux News.

* Whatever number you come up with add one (1) for Cheney. I can't believe he and his ilk got away with sending 4000 innocent young Americans to their death knowing full well that they were lying through their teeth.

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

ZeeDuck 02-22-2013 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57753602)
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?

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.

ZeeDuck 02-22-2013 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57754530)
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.

Favrerox 02-22-2013 07:59 AM

"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.

empiretc 02-22-2013 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57754214)
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.

ConservativeNYer 02-22-2013 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57753890)
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.

DJPlayer 02-22-2013 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57754270)
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?

TRNT 02-22-2013 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeeDuck (Post 57754588)
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.

TRNT 02-22-2013 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeeDuck (Post 57754740)
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. :vomit:

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:

Originally Posted by Favrerox (Post 57754742)
"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?

TRNT 02-22-2013 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConservativeNYer (Post 57755424)
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?

TRNT 02-22-2013 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57755552)
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

ZeeDuck 02-22-2013 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57755792)
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?

ConservativeNYer 02-22-2013 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57756034)
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.

Dr. J 02-22-2013 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57753568)
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.

Dr. J 02-22-2013 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57753602)
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).

TRNT 02-22-2013 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeeDuck (Post 57756422)
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:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57756798)
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.

TRNT 02-22-2013 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConservativeNYer (Post 57756452)
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?

Favrerox 02-22-2013 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57755976)
Are they, really? Heroin/meth are illegal. Do you consider guns illegal?

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.

Dr. J 02-22-2013 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeeDuck (Post 57756422)
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....

TRNT 02-22-2013 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Favrerox (Post 57757078)
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?

TRNT 02-22-2013 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 57757288)
your lies and character assassinations are what is sad and nauseating :vomit:
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.

ZeeDuck 02-22-2013 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57756968)
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?

Radeck 02-22-2013 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57757768)
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.

DJPlayer 02-22-2013 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57756242)
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?

Favrerox 02-22-2013 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57757572)
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!

TRNT 02-22-2013 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 57757954)
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. :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Favrerox (Post 57758152)
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.

ZeeDuck 02-22-2013 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57758166)
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. :lol:


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.

Favrerox 02-22-2013 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57758166)
Please rewrite the above but this time at my level. Thanks.

Not sure what you want exactly...

TRNT 02-22-2013 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57758014)
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.

Radeck 02-22-2013 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57758166)
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.

TRNT 02-22-2013 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeeDuck (Post 57758268)
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.)

TRNT 02-22-2013 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radeck (Post 57758518)
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? :)

124nic8 02-22-2013 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoser83 (Post 57751006)
So the sellers that convicted gun criminals are purchasing from are going to follow the title/background check process, i.e be selling guns actually tied to a title? How do you expect to enforce this?

If a gun is tied to a crime, the last legal owner would be prosecuted unless he could show that he required a BGC for the sale or reported the gun stolen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 57752572)
You must be joking... Seriously? With increased penalties, it just means the price will go up.

Yeah, seriously. Laws don't stop crime, they just raise the price.

Unacceptably high in many cases, which is why they deter crime.

TRNT 02-22-2013 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeeDuck (Post 57757784)
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?

Sigh.

I am told about half of gun purchases do not have BGCs associated with them.

JFK / LaGuardia
FFL / Private Sales

I think the analogy is perfect.

Or if you want switch LaGuardia to the smallest international airport.

Here is another: say we have 2000 miles of border with Mexico. If you advertise that in 1990 miles we have armed guard border patrols who will check your papers but there is 10 miles in which no one needs to present their papers, then you are as equally making a mockery of the border secuirty.

ZeeDuck 02-22-2013 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57758814)
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.)

You seem to have contradicted yourself. In one post you say Paul wants something. In another you say you didn't say what you just said. I'm confused.

124nic8 02-22-2013 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57754132)
We can't cherry pick the inconveniences.. when dealing with rights.

Yes, we can, as the SCOTUS has plainly ruled in many cases.

Restrictions on rights can be and have been implemented based on the practical dangers and benefits tradeoffs.

124nic8 02-22-2013 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Favrerox (Post 57757078)
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.

He might very well if he were held liable for its use.

At least the next time he is detained, that liability could result in incarceration.

Dumpsterdiver 02-22-2013 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57750496)
The fact that gun fans call people who disagree with them "idiots" leads me to believe that they are an angry, violent-prone bunch of people.

I don't know about "gun fans", personally, I call people that disagree with me dipshits.

People that don't understand the basic separation of federal and state regulations are idiots.

A federal law regulating private sales of firearms would be intrastate regulation. Clearly a violations of "powers reserved to the state".

But I suppose there is too much blind hatred for a metallic, inanimate object for the idiots to see that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57759578)
If a gun, knife, car, cell phone, baseball bat is tied to a crime, the last legal owner would be prosecuted unless he could show that he required a BGC for the sale or reported the gun stolen.

fixed that for ya

DJPlayer 02-22-2013 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57759956)
Yes, we can, as the SCOTUS has plainly ruled in many cases.

Restrictions on rights can be and have been implemented based on the practical dangers and benefits tradeoffs.

even thought the 2008 ruling was a 5:4 verdict to allow a firearm for lawful purposes, the SCOTUS is still a group of partisan hacks..

They deserve the same respect congress does right now.. (which is somewhere between absolutely nothing to none).

124nic8 02-22-2013 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57760570)
fixed that for ya

When those items are as dangerous as guns then you might have a point.

In the mean time, I'm OK with keeping all dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

Dumpsterdiver 02-22-2013 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57760794)
When those items are as dangerous as guns then you might have a point.

They kill the same as guns.
Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57760794)

In the mean time, I'm OK with keeping all dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

Yes, lock them up.

124nic8 02-22-2013 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57760572)
even thought the 2008 ruling was a 5:4 verdict to allow a firearm for lawful purposes, the SCOTUS is still a group of partisan hacks..

After Citizens' United, I'm inclined to agree.

Quote:

They deserve the same respect congress does right now.. (which is somewhere between absolutely nothing to none).
Except that restricted rights based on cost/benefits actually was established many decades ago, and makes sense logically. IOW, it's pragmatic, not ideological.

ZeeDuck 02-22-2013 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57759680)
Sigh.

I am told about half of gun purchases do not have BGCs associated with them.

JFK / LaGuardia
FFL / Private Sales

I think the analogy is perfect.

Or if you want switch LaGuardia to the smallest international airport.

Here is another: say we have 2000 miles of border with Mexico. If you advertise that in 1990 miles we have armed guard border patrols who will check your papers but there is 10 miles in which no one needs to present their papers, then you are as equally making a mockery of the border secuirty.

But your airport comparison is still wrong. Both airports are federally regulated thus they are both the same as FFLs. Perhaps you should consider ports for boats at see. We have ports with immigration control yet we have thousands of miles of coast where any number of boats could put someone ashore.

Regardless, the real issue is not analogies since we don't agree on the analogies. The real issue is benefits. I've already outlined the burden and benefits and they don't look good for universal background checks.

Also, where did the half of gun purchases come without BGC number come from. The number I've seen is 40% of transactions. Even that number is questionable. "Transactions" includes gifts and sales. Also the number was something like 35%+/-5% which means it would be just as reasonable to round down to 30% vs up to 40%. Also that study was done during the 1994 prior to the Brady laws we have today.

Quote:

The White House says the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report [ncjrs.gov], written by Philip Cook [duke.edu] of Duke University and Jens Ludwig [uchicago.edu] of the University of Chicago. This study is based on data collected from a survey in 1994, just the Brady law requirements for background checks was coming into effect. (In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, while Brady law went into effect in early 1994.) In other words, this is a really old figure.

....

When all of the “yes” and “probably was” answers were added together, that left 35.7 percent of respondents indicating they did not receive the gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Rounding up gets you to 40 percent, though as we noted the survey sample is so small it could also be rounded down to 30 percent.
Moreover, when gifts, inheritances and prizes are added in, then the number shrinks to 26.4 percent. (The survey showed that nearly 23.8 percent of the people surveyed obtained their gun either as a gift or inherited it, and about half of them believed a licensed firearms dealer was the source.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-stale-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/01/20/e42ec050-629a-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html

Dumpsterdiver 02-22-2013 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57759680)
Sigh.

I am told about half of gun purchases do not have BGCs associated with them.

And yet, THOSE are not used in crime.

Lock up criminals and their friends/family where the illegal gun use comes from.

ZeeDuck 02-22-2013 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57760848)
Except that restricted rights based on cost/benefits actually was established many decades ago, and makes sense logically. IOW, it's pragmatic, not ideological.

Well if we are going to restrict based on cost benefit then things like universal background checks, high capacity magazines and assault weapons should be left alone since the benefits of their restriction is low while the cost can be high.

TRNT 02-22-2013 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57760882)
And yet, THOSE are not used in crime.

Lock up criminals and their friends/family where the illegal gun use comes from.

So why do we do BGCs with FFLs?

Favrerox 02-22-2013 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57760268)
He might very well if he were held liable for its use.

At least the next time he is detained, that liability could result in incarceration.

Yup, all that's needs to be done is tie the gun to owner that sold it to the criminal. What? What did you say? That person wasn't the "registered owner"? Hmmm... what do we do now?

It's clearly an epidemic of legal gun owners selling their guns in private sales that are the cause of all the rampant crime and shootings. Someone get a leash on them!!! :lol:

TRNT 02-22-2013 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeeDuck (Post 57760852)
But your airport comparison is still wrong. Both airports are federally regulated thus they are both the same as FFLs. Perhaps you should consider ports for boats at see. We have ports with immigration control yet we have thousands of miles of coast where any number of boats could put someone ashore.

Regardless, the real issue is not analogies since we don't agree on the analogies. The real issue is benefits. I've already outlined the burden and benefits and they don't look good for universal background checks.

This is such a disingenuous claim. There is always gonna be some differences.

Ok, please comments on the 2000 mile border example that I gave. Thanks.

ZeeDuck 02-22-2013 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57761124)
This is such a disingenuous claim. There is always gonna be some differences.

Ok, please comments on the 2000 mile border example that I gave. Thanks.

Please don't turn this into a personal discussion. The claim I made is every bit as valid as yours, in fact I think it's more valid since I disagree with your reasoning.

The border example assumes you could actually make the full 2000 closed. You can't. In that regard it is like gun control. Even if you make it all illegal people will have them.

Xygonn 02-22-2013 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57759578)
If a gun is tied to a crime, the last legal owner would be prosecuted unless he could show that he required a BGC for the sale or reported the gun stolen.



Yeah, seriously. Laws don't stop crime, they just raise the price.

Unacceptably high in many cases, which is why they deter crime.

So what's to stop a straw buyer from reporting a gun stolen?

OhNoItsDEVO 02-22-2013 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57746090)
Feds say neo-Nazi with guns was tracking community leaders [nbcnews.com]



80%! And yet there are still those who oppose UBC. Why?

Mods, if appropriate, please move to mega-thread.

I agree that we need mandatory background checks.
But even with those, that won't stop people from selling guns to others illegally.
I'm really not sure how big of a difference it would make, but it's certainly worth a shot.

The bigger issue with this story IMO, is that there's no way this guy should have been out of prison in 13 years.

OhNoItsDEVO 02-22-2013 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoser83 (Post 57747816)
Please help me understand this. If those 80% are through private sales, how is UBC suppose to help?

It won't help. People will still "sell" weapons to their friends and family.
The only way I see this making any sort of difference, is if they are able to trace the gun back to the original owner, and charge that person with illegally selling a firearm.
Or something like that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57750496)
There are 300 million private guns in America. Don't you think that's enough to be certain that the government can never take them all away? Because aren't the people against UBC really against it because they're paranoid about the government knowing whether they have guns or not?

If I buy or sell a car, I have to transfer its title, plain and simple. So why not put the same requirement on a gun transfer? Why not require a background check, whether a gun is sold in a store, gunshow, or just sold to a friend?

The fact that gun fans call people who disagree with them "idiots" leads me to believe that they are an angry, violent-prone bunch of people.

Violent prone? Really?

TRNT 02-22-2013 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeeDuck (Post 57761192)
Please don't turn this into a personal discussion. The claim I made is every bit as valid as yours, in fact I think it's more valid since I disagree with your reasoning.

The border example assumes you could actually make the full 2000 closed. You can't. In that regard it is like gun control. Even if you make it all illegal people will have them.

That is funny.

Dr. J 02-22-2013 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhNoItsDEVO (Post 57761742)
It won't help. People will still "sell" weapons to their friends and family.
The only way I see this making any sort of difference, is if they are able to trace the gun back to the original owner, and charge that person with illegally selling a firearm.
Or something like that...


Violent prone? Really?


Or just take a dremel and zip out the serial before selling it. Instantly untraceable firearm.

Radeck 02-22-2013 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57764688)
Or just take a dremel and zip out the serial before selling it. Instantly untraceable firearm.

but but but....there are laws against that aren't there? that means it does not happen, correct?

ZeeDuck 02-22-2013 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57764616)
That is funny.

But I think you would feel the same way. We both have said why we think the other is wrong. Since I think you are wrong it stands to reason that I think my explanation is better than yours. You feel I am wrong so I would assume you think your explanation is better than mine. Nothing personal was meant and I assume you didn't mean anything personal in your reply. :wave:

TRNT 02-22-2013 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57765032)
It is perfectly constitutional for the feds to regulate interstate sales which they do so by creating dealer licensing. Guns from out of state have to clear a FFL and they can require them to conduct back ground checks.

They clearly overstepped the constitution when they then required those dealers to log local sales and then again requiring back ground checks on those sales.

But I see you are just being a again, so carry on.

So my suspicion was correct, you do not support BGCs for FFLs when they sell in-state. Right?

Whether something is legal is distinct from whether the same thing makes sense. So does BGCs make sense for FFLs or not? And if they do, why not extend that to private sales?

Do you at least agree that a BGC for the following two cases are equally effective or equally nonsensical?

1. FFL selling in-state.
2. FFL selling out-of-state.

And if you do, why don't support or reject both?

BTW: you are being b again. :lol:

Dumpsterdiver 02-22-2013 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57765216)
So my suspicion was correct, you do not support BGCs for FFLs when they sell in-state. Right?

Whether something is legal is distinct from whether the same thing makes sense. So does BGCs make sense for FFLs or not? And if they do, why not extend that to private sales?

Do you at least agree that a BGC for the following two cases are equally effective or equally nonsensical?

1. FFL selling in-state.
2. FFL selling out-of-state.

And if you do, why don't support or reject both?

BTW: you are being b. :lol:

I don't see how you cannot get this. The FEDERAL government cannot stomp on states rights.

TRNT 02-22-2013 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57765264)
I don't see how you cannot get this. The FEDERAL government cannot stomp on states rights.

That does not affect whether something is meaningful in principle or not.

Now please answer my questions. Thanks.

Dumpsterdiver 02-22-2013 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57765318)
That does not affect whether something is meaningful in principle or not.

Now please answer my questions. Thanks.

Do they step on state's rights, then no, the federal government cannot do those things.

TRNT 02-22-2013 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57765350)
Do they step on state's rights, then no, the federal government cannot do those things.

See, it seems to me that you are not willing to share your real position. OK, prove me wrong. Please answer these:

1. Do you personally support BGCs for FFLs when they sell to out-of-staters?

2. Do you personally support a state law for your state that requires BGCs for in-state purchases from FFLs?

OhNoItsDEVO 02-22-2013 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57764688)
Or just take a dremel and zip out the serial before selling it. Instantly untraceable firearm.

That's a good point.

Dumpsterdiver 02-22-2013 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57765484)
See, it seems to me that you are not willing to share your real position. OK, prove me wrong. Please answer these:

1. Do you personally support BGCs for FFLs when they sell to out-of-staters?

2. Do you personally support a state law for your state that requires BGCs for in-state purchases from FFLs?

An FFL cannot transfer to a non-resident, as if even that makes sense.

They have not yet, and I do not see a way to, implemented a bgc which does not impose on your 2nd amendment right nor right to privacy, especially considering a recent publication's interest in """public records""".

"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither."

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhNoItsDEVO (Post 57765752)
That's a good point.

Not all firearms are required to have those anyway. No milling needed here.

TRNT 02-22-2013 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57765972)
An FFL cannot transfer to a non-resident, as if even that makes sense.

They have not yet, and I do not see a way to, implemented a bgc which does not impose on your 2nd amendment right nor right to privacy, especially considering a recent publication's interest in """public records""".

So you are against the requirement of BGCs for FFLs. Did I (at least) get that right?

Dumpsterdiver 02-22-2013 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57766362)
So you are against the requirement of BGCs for FFLs. Did I (at least) get that right?

Back ground checks, no. I am against the registration and taxation of firearm purchases by/with the government, as is the current "BGC" program.

TRNT 02-22-2013 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57767594)
Back ground checks, no. I am against the registration and taxation of firearm purchases by/with the government, as is the current "BGC" program.

I give up. Maybe it is me but I cannot get you to state your position.

124nic8 02-22-2013 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57760828)
They kill the same as guns.

And yet few people intent on massacres choose those weapons. I wonder why not. :rolleyes:

124nic8 02-22-2013 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Favrerox (Post 57761104)
Yup, all that's needs to be done is tie the gun to owner that sold it to the criminal. What? What did you say? That person wasn't the "registered owner"? Hmmm... what do we do now?

It's clearly an epidemic of legal gun owners selling their guns in private sales that are the cause of all the rampant crime and shootings. Someone get a leash on them!!! :lol:

When 80% of criminals' guns are tied to private sales, they need to be reigned in.

The last registered owner needs to be held responsible if he did not get a BGC or report the gun stolen.

The point is motivation, not an expectation of 100% compliance.

124nic8 02-22-2013 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 57761431)
So what's to stop a straw buyer from reporting a gun stolen?

Nothing. But a large quanitity of stolen guns is going to raise suspicions and hopefully lead to monitoring so that he is caught actually selling the guns and falsely reporting them stolen.

Or he might be prosecuted for inadequate security.

124nic8 02-22-2013 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57764688)
Or just take a dremel and zip out the serial before selling it. Instantly untraceable firearm.

In reality, that is very hard to do cause there are ways of recovering the info.

You might not be able to see the numbers, but they leave a trace which can be read with a machine.

124nic8 02-22-2013 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57765032)
They clearly overstepped the constitution when they then required those dealers to log local sales and then again requiring back ground checks on those sales.

There is plenty of precedent for regulating in state sales. See Raich for instance.

In state gun sales affect inter-state commerce because they are easily smuggled across state lines. Heck in Raich, they said it didn't even have to be a sale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57765972)
Not all firearms are required to have those anyway. No milling needed here.

That can and should be easily fixed.

ZeeDuck 02-22-2013 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57768724)
In reality, that is very hard to do cause there are ways of recovering the info.

You might not be able to see the numbers, but they leave a trace which can be read with a machine.

How would that work? If you grind away the metal how can you read what is no longer there?

124nic8 02-22-2013 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeeDuck (Post 57769046)
How would that work? If you grind away the metal how can you read what is no longer there?

Stamping a serial number leaves stress marks in the metal.

You might destroy the gun if you grind away all the stress marks.

But w/o the proper inspection equipment, you won't know how much to grind.

ZeeDuck 02-22-2013 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57769084)
Stamping a serial number leaves stress marks in the metal.

You might destroy the gun if you grind away all the stress marks.

But w/o the proper inspection equipment, you won't know how much to grind.

That's one heck of a series of assumptions. I can't say I've looked at every gun but I do know a think or two about metal stamping and the like. Some numbers will be laser marked. Others are very shallow. Grinding also affects the surface stresses. On some of the plastic guns the SN is in an embedded tag that could be ground clean through. At best you would have a poor idea and certainly this can't be done all the time. This seems like the optimistic claims about micro stamping.

124nic8 02-22-2013 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZeeDuck (Post 57769262)
That's one heck of a series of assumptions. I can't say I've looked at every gun but I do know a think or two about metal stamping and the like. Some numbers will be laser marked. Others are very shallow. Grinding also affects the surface stresses. On some of the plastic guns the SN is in an embedded tag that could be ground clean through. At best you would have a poor idea and certainly this can't be done all the time. This seems like the optimistic claims about micro stamping.

It's not just surface stresses. And laser melting leaves its own stresses, which may be more shallow but still not visible to the naked eye.

The point is, obscuring a serial number is not as simple as some think, and could/should be made more difficult.

Dumpsterdiver 02-22-2013 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57768564)
And yet few people intent on massacres choose those weapons. I wonder why not. :rolleyes:

2 used trucks. A dozen used pocket knives,.. Looks like the majority is the common match or lighter. Shall we ban those too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57768622)
When 80% of criminals' guns are tied to private sales, they need to be reigned in.

The last registered owner needs to be held responsible if he did not get a BGC or report the gun stolen.

The point is motivation, not an expectation of 100% compliance.

Please, stop spreading lies.

Criminals get guns from other criminals and friends/family. NOTHING you can come up with that will stop it.
Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57768852)


That can and should be easily fixed.

Nothing you can come up with will prevent that. "Hey criminals, obey this law we just came up with",.. yeah {bright} idea.

Notquiteclapton 02-22-2013 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57759578)
If a gun is tied to a crime, the last legal owner would be prosecuted unless he could show that he required a BGC for the sale or reported the gun stolen.

1: You have already listed one very easy way around the law. Oops, stolen. You then go on to later say that this will be grounds for future intrusive laws to determine how many guns are legitimately stolen. I typically disagree with slippery slope arguments but you are literally penning the slippery slope argument against yourself in attempting to uphold your position.

2: The serial numbers can be destroyed or obfuscated. Not always, but a significant amount of the time. So now, not only are we tracking down gun sellers who haven't committed a crime, have often been the victim of a crime, and using valuable law enforcement resources to do so, but now we to have special machines on hand to read marred serial numbers (or rather, we have to further tax specialized labs who already have the equipment). And to what end? Oh yes....

3: The end? The end is that even if these measures WORK, the final product will be a STAGGERING number of poor, often minority women, being jailed because they bought guns for their kids/boyfriends/grandkids who "needed it for protection" on the mean streets. After all, data shows, IIRC, that a large majority of gun criminals had a family member or acquaintance (usually female) with a clean record buy their weapon for them. Just what our cities need! The most productive and orderly segment of the population being thrown in jail! That will work wonders for urban crime and poverty!

124nic8 02-22-2013 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57769590)
2 used trucks. A dozen used pocket knives,.. Looks like the majority is the common match or lighter. Shall we ban those too?

Arson is already illegal. And not the choice for mass murder of strangers.

Quote:

Please, stop spreading lies.
I will as soon as you prove they are lies.

Quote:

Criminals get guns from other criminals and friends/family. NOTHING you can come up with that will stop it.
Maybe not 100%, but some new laws will certainly discourage law abiding family members from arming criminals.

Quote:

Nothing you can come up with will prevent that. "Hey criminals, obey this law we just came up with",.. yeah {bright} idea.
Since laws are not 100% effective at preventing violations, we should just eliminate all of them, right?

Yes, additional laws are needed and some of them are bright ideas.

124nic8 02-22-2013 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notquiteclapton (Post 57770118)
1: You have already listed one very easy way around the law. Oops, stolen. You then go on to later say that this will be grounds for future intrusive laws to determine how many guns are legitimately stolen. I typically disagree with slippery slope arguments but you are literally penning the slippery slope argument against yourself in attempting to uphold your position.

Selling a gun to a criminal and falsely reporting it stolen are already against the law.

I'd just go one step farther and make the seller liable for misuse if he does not comply.

IOW, the burden is on the seller to make sure the buyer is not a criminal rather than ignorance being an excuse.

Quote:

2: The serial numbers can be destroyed or obfuscated. Not always, but a significant amount of the time. So now, not only are we tracking down gun sellers who haven't committed a crime, have often been the victim of a crime, and using valuable law enforcement resources to do so, but now we to have special machines on hand to read marred serial numbers (or rather, we have to further tax specialized labs who already have the equipment). And to what end? Oh yes....
Which could be made more effective.

Quote:

3: The end? The end is that even if these measures WORK, the final product will be a STAGGERING number of poor, often minority women, being jailed because they bought guns for their kids/boyfriends/grandkids who "needed it for protection" on the mean streets. After all, data shows, IIRC, that a large majority of gun criminals had a family member or acquaintance (usually female) with a clean record buy their weapon for them. Just what our cities need! The most productive and orderly segment of the population being thrown in jail! That will work wonders for urban crime and poverty!
Don't really care who is arming criminals, it needs to stop.

empiretc 02-22-2013 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57768622)
The last registered owner needs to be held responsible .....

Where does it end?

What's next?

Anyone selling a car will need to make sure the buyer does not drink and drive-- ever?

124nic8 02-22-2013 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 57771662)
Where does it end?

What's next?

Anyone selling a car will need to make sure the buyer does not drink and drive-- ever?

Back ground checks are not required for any car purchases.

But if you sell your car and don't notify the DMV, you'll be held responsible for its misuse, cause they'll assume you still own it.

It ends when everything reasonable is done to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from acquiring guns.

I by reasonable, I don't mean what gun enthusiasts consider reasonable.

empiretc 02-22-2013 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57772130)
But if you sell your car and don't notify the DMV, you'll be held responsible for its misuse, cause they'll assume you still own it.


That is not true! It is the buyers responsibility.

If anything ever happens, all you need to do is show the bill of sale. Been there, done that.

124nic8 02-22-2013 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 57772432)
That is not true! It is the buyers responsibility.

If anything ever happens, all you need to do is show the bill of sale. Been there, done that.

That's right; you need to report it (if the buyer does not). Been there, too.

The DMV did attempt to hold you responsible, and would have if you could not show you sold it.

empiretc 02-22-2013 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57772490)
That's right; you need to report it (if the buyer does not).

no.....

124nic8 02-22-2013 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 57772690)
no.....

Yes. If you don't report it, they will hold you responsible.

empiretc 02-22-2013 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57773284)
Yes. If you don't report it, they will hold you responsible.

:shake:

don't know how you can claim with such certainty as every state is different. things have changed in TX in the past few years, that is for sure.

Dumpsterdiver 02-22-2013 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57770700)
Since laws are not 100% effective at preventing violations, we should just eliminate all of them, right?.

What's that law that states whenever "eliminate all laws" hyperbole is thrown out by an anit-american in a gun thread you've ended the discussion?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

124nic8 02-22-2013 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 57773516)
:shake:

don't know how you can claim with such certainty as every state is different. things have changed in TX in the past few years, that is for sure.

Cause when you are the last registered owner, they have no one else to hold responsible.

Logic 101.

ConservativeNYer 02-22-2013 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57757768)
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.

No one has given me any compelling reason why private businesses should be forced to do anything.

124nic8 02-22-2013 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57773602)
What's that law that states whenever "eliminate all laws" hyperbole is thrown out by an anit-american in a gun thread you've ended the discussion?

Never heard of any such law.

Quote:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
"Not infringed" does not mean not regulated nor restricted.

empiretc 02-22-2013 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57773926)
Cause when you are the last registered owner, they have no one else to hold responsible.

Logic 101.


Logic 101... Title transfer is the obligation of the buyer, and why the seller should have a bill of sale and keep their plates. While the seller can optionally submit a title transfer notification, it is not required (states differ).


in the event of an incident, if questioned by cops-> provide proof of sale... done.

Deusxmachina 02-23-2013 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhNoItsDEVO (Post 57761610)
I agree that we need mandatory background checks.
But even with those, that won't stop people from selling guns to others illegally.
I'm really not sure how big of a difference it would make, but it's certainly worth a shot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhNoItsDEVO (Post 57761742)
It won't help. People will still "sell" weapons to their friends and family.
The only way I see this making any sort of difference, is if they are able to trace the gun back to the original owner, and charge that person with illegally selling a firearm.
Or something like that...

You're not sure how big of a difference it would make, and it won't help, but we should infringe on people and do it anyway?
Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57768622)
When 80% of criminals' guns are tied to private sales, they need to be reigned in.

Straw buyers could already be gone after much harder. Don't even need any new laws to do it.

124nic8 02-23-2013 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 57774032)
Logic 101... Title transfer is the obligation of the buyer, and why the seller should have a bill of sale and keep their plates. While the seller can optionally submit a title transfer notification, it is not required (states differ).


in the event of an incident, if questioned by cops-> provide proof of sale... done.

If that car is tickeded for any reason, or involved in an accident, as the last registered owner you are responsible. That's why you have to prove to the DMV you sold the car.

It's not "required" if you want to be assigned responsibility for the violation. Without notification, you will be.

124nic8 02-23-2013 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 57774310)
Straw buyers could already be gone after much harder. Don't even need any new laws to do it.

With only current laws, there is the huge loophole of having to prove that the strawbuyer knew his buyer was a criminal. That makes prosecution very difficult.

Much easier if the straw buyer/seller has to prove there was a BGC.

Dumpsterdiver 02-23-2013 01:22 AM

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Dr. J 02-23-2013 07:05 AM

no registration, period.

there are plenty of examples where registration has led to confiscation - and not just in what one would consider a despotic (historically) regime; e.g. Canada.

ZeeDuck 02-23-2013 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57761058)
So why do we do BGCs with FFLs?

I already gave you this answer. The burden-benefit ratio for FFL background checks appears to be good thus we do it. The burden-benefit ratio for background checks on private sales appears questionable.

ZeeDuck 02-23-2013 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57773926)
Cause when you are the last registered owner, they have no one else to hold responsible.

Logic 101.

Without a database (or, as is likely, with a flawed database) what happens if the last registered owner sold it legally but it was transferred a few times after the fact? Your idea is nice in theory (ignoring the registration part) but fails when you realize that a disconnect in the sales history could lead to the "last registered" owner not being the one who sold the gun illegally.

empiretc 02-23-2013 08:53 AM

you guys want to give private citizens the ability to run background checks?

CyberGuy 02-23-2013 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57776012)
no registration, period.

there are plenty of examples where registration has led to confiscation - and not just in what one would consider a despotic (historically) regime; e.g. Canada.

Are we Canada? Seriously, stop it with the paranoia. Even if there is just a bit of talk about confiscation occurring in the US, it will be squashed immediately due to all of the outrage from the typical cast of characters. Registration has many benefits and should be on the table. It will help to curtail purchases of weapons (due to the burden of fees and / or liability), making it less likely a criminal to eventually get their hands on said weapon. Also negligent gun owners can be held liable if criminal activities were conducted with their weapons.

TRNT 02-23-2013 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 57777128)
you guys want to give private citizens the ability to run background checks?

Meguys want to ban resale of guns altogether.

But you well know that private citizens could do their sales of used guns through FFLs.

empiretc 02-23-2013 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57777282)
But you well know that private citizens could do their sales of used guns through FFLs.


Yes, but that would be a nightmare. a bureaucrat's dream, though.... lots of red tape (Hermes drooling....) and would, without a doubt, lead to a rise in "illegal" gun sales.

That is like saying all car sales should only go through dealerships....

or, like so many were against--> require a valid I.D. to vote

TRNT 02-23-2013 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 57777532)
Yes, but that would be a nightmare. a bureaucrat's dream, though.... lots of red tape (Hermes drooling....) and would, without a doubt, lead to a rise in "illegal" gun sales.

That is like saying all car sales should only go through dealerships....

or, like so many were against--> require a valid I.D. to vote

Well, all car sales goes through the DMVs so what is the big deal?

empiretc 02-23-2013 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 57777674)
Well, all car sales goes through the DMVs so what is the big deal?


every car buyer transfers the title right away, right?

JackHandey 02-23-2013 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberGuy (Post 57777150)
Are we Canada? Seriously, stop it with the paranoia. Even if there is just a bit of talk about confiscation occurring in the US, it will be squashed immediately due to all of the outrage from the typical cast of characters. Registration has many benefits and should be on the table. It will help to curtail purchases of weapons (due to the burden of fees and / or liability), making it less likely a criminal to eventually get their hands on said weapon. Also negligent gun owners can be held liable if criminal activities were conducted with their weapons.

Seriously, quit being patronizing and misattributing paranoia to things that do not fit your own world view.

In case you have had a trans rectal cranial implant, we are currently residing in a country that simultaneously has given itself the power to indefinitely imprison us and execute us at its own discretion and without trial or even oversight, not to mention the absence of any burden of proof to sustain its actions... Top that off with an incredible buildup of ammunition and small arms... At a time that we are being told that we should not have any form of armament or even body armor.

There are genuine reasons for concern present, so it isn't paranoia. We blame the Germans for not seeing the Nazi movement rising, and wonder why they did not stop it. We even condemn them for it. Now we have signs of similar behavior developing in our own country, and by our own government. We even have people with the temerity to call those that point out where this country is heading to be paranoid.

It will be our own fault for allowing this to happen; those that do nothing, and even more so those that enable it by their words, actions and either willful ignorance or naivete.

TRNT 02-23-2013 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 57777780)
every car buyer transfers the title right away, right?

I would not know.

124nic8 02-23-2013 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 57777780)
every car buyer transfers the title right away, right?

No, but the seller would certainly report the transaction if he does not want to be held liable.

Virtually no one wants to be held liable for misuse of the car (gun) they sold.

124nic8 02-23-2013 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57747014)
so the actual statistics include people that may have purchased a gun before the Brady Act even went into effect...

Actually it says the survey was repeated after the Brady Act went into effect and the results were virtually the same.

Quote:

so you think UBC will stop criminals from purchasing via: The 39.2% illegal street sales? The 39.6% from friends and family?
No law is 100% effective at stopping illegal behavior. All that can be done is raise the price of illegal behavior.

If the seller is held responsible for any crimes committed with a weapon sold w/o a BGC, I'm sure that would motivate many sellers to comply.

Quote:

Try reading the actual data next time rather than the partisan B.S., which was named: "The Case for Gun Policy Reform in America". I'd encourage you to go through the statistics on inmates though.. they go on mention what characteristics were more prevalent in gun offenders. Some of them being parents being welfare recipients, low income, singe family homes, urban dwellers, parents were regular drug users, minimal education etc..
OK, I skimmed the BJS report and do not see anything which contradicts the conclusions reached by the NBC News report.

Elmer 02-23-2013 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Favrerox (Post 57757078)
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.

Actually, a few private sellers may actually refuse to sell to a prohibited person because of a BGC law. But since the majority of felons get their guns from family and friends that know of their prohibited status, from others who are prohibited from possessing them, or from stealing them or buying from others that stole them, the effect on overall criminal use of guns will be negligible. Other supply chains will fill in any tiny reduction in inventory.

California has had universal background checks, long waiting period's, limits on purchases, training requirements, storage requirements, large purchase fees, etc., for many years. But despite adopting most of the laundry list of anti gunner's demands, criminals still seem to be able to obtain firearms there.

But since all of this is coming from those who ignore that we rarely prosecute those who are found to be illegally in possession of guns, and almost never prosecute those who attempt to illegally obtain a gun, (despite it being a felony to do so), it's obvious that the intent of those screaming for UBC's, isn't to affect criminal misuse of firearms.

Elmer 02-23-2013 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 57777128)
you guys want to give private citizens the ability to run background checks?

No, those guys want to ban guns. Some of them will even admit it, to some degree or another.

But asking for complete bans on guns is still politically dangerous, so they keep asking for more and more controls, hoping to get there eventually.

Elmer 02-23-2013 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberGuy (Post 57777150)
Are we Canada? Seriously, stop it with the paranoia.

Pointing out what has happened in Canada, England, Australia, etc., after similar lies and broken promises, isn't being "paranoid", despite your blind obedience to the talking points that say it is..

aero 02-24-2013 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57746090)
[80%! And yet there are still those who oppose UBC.

Because even the Department of Justice says closing the UBC wont work without creating a national registry of owners. Obama claims he doesn't support a national registry. So is Obama lying or is he pushing a law that will have no effect?

Other things you are ignoring:
- about half a percent of the weapons used in crime come from this the gun show loophole. on the other side you have millions of Americans able to sell their weapons without onerous fees ($150 minimum to get a background check in some jurisdictions).

Secondly do you realize how many big majorities there are for limiting other bill of rights rights? You do realize MOST people in the US according to Pew research support new limits on the first amendment in response to gun violence?

Thirdly you do realize that many of the bill of rights can be shown to objectively cause huge amounts of death, murder, rape,, injury and crimes against persons than the second Amendment which is either neutral to that or (more likely) a net crime and injury reducer?

People on bail are massively more likely to commit crimes while on bail than the general public. hundreds of thousands of crimes , including many times more murders than spree shooters, are committed by persons on bail. Do you support withdrawing the Eighth amendment? Do you support new limits on fourth and fifth amendments? Most Americans don't think criminals should get taxpayer provided attorneys. do you support ending that?

Would you call the ACLU an extremist industry front? their industry funding is a massively higher ratio than the NRA's. The NRA gets the huge majority of its funding from dues. the ACLU gets almost all it funding from the industry group it fronts (criminal defense attorneys). Is the ACLU a dangerous group because it defends the first, fourth, fifth, Sixth and Eight amendments without compromise?

Lastly starting your thread with a gigantic red herring about some neo Nazi is really distasteful and ironic. The Nazis are the group known to benefit most from institution a national gun ban against law abiding citizens. Hitler actually did it with children as prop.

Dr. J 02-24-2013 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberGuy (Post 57777150)
Are we Canada? Seriously, stop it with the paranoia. Even if there is just a bit of talk about confiscation occurring in the US, it will be squashed immediately due to all of the outrage from the typical cast of characters. Registration has many benefits and should be on the table. It will help to curtail purchases of weapons (due to the burden of fees and / or liability), making it less likely a criminal to eventually get their hands on said weapon. Also negligent gun owners can be held liable if criminal activities were conducted with their weapons.


Funny that you said "that will never happen" - when that's exactly what they said in Canada [sunnewsnetwork.ca]and elsewhere. I brought up Canada specifically because it's not typically thought of some tyrannical regime or lawless country like many other examples.

There are SO many things, in both federal and state laws that many prior would have said "that will never happen here!". 10 years ago, would you think that a city would ban plastic bags, place limits on salt, trans fats and the size of drinks? Or that the fed would be OK with executing US citizens remotely?

It's very logical - owners would never voluntarily hand in their guns (nothing in return, mind you) - so what do you do? You create a database of guns and their owners under the premise that it will only be used to trace guns and crimes to owners - if you're law-abiding, you don't have anything to fear, right? You charge a fee and issue licenses. Then you gradually tighten laws, and certain weapons now become illegal. Since you have a list of owners, confiscating *just those* weapons becomes easy.......

No that will never happen here!

AlfredoGarcia 02-24-2013 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57791904)
Funny that you said "that will never happen" - when that's exactly what they said in Canada [sunnewsnetwork.ca]and elsewhere. I brought up Canada specifically because it's not typically thought of some tyrannical regime or lawless country like many other examples.

There are SO many things, in both federal and state laws that many prior would have said "that will never happen here!". 10 years ago, would you think that a city would ban plastic bags, place limits on salt, trans fats and the size of drinks? Or that the fed would be OK with executing US citizens remotely?

It's very logical - owners would never voluntarily hand in their guns (nothing in return, mind you) - so what do you do? You create a database of guns and their owners under the premise that it will only be used to trace guns and crimes to owners - if you're law-abiding, you don't have anything to fear, right? You charge a fee and issue licenses. Then you gradually tighten laws, and certain weapons now become illegal. Since you have a list of owners, confiscating *just those* weapons becomes easy.......

No that will never happen here!

Well said.

124nic8 02-24-2013 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aero (Post 57791234)
Because even the Department of Justice says closing the UBC wont work without creating a national registry of owners. Obama claims he doesn't support a national registry. So is Obama lying or is he pushing a law that will have no effect?

Other things you are ignoring:
- about half a percent of the weapons used in crime come from this the gun show loophole. on the other side you have millions of Americans able to sell their weapons without onerous fees ($150 minimum to get a background check in some jurisdictions).

Secondly do you realize how many big majorities there are for limiting other bill of rights rights? You do realize MOST people in the US according to Pew research support new limits on the first amendment in response to gun violence?

Thirdly you do realize that many of the bill of rights can be shown to objectively cause huge amounts of death, murder, rape,, injury and crimes against persons than the second Amendment which is either neutral to that or (more likely) a net crime and injury reducer?

People on bail are massively more likely to commit crimes while on bail than the general public. hundreds of thousands of crimes , including many times more murders than spree shooters, are committed by persons on bail. Do you support withdrawing the Eighth amendment? Do you support new limits on fourth and fifth amendments? Most Americans don't think criminals should get taxpayer provided attorneys. do you support ending that?

Would you call the ACLU an extremist industry front? their industry funding is a massively higher ratio than the NRA's. The NRA gets the huge majority of its funding from dues. the ACLU gets almost all it funding from the industry group it fronts (criminal defense attorneys). Is the ACLU a dangerous group because it defends the first, fourth, fifth, Sixth and Eight amendments without compromise?

Lastly starting your thread with a gigantic red herring about some neo Nazi is really distasteful and ironic. The Nazis are the group known to benefit most from institution a national gun ban against law abiding citizens. Hitler actually did it with children as prop.

Thanks for your completely unsubstantiated opinions.

124nic8 02-24-2013 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57791904)
Funny that you said "that will never happen" - when that's exactly what they said in Canada [sunnewsnetwork.ca]and elsewhere. I brought up Canada specifically because it's not typically thought of some tyrannical regime or lawless country like many other examples.

There are SO many things, in both federal and state laws that many prior would have said "that will never happen here!". 10 years ago, would you think that a city would ban plastic bags, place limits on salt, trans fats and the size of drinks? Or that the fed would be OK with executing US citizens remotely?

It's very logical - owners would never voluntarily hand in their guns (nothing in return, mind you) - so what do you do? You create a database of guns and their owners under the premise that it will only be used to trace guns and crimes to owners - if you're law-abiding, you don't have anything to fear, right? You charge a fee and issue licenses. Then you gradually tighten laws, and certain weapons now become illegal. Since you have a list of owners, confiscating *just those* weapons becomes easy.......

No that will never happen here!

It could happen if gun owners don't stop arming criminals and the mentally ill.

But it seems gun owners don't even want to take meager steps in that direction, like UBC and liability for irresponsible transfer and inadequate security.

If the rest of us continue to pay a high price for your hobby, we will make the price much higher for you.

The choice is really in your, and your fellow gun owners', hands.

You have the right to bear arms, but not every arm, nor the right to sell it to whomever you want.

Dumpsterdiver 02-24-2013 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57802566)
It could happen if gun owners don't stop arming criminals and the mentally ill.

But it seems gun owners don't even want to take meager steps in that direction, like UBC and liability for irresponsible transfer and inadequate security.

If the rest of us continue to pay a high price for your hobby, we will make the price much higher for you.

The choice is really in your, and your fellow gun owners', hands.

You have the right to bear arms, but not every arm, nor the right to sell it to whomever you want.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

124nic8 02-24-2013 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57802610)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

But not every arm, nor the right to sell those arms unrestricted to whomever you want.

You may end up with only the right to bear multiple six shooters; that's still arms that are born and not infringed upon.

Dumpsterdiver 02-24-2013 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57802938)
But not every arm, nor the right to sell those arms unrestricted to whomever you want.

You may end up with only the right to bear multiple six shooters; that's still arms that are born and not infringed upon.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

124nic8 02-24-2013 07:58 PM

And your right to bear multiple six shooters, will not be infringed....

Dumpsterdiver 02-24-2013 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57803394)
And your right to bear multiple six shooters, will not be infringed....

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

124nic8 02-24-2013 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57803508)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Fortunately, the only interpretation of that that counts is by the SCOTUS

Supreme Court Gun Ruling Doesn’t Block Proposed Controls [nytimes.com]

Quote:

Despite the sweeping language of a 2008 Supreme Court decision that struck down parts of the District of Columbia’s strict gun-control law, the decision appears perfectly consistent with many of the policy options being discussed after the shootings in Newtown, Conn.
....

The courts have upheld federal laws banning gun ownership by people convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, by illegal immigrants and by drug addicts. They have upheld laws making it illegal to carry guns near schools or in post offices. They have upheld laws concerning unregistered weapons. And they have upheld laws banning machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.

Nor does Heller impose any major hurdles to many of the most common legislative proposals in the wake of the Newtown shootings, said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” Among the responses that Heller allows, he said, are better background checks, enhanced mental health reporting and a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips.

Dumpsterdiver 02-24-2013 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57803690)
Fortunately, the only interpretation of that that counts is by the SCOTUS

Supreme Court Gun Ruling Doesn’t Block Proposed Controls [nytimes.com]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

kephael 02-26-2013 05:48 PM

I'd only trade a ban on private sales for a repeal of the Hughes amendment. Not that a ban on private sales would stop anything in the first place. Paying for background checks is silly in many cases, especially if I already have a dozen firearms. If I already have a dozen firearms why bother checking me when buying a new one?

124nic8 02-26-2013 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kephael (Post 57848634)
I'd only trade a ban on private sales for a repeal of the Hughes amendment. Not that a ban on private sales would stop anything in the first place. Paying for background checks is silly in many cases, especially if I already have a dozen firearms. If I already have a dozen firearms why bother checking me when buying a new one?

We want to know who is straw buying. A large volume of purchases is suspiciously indicative of a straw buyer.

kephael 02-26-2013 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57848796)
We want to know who is straw buying. A large volume of purchases is suspiciously indicative of a straw buyer.

4473 forms can still be filled out, however why does a background check fee need to be paid and transfer fees? My local FFL charges me $35 per transfer when I order firearms online, FFLs already run a racket.

124nic8 02-26-2013 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kephael (Post 57848874)
4473 forms can still be filled out, however why does a background check fee need to be paid and transfer fees? My local FFL charges me $35 per transfer when I order firearms online, FFLs already run a racket.

Maybe you committed a crime or sought treatment for a mental illness since your last purchase.... :dontknow:

kephael 02-26-2013 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57848966)
Maybe you committed a crime or sought treatment for a mental illness since your last purchase.... :dontknow:

What's the point in denying the sale if I already have a dozen at home? It's not like the existing ones stop working magically.

124nic8 02-26-2013 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kephael (Post 57848982)
What's the point in denying the sale if I already have a dozen at home? It's not like the existing ones stop working magically.

We do what we can. Are you arguing your weapons should be confiscated if you fail the check?

kephael 02-26-2013 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57849062)
We do what we can. Are you arguing your weapons should be confiscated if you fail the check?

No, they were lost in a boating accident while simultaneously having their serial numbers disappear once that check failed.

124nic8 02-26-2013 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kephael (Post 57849108)
No, they were lost in a boating accident while simultaneously having their serial numbers disappear once that check failed.

How do you know about the serial numbers if they were "lost"? :lmao:

jplayland 02-26-2013 06:14 PM

We are allowed to have guns for three purposes.
1. To hunt food and game
2. To protect ourselves and what is ours
3. To overthrow the government

Purpose #3 is the most important reason. Our founding fathers expected that we would have the need to overthrow the government at some point in the future. For this purpose a hunting rifle or shotgun will not do when your opponent has a machine gun. Assault rifles are protected by the 2nd amendment for this reason.

I feel our founding fathers would want us to go to war if our 2nd amendment right was diluted to a point where the ability of the people to overthrow of the government by the force was threatened.

If semi-auto weapons were banned, it would be time for war.

CyberGuy 02-27-2013 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 57849280)
We are allowed to have guns for three purposes.
1. To hunt food and game
2. To protect ourselves and what is ours
3. To overthrow the government

Purpose #3 is the most important reason. Our founding fathers expected that we would have the need to overthrow the government at some point in the future. For this purpose a hunting rifle or shotgun will not do when your opponent has a machine gun. Assault rifles are protected by the 2nd amendment for this reason.

I feel our founding fathers would want us to go to war if our 2nd amendment right was diluted to a point where the ability of the people to overthrow of the government by the force was threatened.

If semi-auto weapons were banned, it would be time for war.

The founding fathers couldn't predict how far the gap between military and civilian weaponry would become. #3 is no longer valid. Think Civil War.

VaporTrailer 02-27-2013 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57803714)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Which well regulated militia are you a member of?

JackHandey 02-27-2013 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberGuy (Post 57854854)
The founding fathers couldn't predict how far the gap between military and civilian weaponry would become. #3 is no longer valid. Think Civil War.

The American Civil War had plenty of problems, but from my understanding technology disparity was not one of them. The south was fighting for the right to oppress. Were there to be a civil war today, it would be to stop from being oppressed. Which would make people fight harder.

Additionally, you might be amazed at how many service members are from the south (and other largely conservative states). Not to mention how many firearms manufacturers and gunsmiths there are in southern states and other largely conservative states) It might have to do with businesses going where their customer base is.

Those that make AR15's could very easily change their manufacturing process to M16's with very little retooling. Don't confuse this with laymen being able to do the same, as the modification process from one to the other requires precision tooling and experience to perform.

I also wouldn't discount how much of the aerospace industry is in the south, as well. This wouldn't be your grandparent's sort of civil war, that's for sure.

jplayland 02-27-2013 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberGuy (Post 57854854)
The founding fathers couldn't predict how far the gap between military and civilian weaponry would become. #3 is no longer valid. Think Civil War.

#3 is the most valid. It is not only our right, but our responsibility to overthrow the government if it no longer represents the people or tries to infringe upon the rights laid out in the constitution and it's bill of rights.

If we give up this right or allow it to be weakened to the point where we do not have the power to overthrow the government, we will have let one of the built in checks and balances fail. This weakness will eventually be exploited. This is the type of weakness that can lead to a dictator or a Hitler.

The key to democracy is keeping more power in the hands of the people than in the hands of government. Guns hold a lot of power, taking them from the people weakens the people.

Dumpsterdiver 02-27-2013 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VaporTrailer (Post 57855182)
Which well regulated militia are you a member of?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

jplayland 02-27-2013 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VaporTrailer (Post 57855182)
Which well regulated militia are you a member of?

There are a number of well regulated militia around the country. I know of three within the state of Minnesota. I don't think you will get many to admit being members, they would prefer Obama didn't send them visitors.

Dumpsterdiver 02-27-2013 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 57862474)
There are a number of well regulated militia around the country. I know of three within the state of Minnesota. I don't think you will get many to admit being members, they would prefer Obama didn't send them visitors.

Don't play his game. The second has nothing to do with being a member of a militia.

124nic8 02-27-2013 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57862686)
Don't play his game. The second has nothing to do with being a member of a militia.

....aside from the fact that it is specifically mentioned as the justification....

Dumpsterdiver 02-27-2013 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57862740)
....aside from the fact that it is specifically mentioned as the justification....

It says 'member',.. where?

124nic8 02-27-2013 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57862806)
It says 'member',.. where?

It is obviously implied.

jplayland 02-27-2013 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57862686)
Don't play his game. The second has nothing to do with being a member of a militia.

No, I will play their game and beat them at it, just like I did in this thread.

We have the high road, we can weather any question they can throw at us. Leave the avoiding questions to the Democrats. I would prefer to answer anything they can throw at me and keep pointing out when they refuse to answer a question. That is how you show them for what they are, tricksters trying to dance around the truth and diverting and deceiving.

Facts, logic, and honesty are the easiest way to win a debate when the facts are on your side.

124nic8 02-27-2013 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 57862904)
No, I will play their game and beat them at it, just like I did in this thread.

Pronouncing yourself the winner does not make you one.

jplayland 02-27-2013 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57862850)
It is obviously implied.

No it's not implied. Most of the militia was made up of "minute men", aka farmers with their guns joining the few official members. It was written to ensure that we would always have citizens capable of acting as "minute men", for the primary purpose of overthrowing our government.

Can you show me the logic that makes it so obvious to you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57862994)
Pronouncing yourself the winner does not make you one.

You running with your tail tucked and refusing to answer the questions makes me one. Do we need a poll to prove it? lol

124nic8 02-27-2013 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 57863090)
No it's not implied. Most of the militia was made up of "minute men", aka farmers with their guns joining the few official members. It was written to ensure that we would always have citizens capable of acting as "minute men", for the primary purpose of overthrowing our government.

Can you show me the logic that makes it so obvious to you?



You running with your tail tucked and refusing to answer the questions makes me one.

So you're claiming those farmers were not "members" of the militia? :lmao:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 57863090)
You running with your tail tucked and refusing to answer the questions makes me one. Do we need a poll to prove it? lol

Whatever you say, "winner." :rolleyes:

jplayland 02-27-2013 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57863138)
So you're claiming those farmers were not "members" of the militia? :lmao:

No they were not member of the militia, not until they met up with the militia and signed the papers to make them members. They did however bring their own guns. This is why we have the second amendment. Do we need to do the whole history lesson?

The movie "The Patriot" does a pretty good job of showing who militia members really were. Regular local citizens with their guns. This is what the second amendment is all about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57863138)
Whatever you say, "winner."

I'm quoting that into the other thread. Thanks for the official concession.

Dumpsterdiver 02-27-2013 11:13 AM

I am so glad that man in chicago cannot have a hand gun because he was not a member of a militia.

It is curious that the flat earth folk think gangs are the only ones who can have guns.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Favrerox 02-28-2013 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberGuy (Post 57854854)
The founding fathers couldn't predict how far the gap between military and civilian weaponry would become. #3 is no longer valid. Think Civil War.

It didn't matter then and doesn't matter now. This is seriously the most uninformed statement I think I've seen on here. The drafters of the Constitution and BOR had just FOUGHT a war against the British for liberty of the United States. Yes, some of them did not actually fire a weapon, but the majority understood that without allowing the general public to remain armed you risked having a government that MIGHT do whatever it wanted.
The American forces fought with whatever they had available. It is these ARMS used by the Revolutionary fighters that they were wanting to provide freedom for any future use against a government should the need arise. Thankfully OUR government has not "risen up" against the people; but the balance check needs to remain by allowing our citizens to CHOOSE whether or not they shall arm themselves.

Joseph Story published this in 1833:
Quote:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
I would even agree to a government requirement that any who wish to arm themselves be "trained" as a Militia-man. I don't think it is required; but the panic of the nation over guns needs to be pacified. Therefore someone should establish a Militia-men criteria and allow freedom for these people to be armed and not be scrutinized under a microscope for wanting to do so.

Anyone that tries to "define" the 2nd strictly by only the words used in it is a fool. They are the same people that isolate any quip to twist it for their own purpose. Whether it is a comment by a public figure, a line from a press release, a lyric from a song, a religious text, a debate point, etc. Unless you use CONTEXT, you are truly foolish.

Deusxmachina 02-28-2013 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Favrerox (Post 57887572)
I would even agree to a government requirement that any who wish to arm themselves be "trained" as a Militia-man. I don't think it is required; but the panic of the nation over guns needs to be pacified. Therefore someone should establish a Militia-men criteria and allow freedom for these people to be armed and not be scrutinized under a microscope for wanting to do so.

Panic over guns could be pacified by schools teaching gun safety and responsibility. Heck, they could do it in a history class since firearms are such a big part of U.S. history. But this won't happen because the people with the most control over such things simply want to ban guns.

Favrerox 02-28-2013 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 57889912)
Panic over guns could be pacified by schools teaching gun safety and responsibility. Heck, they could do it in a history class since firearms are such a big part of U.S. history. But this won't happen because the people with the most control over such things simply want to ban guns.

School districts are those in the "clueless" group. When your 6 year old boy chews his Graham Cracker into the shape of a pistol and pretends to play army/spaceman/gun fighter/whatever you are denying a kid the opportunity to even express himself (or even herself if the case may be). By making guns soooo "scary" and "inappropriate" the schools may inadvertently create a curiosity that wasn't as strong before they stopped allowing any gun/weapon references in schools. Not only that, but it is a prejudice against (typically) male behavior at a young age. Men have been hunters/gathers/warriors since time began; now we should repress that? Pfft!

Deusxmachina 02-28-2013 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Favrerox (Post 57890434)
By making guns soooo "scary" and "inappropriate" the schools may inadvertently create a curiosity that wasn't as strong before they stopped allowing any gun/weapon references in schools.

I shot a .44 magnum around age 8 or 9 or so.
"Do you want to shoot it?"
"Yeah!"
BOOM!
"Do you want to shoot it again?"
"...no..."

jplayland 02-28-2013 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Favrerox (Post 57887572)
It didn't matter then and doesn't matter now. This is seriously the most uninformed statement I think I've seen on here. The drafters of the Constitution and BOR had just FOUGHT a war against the British for liberty of the United States. Yes, some of them did not actually fire a weapon, but the majority understood that without allowing the general public to remain armed you risked having a government that MIGHT do whatever it wanted.
The American forces fought with whatever they had available. It is these ARMS used by the Revolutionary fighters that they were wanting to provide freedom for any future use against a government should the need arise. Thankfully OUR government has not "risen up" against the people; but the balance check needs to remain by allowing our citizens to CHOOSE whether or not they shall arm themselves.

Joseph Story published this in 1833:


I would even agree to a government requirement that any who wish to arm themselves be "trained" as a Militia-man. I don't think it is required; but the panic of the nation over guns needs to be pacified. Therefore someone should establish a Militia-men criteria and allow freedom for these people to be armed and not be scrutinized under a microscope for wanting to do so.

Anyone that tries to "define" the 2nd strictly by only the words used in it is a fool. They are the same people that isolate any quip to twist it for their own purpose. Whether it is a comment by a public figure, a line from a press release, a lyric from a song, a religious text, a debate point, etc. Unless you use CONTEXT, you are truly foolish.

Good thinking. I would fully support something like that, assuming the training was a one-time thing and took only a few days to complete.

Level 0: Everyone (except criminals, ...) - Can buy a basic hunting weapon
Level 1: Firearm Safety - A few hour class + shooting (allows legal use of a basic hunting gun for hunting or target practice)
Level 2: Militia Certification - A one to two day class (grants a purchase permit for guns outside the basic hunting gun category)
Level 3: Carry Certification - A few hour class + shooting + shooting recertification every x years.

Allow 30 day preapproval backround checks and require backround checks for all gun sales or transfers with the exception internal tranfer within a family. None of these steps can hold any significant cost either.

Dumpsterdiver 02-28-2013 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 57892726)
Good thinking. I would fully support something like that, assuming the training was a one-time thing and took only a few days to complete.

Level 0: Everyone (except criminals, ...) - Can buy a basic hunting weapon
Level 1: Firearm Safety - A few hour class + shooting (allows legal use of a basic hunting gun for hunting or target practice)
Level 2: Militia Certification - A one to two day class (grants a purchase permit for guns outside the basic hunting gun category)
Level 3: Carry Certification - A few hour class + shooting + shooting recertification every x years.

Allow 30 day preapproval backround checks and require backround checks for all gun sales or transfers with the exception internal tranfer within a family. None of these steps can hold any significant cost either.

Sounds like an excellent way to track gun owners so we know where to go get them.

Deusxmachina 02-28-2013 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 57892726)
Good thinking. I would fully support something like that, assuming the training was a one-time thing and took only a few days to complete.

Level 0: Everyone (except criminals, ...) - Can buy a basic hunting weapon
Level 1: Firearm Safety - A few hour class + shooting (allows legal use of a basic hunting gun for hunting or target practice)
Level 2: Militia Certification - A one to two day class (grants a purchase permit for guns outside the basic hunting gun category)
Level 3: Carry Certification - A few hour class + shooting + shooting recertification every x years.

Allow 30 day preapproval backround checks and require backround checks for all gun sales or transfers with the exception internal tranfer within a family. None of these steps can hold any significant cost either.

That's how it starts. Before you know it, your city bans shooting ranges so you can't get any training, and it costs you $350 to do the paperwork on a handgun.

Favrerox 02-28-2013 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57892900)
Sounds like an excellent way to track gun owners so we know where to go get them.

If that happens, then you can assume that the 2nd Amendment will become very real once again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 57893228)
That's how it starts. Before you know it, your city bans shooting ranges so you can't get any training, and it costs you $350 to do the paperwork on a handgun.

Would you rather have Finkelstein's bans? Besides, city limits are finite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 57892726)
Good thinking. I would fully support something like that, assuming the training was a one-time thing and took only a few days to complete.

Level 0: Everyone (except criminals, ...) - Can buy a basic hunting weapon
Level 1: Firearm Safety - A few hour class + shooting (allows legal use of a basic hunting gun for hunting or target practice)
Level 2: Militia Certification - A one to two day class (grants a purchase permit for guns outside the basic hunting gun category)
Level 3: Carry Certification - A few hour class + shooting + shooting recertification every x years.

Allow 30 day preapproval backround checks and require backround checks for all gun sales or transfers with the exception internal tranfer within a family. None of these steps can hold any significant cost either.

And I would add:
Level 4: Marksman/Certified Master at Arms/Whatever - One week a year training with no limits on your ownership of small arms. (Full auto, burst fire, short barreled, silencer and destructive devices are all okay to own.)

Deusxmachina 02-28-2013 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Favrerox (Post 57894842)
And I would add:
Level 4: Marksman/Certified Master at Arms/Whatever - One week a year training with no limits on your ownership of small arms. (Full auto, burst fire, short barreled, silencer and destructive devices are all okay to own.)

And then a few years later Level 4 requires two weeks of training. And then a few years later they get rid of Level 0 and make the old Level 1 the new Level 0, and Level 4 becomes the new Level 3. And then a few years later Level 4 requires three weeks of training and $1000 in paperwork. And so it goes....

Vermont has constitutional carry and is near the bottom in murder and crime. Let's just do that. If gun grabbers want to save lives and reduce crime, I assume they'll be on board.

Mr.Ritz 02-28-2013 03:59 PM

Quote:

Level 0: Everyone (except criminals, ...) - Can buy a basic hunting weapon
Level 1: Firearm Safety - A few hour class + shooting (allows legal use of a basic hunting gun for hunting or target practice)
Level 2: Militia Certification - A one to two day class (grants a purchase permit for guns outside the basic hunting gun category)
Level 3: Carry Certification - A few hour class + shooting + shooting recertification every x years.
This shit is so farking retarded. America is becoming full of pansy farks. Shooting a pistol or rifle is something one would learn from their Dad. Not farking rocket science that needs 1000's of dollars of bullshit "training" A farking marine has less weapon training than what you want required.

jplayland 02-28-2013 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 57895130)
And then a few years later Level 4 requires two weeks of training. And then a few years later they get rid of Level 0 and make the old Level 1 the new Level 0, and Level 4 becomes the new Level 3. And then a few years later Level 4 requires three weeks of training and $1000 in paperwork. And so it goes....

Vermont has constitutional carry and is near the bottom in murder and crime. Let's just do that. If gun grabbers want to save lives and reduce crime, I assume they'll be on board.

We have two reasonable parties. One is concerned with the gun violence and wants to solve the problem by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. The other is concerned with keeping their gun rights, not being tracked or treated like criminals. There are other parties, but they are not reasonable and cannot take part in a negociation.

Assuming these two parties are the only voices accepted for the negociation. The basic solution outlined above works. The concern of constant changing laws is valid and is a damn good reason to absolutly resist unless the change is properly negociated, thought out, debated, modified, ... until it's a rock solid piece of art, then it must be passed as a constitutional ammendment, not a law. This would prevent easy changing in the future and cover your concern.

As part of this change, training programs would have to be made available by the public or certified by the feds. In either case, the creation and maintenece of a shooting range and instructors would be required in each county.

Dr. J 02-28-2013 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Favrerox (Post 57890434)
School districts are those in the "clueless" group. When your 6 year old boy chews his Graham Cracker into the shape of a pistol and pretends to play army/spaceman/gun fighter/whatever you are denying a kid the opportunity to even express himself (or even herself if the case may be). By making guns soooo "scary" and "inappropriate" the schools may inadvertently create a curiosity that wasn't as strong before they stopped allowing any gun/weapon references in schools. Not only that, but it is a prejudice against (typically) male behavior at a young age. Men have been hunters/gathers/warriors since time began; now we should repress that? Pfft!


Growing up, our HS had an abandoned shooting range in the basement - my brother, who's about 13 years older, was on the school's rifle TEAM! This was in the 80's....

Dr. J 02-28-2013 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VaporTrailer (Post 57855182)
Which well regulated militia are you a member of?

At the very least the unorganized militia [cornell.edu] of the US.

Male, 17-45, "able bodied", citizen (or I guess "intention to become")

Now if you'd like to discriminate based on gender (unless a member of the National Guard/Naval Militia) and age.... that's a discussion to have.

OhNoItsDEVO 03-01-2013 05:08 PM

Obama just pardoned a guy who was convicted of illegally owning a firearm.
Seems very hypocritical to me.

JackHandey 03-01-2013 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhNoItsDEVO (Post 57923770)
Obama just pardoned a guy who was convicted of illegally owning a firearm.
Seems very hypocritical to me.

Was it an "undocumented foreign national"?

OhNoItsDEVO 03-02-2013 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 57928710)
Was it an "undocumented foreign national"?

It was some guy in GA named Larry do I doubt it.

But there was this

Quote:

_ An Na Peng of Honolulu, sentenced to two years' probation and $2,000 fine for conspiracy to defraud the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Deusxmachina 03-02-2013 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhNoItsDEVO (Post 57931124)
An Na Peng of Honolulu, sentenced to two years' probation and $2,000 fine for conspiracy to defraud the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

An Na Peng is probably one of Obama's aliases. Pardoning himself.

aero 03-02-2013 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57802566)
But it seems gun owners don't even want to take meager steps in that direction, like UBC and liability for irresponsible transfer and inadequate security..

Except your statements are based on feelings derived from false claims and no facts.

The government experts say UBC wont work.

As far as liability you have to exclude criminal acts, all established law says no insurance for criminal acts, (ie if your house runs down you are covered, if you burn it down there is none). Almost everyone is already covered on their umbrellas for negligence. That just leaves a donut in some policies for claims from self defense use.

The NRA offers that insurance already for free so you are going to end up with the 50% of households who own guns joining the NRA, which is great! :bounce:

aero 03-02-2013 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57848796)
We want to know who is straw buying. A large volume of purchases is suspiciously indicative of a straw buyer.

yea about a tenth of a percent. next.

Dr. J 03-02-2013 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aero (Post 57932072)
Except your statements are based on feelings derived from false claims and no facts.

The government experts say UBC wont work.

As far as liability you have to exclude criminal acts, all established law says no insurance for criminal acts, (ie if your house runs down you are covered, if you burn it down there is none). Almost everyone is already covered on their umbrellas for negligence. That just leaves a donut in some policies for claims from self defense use.

The NRA offers that insurance already for free so you are going to end up with the 50% of households who own guns joining the NRA, which is great! :bounce:


It would be interesting to see what % of gun owners are members of the NRA. I'd guess it's low.

Politicians make the mistake of subconsciously assuming that the NRA represents all owners, and all owners are members (or supporters) of the NRA. thus the NRA becomes the main target of pols in the gun issue. This is why Clinton warned the Dems to not fark with guns because the vast majority of gun owners may not be card carrying members of the NRA, and may not agree with their tactics, but will support their arms rights at the polls.

aero 03-02-2013 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57933102)
It would be interesting to see what % of gun owners are members of the NRA. I'd guess it's low.

Politicians make the mistake of subconsciously assuming that the NRA represents all owners, and all owners are members (or supporters) of the NRA. thus the NRA becomes the main target of pols in the gun issue. This is why Clinton warned the Dems to not fark with guns because the vast majority of gun owners may not be card carrying members of the NRA, and may not agree with their tactics, but will support their arms rights at the polls.

We went from 41% of households owning guns five years ago to 50%. I wasnt an NRA member until a couple of months ago and am one now.

I am a registered Democrat and anyone who looks at my posts from 6 months ago will see that.

I don't own an AR-15 but since I know a half dozen law enforcement owners who own them personally (not their department's but their personal use) in a state where average citizens are forbidden, I understand why people own them.

The mayors against gun violence are typical politicians. They have failed their constituents in doing anything about the actual causes of crime, many are soft on crime because it is populist to be soft on crime in their areas, and they are looking to do what any politician will do if they can: scapegoat and divert.

Who is the easiest target? legal gun owners, even though all the data show that legal gun owners cause lower crime rates.

Th reason why people right, center and even left are joing the NRA in record droves is that when the new controls don't work, the focus will not go where it belongs, on criminals and soft treatment of crime, but back again on legal gun owners for even more controls.

I think Obama and the dems are making a big mistake. Big. the emotional and shrill scapegoating, and the deliberate ignoring of the facts and studies is going to cost.

124nic8 03-02-2013 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aero (Post 57932072)
Except your statements are based on feelings derived from false claims and no facts.

No, it is based on what I read here and other places.

Are you not opposed to UBGC?

Quote:

The government experts say UBC wont work.
Others say it will.

Quote:

As far as liability you have to exclude criminal acts, all established law says no insurance for criminal acts, (ie if your house runs down you are covered, if you burn it down there is none).
You're insured for criminal acts committed by others, if not by you.

Quote:

Almost everyone is already covered on their umbrellas for negligence. That just leaves a donut in some policies for claims from self defense use.

The NRA offers that insurance already for free so you are going to end up with the 50% of households who own guns joining the NRA, which is great! :bounce:
Red herring. You're not currently liable if your gun is stolen and you don't report it.

Likewise, you're not liable if you sell your gun to a criminal w/o a BGC.

I advocate laws which would make you liable for both.

I'm guessing you'd oppose such laws which would hold you responsible for dangerous transfer of your guns.

Dumpsterdiver 03-02-2013 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57937832)
You're not currently liable if your gun is stolen and you don't report it.

Likewise, you're not liable if you sell your gun to a criminal w/o a BGC.

I advocate laws which would make you liable for both.

I'm guessing you'd oppose such laws which would hold you responsible for dangerous transfer of your guns.

Wait, you want to make the prior owner of an object responsible for the actions of it's current owner?

124nic8 03-02-2013 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57938450)
Wait, you want to make the prior owner of an object responsible for the actions of it's current owner?

If you transfer w/o a BGC....

IOW, you better be sure if you skip the check.

msummers80 03-04-2013 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57937832)
Others say it will.

BGC doesn't work. Why would UBGC work any better?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57937832)
Red herring. You're not currently liable if your gun is stolen and you don't report it.

That depends on the state. The real problem with this is "I didn't know it was stolen."

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57937832)
Likewise, you're not liable if you sell your gun to a criminal w/o a BGC.

You are if you know that person is a criminal. And considering the large number of criminals who get firearms from friends/family, one might look at why these people aren't deterred. Then one might remember that the ATF thinks its more fun to help known straw buyers obtain firearms so that we can study their use and link to crime and regional movements, or some crap like that. Good thing we have our priorities straight.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:33 AM.