Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Gun manufacturers, sellers, and sportsmen to the NRA: You know, thanks for the memories and all, but we think we're going to try a strategy that doesn't involve being a drooling caricature of ourselves from now on   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Hero, NRA, gun manufacturers, National Shooting Sports Foundation, background checks, Smith & Wesson, manufacturers, guns  
•       •       •

24812 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Mar 2013 at 10:31 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



396 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-06 09:01:24 AM  
I suspect the NRA will employ the traditional GOP strategy and double down on the derp.
 
2013-03-06 09:06:00 AM  
I'm fondling my nine right now
 
2013-03-06 09:22:52 AM  
Going to be surprised if many dealers will be interested in being part of a private gun sale on a firearm they don't own or able to verify is functional and unaltered. The potential liability when that gun blows up and injures or kills the buyer has to greatly outweigh the nominal background check fee that they may charge. Better be something in the law that protects them from frothing at the mouth lawyers.

Not to mention the absurd cost of expanding the ATF NICS system to handle the added volume of calls. They are already overloaded just handling commercial gun sales. Implementing this is going to be expensive. Where in the hell is that money going to come from?

If I am forced to do checks on the buyer and seller (which has been proposed) and both come back denied, then what the hell do I do with a gun I have never legally acquired? Lots of details need to be ironed out before this program is implemented.
 
2013-03-06 09:23:14 AM  

Krymson Tyde: I suspect the NRA will employ the traditional GOP strategy and double down on the derp.


That's been exactly what the NRA has been doing for years, and most notably since Newtown.  They've gotten more extreme, which I didn't even think was possible.

What's the NRA equivalent of a RINO?  GOINO?
 
2013-03-06 09:30:12 AM  
This article alone should be proof enough that the NRA isn't the lobbying group of the firearms manufacturers like many people seem to think it is.

I suspect that any manufacturers who actually publicly endorse such a deal will find themselves on the end of a very nasty boycott by users.  It won't be *ALL* NRA members or gun owners, but enough to hurt them financially.   It happened to Smith and Wesson 13 years ago when they caved to the Clinton Administration, and the only way they financially survived that was being bought by another company for a pittance, and having that company repudiate the agreement.
 
2013-03-06 09:35:56 AM  

dittybopper: This article alone should be proof enough that the NRA isn't the lobbying group of the firearms manufacturers like many people seem to think it is.

I suspect that any manufacturers who actually publicly endorse such a deal will find themselves on the end of a very nasty boycott by users.  It won't be *ALL* NRA members or gun owners, but enough to hurt them financially.   It happened to Smith and Wesson 13 years ago when they caved to the Clinton Administration, and the only way they financially survived that was being bought by another company for a pittance, and having that company repudiate the agreement.


I like how the first part of your post blatantly contradicts the second.
 
2013-03-06 09:41:55 AM  
We don't need an assault weapons ban.  Effective background checks--including mental health checks--would suffice.  I'm pretty much on board with the manufacturers (etc) on this one.  The NRA, though, is outright nuts at this point.
 
2013-03-06 09:50:45 AM  

GAT_00: I like how the first part of your post blatantly contradicts the second.


How so?

Unless you think manufacturers are buying other manufacturers guns, which is the only possible way those two statements could contradict each other (ie., that the manufacturers are also the users).

A boycott by users (the gun owning public, supported by their main user group the NRA) would hurt manufacturers.  The manufacturers, according to this article, are distancing themselves from the NRA.  Why would, and more importantly *HOW* could, manufacturers distance themselves from an organization they run and finance?  That's your assertion, right?  That the NRA is bought and paid for by the gun and ammunition manufacturers.

So why would the NSSF (which does represent gun and ammunition manufacturers) be backing away from positions held by the NRA?
 
2013-03-06 09:51:29 AM  

sullyman: Going to be surprised if many dealers will be interested in being part of a private gun sale on a firearm they don't own or able to verify is functional and unaltered. The potential liability when that gun blows up and injures or kills the buyer has to greatly outweigh the nominal background check fee that they may charge. Better be something in the law that protects them from frothing at the mouth lawyers.

Not to mention the absurd cost of expanding the ATF NICS system to handle the added volume of calls. They are already overloaded just handling commercial gun sales. Implementing this is going to be expensive. Where in the hell is that money going to come from?

If I am forced to do checks on the buyer and seller (which has been proposed) and both come back denied, then what the hell do I do with a gun I have never legally acquired? Lots of details need to be ironed out before this program is implemented.


Practical concerns?  Commie.
 
2013-03-06 09:54:07 AM  

dittybopper: GAT_00: I like how the first part of your post blatantly contradicts the second.

How so?

Unless you think manufacturers are buying other manufacturers guns, which is the only possible way those two statements could contradict each other (ie., that the manufacturers are also the users).

A boycott by users (the gun owning public, supported by their main user group the NRA) would hurt manufacturers.  The manufacturers, according to this article, are distancing themselves from the NRA.  Why would, and more importantly *HOW* could, manufacturers distance themselves from an organization they run and finance?  That's your assertion, right?  That the NRA is bought and paid for by the gun and ammunition manufacturers.

So why would the NSSF (which does represent gun and ammunition manufacturers) be backing away from positions held by the NRA?


If the NRA is not a lobbying group for firearms manufacturers, then it must be what it claims to be: a grass-roots organization supporting gun rights.  Then you cited an example of the NRA using it's members to harass and attempt to cripple a firearms manufacturer for straying from the herd by daring to take a position the NRA does not endorse.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-03-06 10:01:32 AM  
Not all gun owners are drooling redneck anti government militia wackos, and not all gun manufacturers make assault weapons.

These background checks would have been just fine back in the 80's when the NRA was more inclined toward hunters and target shooters than the lunatic fringe.
 
2013-03-06 10:02:45 AM  

xanadian: We don't need an assault weapons ban.  Effective background checks--including mental health checks--would suffice.  I'm pretty much on board with the manufacturers (etc) on this one.  The NRA, though, is outright nuts at this point.


You can't implement effective background checks without complete registration.  It just can't be done:  There has to be some paperwork or electronic record generated saying "Person A sold gun X to Person B and the background check number was 1238675309456".  To prevent cheating, that paperwork or electronic record has to be in the custody of someone other than A or B.

Without that permanent record of the sale, specifying exactly who sold it, exactly who bought it, and noting the make, model, and serial number (if any*) of the gun sold, it would be meaningless.  People would say "Hey, I sold it to some guy, forgot his name, lost the paperwork when we moved".

That means that all firearms transactions will be registered at some point with the government.  That's a non-starter for a *LOT* of gun owners.  They see that as a necessary precursor to the efficient confiscation of firearms, and they can point to numerous instances both abroad and domestically where registration *HAS* led to confiscation.

*Before 1968, federal law didn't require that guns have a unique serial number.  Many makes and models were produced without them.
 
2013-03-06 10:17:58 AM  

GAT_00: If the NRA is not a lobbying group for firearms manufacturers, then it must be what it claims to be: a grass-roots organization supporting gun rights.  Then you cited an example of the NRA using it's members to harass and attempt to cripple a firearms manufacturer for straying from the herd by daring to take a position the NRA does not endorse.


Which is precisely what you would expect a *USERS* group to do to a *MANUFACTURER* that they perceived as a sell-out.

If Ford agreed with the Obama administration to put ignition interlocks in all their new cars, don't you think people would naturally buy fewer Fords?  Don't you think that the users (the driving public) would be pissed off at having to blow into a tube every time they wanted to start their car, and avoid buying from the one manufacturer that agreed to that?

That's what happened with Smith and Wesson.

Also, the boycott wasn't *STARTED* by the NRA.  They jumped on the bandwagon.  The ball got rolling by individuals online.

In addition, if it had been the industry strong-arming one of their own, that would have been a violation of anti-trust laws.  A federal anti-trust investigation was opened, and quickly dropped when it became apparent it was a consumer-led boycott.
 
2013-03-06 10:18:38 AM  

dittybopper: A boycott by users (the gun owning public, supported by their main user group the NRA) would hurt manufacturers.


Gun manufacturers, magazine manufacturers, and ammunition manufacturers are literally working three shifts round the clock right now to meet demand.  That is pretty much the polar opposite of a boycott.

I don't have a problem with allowing private sales to leverage the NICS database, but otherwise this is just another way of banging the same tired 'close the gun show loophole' drum that gets banged every time white people get shot.  And just like every other time, they fail to show that it would have impacted the case which stirred up the media hornet's nest.
 
2013-03-06 10:20:44 AM  

vpb: Not all gun owners are drooling redneck anti government militia wackos, and not all gun manufacturers make assault weapons.

These background checks would have been just fine back in the 80's when the NRA was more inclined toward hunters and target shooters than the lunatic fringe.


Oh, you mean the 1970's or 1960's, before the Fudds got kicked out of the leadership, right?  Because universal background checks for all transfers were a no-go back in the 1980's also.  In fact, the NRA helped push through a significant loosening of reporting requirements of the 1968 Gun Control Act in 1986, called the "Firearms Owners Protection Act".
 
2013-03-06 10:29:16 AM  

syrynxx: dittybopper: A boycott by users (the gun owning public, supported by their main user group the NRA) would hurt manufacturers.

Gun manufacturers, magazine manufacturers, and ammunition manufacturers are literally working three shifts round the clock right now to meet demand.  That is pretty much the polar opposite of a boycott.


It's what you call a "Buycott".  People are stocking up on stuff because they perceive they might not be able to get it in the near future.

Imagine a scenario like this, however:  Say some manufacturer, hoping to stave off even more onerous regulation, agrees to no longer produce magazines of more than 10 round capacity for civilian use, while still manufacturing them for government use.  Let's also stipulate that other manufacturers don't do that:  They produce both 10 round (and lower) for civilian use, but they also produce higher capacity magazines for civilian use.

How many magazines do you think that first company is going to sell to civilians?  Pretty much, they politically maneuvered themselves into being completely dependent on government contracts, because as I've pointed out, there is nothing that gun owners like better than figuratively knifing traitors in the back.

I don't have a problem with allowing private sales to leverage the NICS database, but otherwise this is just another way of banging the same tired 'close the gun show loophole' drum that gets banged every time white people get shot.  And just like every other time, they fail to show that it would have impacted the case which stirred up the media hornet's nest.

The problem with leveraging the NICS database is that in order for it to work, you have to have complete registration.  You just can't make it work otherwise:  There will have to be something like a Form 4473 for every single transaction, even between family members, or it would fail.

That's the danger in it.
 
2013-03-06 10:36:18 AM  

dittybopper: This article alone should be proof enough that the NRA isn't the lobbying group of the firearms manufacturers like many people seem to think it is.

I suspect that any manufacturers who actually publicly endorse such a deal will find themselves on the end of a very nasty boycott by users.  It won't be *ALL* NRA members or gun owners, but enough to hurt them financially.   It happened to Smith and Wesson 13 years ago when they caved to the Clinton Administration, and the only way they financially survived that was being bought by another company for a pittance, and having that company repudiate the agreement.


I actually wanted a revolver with a built in lock.  Once again the mouth breathing morons out there won't let us have nice things.
 
2013-03-06 10:36:23 AM  
How about a background check before you can buy a printing press or paper? Makes as much sense, as I'm sure the quaint, little alternative newspaper would agree.
 
2013-03-06 10:40:45 AM  

dittybopper: This article alone should be proof enough that the NRA isn't the lobbying group of the firearms manufacturers like many people seem to think it is.

I suspect that any manufacturers who actually publicly endorse such a deal will find themselves on the end of a very nasty boycott by users.  It won't be *ALL* NRA members or gun owners, but enough to hurt them financially.   It happened to Smith and Wesson 13 years ago when they caved to the Clinton Administration, and the only way they financially survived that was being bought by another company for a pittance, and having that company repudiate the agreement.


Then who in the fark do they represent??
 
2013-03-06 10:40:48 AM  

dittybopper: How many magazines do you think that first company is going to sell to civilians?  Pretty much, they politically maneuvered themselves into being completely dependent on government contracts, because as I've pointed out, there is nothing that gun owners like better than figuratively knifing traitors in the back.


Come on now. We might make it figuratively bayonetting, with our assault weapons having the mounts and all.
 
2013-03-06 10:41:37 AM  
You mean, an organization that supports manufacturers who sell new products are cool with creating a law that would make sales of used versions of their products (sales for which they don't get paid) more difficult?  Color me shocked.  They're fine with this because it doesn't affect them.  They sell new guns.  New guns are sold by dealers, thus, run through NICS.  They have no benefit in opposing background checks.  If some congressman put up a bill doing away with background checks, watch how fast they'd jump on board, and all their talk of "safety" would go out the window.
 
2013-03-06 10:41:53 AM  

dittybopper: You can't implement effective background checks without complete registration. It just can't be done: There has to be some paperwork or electronic record generated saying "Person A sold gun X to Person B and the background check number was 1238675309456". To prevent cheating, that paperwork or electronic record has to be in the custody of someone other than A or B.

Without that permanent record of the sale, specifying exactly who sold it, exactly who bought it, and noting the make, model, and serial number (if any*) of the gun sold, it would be meaningless. People would say "Hey, I sold it to some guy, forgot his name, lost the paperwork when we moved".

That means that all firearms transactions will be registered at some point with the government. That's a non-starter for a *LOT* of gun owners. They see that as a necessary precursor to the efficient confiscation of firearms, and they can point to numerous instances both abroad and domestically where registration *HAS* led to confiscation.


And that's exactly the problem.  I'd be fine with a background check process where I can see if Dittybopper can legally own a gun, and if so, I sell to him.  I need to know he passed a background check.  In my state, if you have a concealed carry license, you've passed the background check and had training.  That should be enough to prove the person I'm selling a gun to, is eligible to do so.

The problem is, this proposal doesn't stop there, they also want the details of the transaction (buyer, seller, serial number) registered.  It's a gun registration scheme being presented as a background check requirement.  The left is lying by not calling it what it is, and the NRA is either doing a shiatty job of explaining WHY they object, or places like the Washington Post are failing to report on those points.

All of this of course ignores the fact that the bad guys almost always get their guns illegally in the first place, so this only inconveniences the people who are least likely to be a problem.  It doesn't address the real problem, it has real problems of its own that it brings along with, and the most likely to be damaged by this, are the people who obey laws in the first place.  It's completely backwards.

How about instead of this, we go with something like "Project Exile", where you add a mandatory 5 year prison sentence for anyone convicted of using a gun in a crime, or for felons who are illegally in possession of a gun?  Double-digit drops in violent crime in Virginia when they did this.  Of course, you might have to turn some potsmokers away from their cells to make room for the actual criminals, but, I think society can cope.
 
2013-03-06 10:42:03 AM  

dittybopper: This article alone should be proof enough that the NRA isn't the lobbying group of the firearms manufacturers like many people seem to think it is.

I suspect that any manufacturers who actually publicly endorse such a deal will find themselves on the end of a very nasty boycott by users.  It won't be *ALL* NRA members or gun owners, but enough to hurt them financially.   It happened to Smith and Wesson 13 years ago when they caved to the Clinton Administration, and the only way they financially survived that was being bought by another company for a pittance, and having that company repudiate the agreement.


You're still plying this, eh?

This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that they're an industry group. One that is willing to punish members for stepping out of line.
 
2013-03-06 10:42:08 AM  
Uh, how are they "Second Amendment advocates" when they support expanding the infringements upon the Second Amendment? It's a contradiction in terms.
 
2013-03-06 10:42:20 AM  
The NRA is a proponent of one and only one thing ... selling more guns.  If you think they are on your side at any level, you should be shot.
 
2013-03-06 10:42:21 AM  
I have sold a few used handguns, and have limited myself to selling to FFLs. It would be nice to have a database to access to be able to sell to an individual and know that it's a legitimate buyer.

I'm not sure if any of this would actually change anything.
 
2013-03-06 10:42:35 AM  

vpb: Not all gun owners are drooling redneck anti government militia wackos, and not all gun manufacturers make assault weapons.


Sort of depends on what definition you're using.  By the definitions of the AWB proposal, all gun manufacturers do, in fact, make assault weapons.  The one-characteristic test covers some variant of basically every firearm in existence, including pump-action shotguns.

Sort of one of the reasons background checks are universally approved but the AWB is still in snowball-in-hell territory.

dittybopper: You can't implement effective background checks without complete registration.  It just can't be done:  There has to be some paperwork or electronic record generated saying "Person A sold gun X to Person B and the background check number was 1238675309456".


Spot checks and stings have worked fine for busting alcohol sales to minors or sales done without checking ID, in conjunction with complaints.  I would imagine a similar system is in place for background checks (given it's enforced by the same agencies) and it seems to have kept them honest to this point.

Remember, a lot of the background check is for the protection of  the seller, it's a positive indicator/defense that they've done due diligence and something that ensures they aren't liable if the product is misused.  Medium-sized sellers with a business to lose have a  very strong motivation to comply with the law that private sellers/collectors do not.
 
2013-03-06 10:42:50 AM  
not a single name huh?

must be Easter Bunny Arms, Santa Claus Gun Co. and Peter Pan Mfg
 
2013-03-06 10:43:14 AM  
i970.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-06 10:44:00 AM  

dittybopper: The problem with leveraging the NICS database is that in order for it to work, you have to have complete registration. You just can't make it work otherwise: There will have to be something like a Form 4473 for every single transaction, even between family members, or it would fail.

That's the danger in it.


It's only dangerous to paranoid individuals that think shooting soldiers at the grocery store will be a path to winning a revolution that they start in response to a very narrow political disagreement.
 
2013-03-06 10:44:24 AM  

dittybopper: xanadian: We don't need an assault weapons ban.  Effective background checks--including mental health checks--would suffice.  I'm pretty much on board with the manufacturers (etc) on this one.  The NRA, though, is outright nuts at this point.

You can't implement effective background checks without complete registration.  It just can't be done:  There has to be some paperwork or electronic record generated saying "Person A sold gun X to Person B and the background check number was 1238675309456".  To prevent cheating, that paperwork or electronic record has to be in the custody of someone other than A or B.

Without that permanent record of the sale, specifying exactly who sold it, exactly who bought it, and noting the make, model, and serial number (if any*) of the gun sold, it would be meaningless.  People would say "Hey, I sold it to some guy, forgot his name, lost the paperwork when we moved".

That means that all firearms transactions will be registered at some point with the government.  That's a non-starter for a *LOT* of gun owners.  They see that as a necessary precursor to the efficient confiscation of firearms, and they can point to numerous instances both abroad and domestically where registration *HAS* led to confiscation.

*Before 1968, federal law didn't require that guns have a unique serial number.  Many makes and models were produced without them.


Complete registration would be great. Add in mandatory reporting if the gun is stolen, and all of a sudden, you have a very effective tool at fighting gun trafficking. Which would, combined with smart police efforts and universal background checks, rather effectively shut down the majority of inner city gang violence. Quite simply, it is an incredibly obvious thing to do, even if you take all manner of guns remaining legal as a given.

Of course, the obstacle is the paranoid nuts who think the government is gonna come in black helicopters to take their guns. Which seems to make up about 80% of the Republican base these days.
 
2013-03-06 10:44:27 AM  

sullyman


Going to be surprised if many dealers will be interested in being part of a private gun sale on a firearm they don't own or able to verify is functional and unaltered. The potential liability when that gun blows up and injures or kills the buyer has to greatly outweigh the nominal background check fee that they may charge.


The firearms dealer who solely conducts the transfer from A to B has as much liability exposure as the DMV does when it conducts the transfer of a vehicle, i.e. none at all.

Dealers are already performing these private-sale transfers today (where required).
 
2013-03-06 10:44:40 AM  

GAT_00: dittybopper: GAT_00: I like how the first part of your post blatantly contradicts the second.

How so?

Unless you think manufacturers are buying other manufacturers guns, which is the only possible way those two statements could contradict each other (ie., that the manufacturers are also the users).

A boycott by users (the gun owning public, supported by their main user group the NRA) would hurt manufacturers.  The manufacturers, according to this article, are distancing themselves from the NRA.  Why would, and more importantly *HOW* could, manufacturers distance themselves from an organization they run and finance?  That's your assertion, right?  That the NRA is bought and paid for by the gun and ammunition manufacturers.

So why would the NSSF (which does represent gun and ammunition manufacturers) be backing away from positions held by the NRA?

If the NRA is not a lobbying group for firearms manufacturers, then it must be what it claims to be: a grass-roots organization supporting gun rights.  Then you cited an example of the NRA using it's members to harass and attempt to cripple a firearms manufacturer for straying from the herd by daring to take a position the NRA does not endorse.


So, explain why the NRA was against requiring trigger locks as an abridgment of gun owners' rights  until that requirement was in a bill that also protected gun manufacturers from lawsuits.
 
2013-03-06 10:44:41 AM  
Cowards. They're bending over to fartbong0 in order to regulate that all-American staple: Lead.

I'm I trolling right?.
 
2013-03-06 10:45:10 AM  

lenfromak: How about a background check before you can buy a printing press or paper? Makes as much sense, as I'm sure the quaint, little alternative newspaper would agree.


Don't underestimate the danger of a printing press.

myst-library.ru
 
2013-03-06 10:45:52 AM  

dittybopper: This article alone should be proof enough that the NRA isn't the lobbying group of the firearms manufacturers like many people seem to think it is.


Which leads to the ominous conclusion that American gun nuts really are as crazy as people think they are.  Of course I already knew that; I used to live in Ohio.
 
2013-03-06 10:46:07 AM  

syrynxx: dittybopper: A boycott by users (the gun owning public, supported by their main user group the NRA) would hurt manufacturers.

Gun manufacturers, magazine manufacturers, and ammunition manufacturers are literally working three shifts round the clock right now to meet demand.  That is pretty much the polar opposite of a boycott.

I don't have a problem with allowing private sales to leverage the NICS database, but otherwise this is just another way of banging the same tired 'close the gun show loophole' drum that gets banged every time white people get shot.  And just like every other time, they fail to show that it would have impacted the case which stirred up the media hornet's nest.


You're not thinking it through.  Clearly, we need to pass a law that says before you shoot your mother in the head and steal her guns so you can shoot up a school, you have to either (a) wake her up so she can, or (b) run yourself through a mandated background check.

Think of the chillllllllllllllldrun!
 
2013-03-06 10:46:40 AM  
I've bought from 6 manufacturers and 11 retailers in the last 3 months.

All support the NRA and the good ones like LaRue and BCM include a mandatory donation in purchase price.

Hero tag is dazed and confused.
 
2013-03-06 10:46:50 AM  

dittybopper: That means that all firearms transactions will be registered at some point with the government.


ok, easy.  use a third party to maintain the records.  any time government wants a gander at the records, they need a subpoena that has a judge/magistrate's approval.  so, for good cause shown.

then, if you're still nervous, write somewhere that mass gun confiscation is not good cause.  problem solved.  albeit it in a dumb way, but the whole gun confiscation argument is retarded, so there are really only two options, a dumb fix, or just ignoring the nonsense
 
2013-03-06 10:47:00 AM  

Krymson Tyde: I suspect the NRA will employ the traditional GOP strategy and double down on the derp.


clane:
some people hate fear freedom.
 
2013-03-06 10:47:48 AM  
Manufacturers and dealers see background checks as good for business because it makes private sales (without a middle-man) more difficult, giving them more opportunities to buy used or take trade-ins and to sell more.
 
2013-03-06 10:47:51 AM  

lenfromak: How about a background check before you can buy a printing press or paper? Makes as much sense, as I'm sure the quaint, little alternative newspaper would agree.


Because if I print a few reams of leaflets saying "BANG! BANG!" it will kill thousands.

If a background check for a printing press or paper makes "as much sense" as regulating something that makes killing a dozen people quick and easy, then you have some serious cognitive deficiencies.
 
2013-03-06 10:48:25 AM  
Everyone should own a gun ...

Men, women, kids, dogs: arm them all!
 
2013-03-06 10:48:42 AM  

djh0101010: All of this of course ignores the fact that the bad guys almost always get their guns illegally in the first place, so this only inconveniences the people who are least likely to be a problem. It doesn't address the real problem, it has real problems of its own that it brings along with, and the most likely to be damaged by this, are the people who obey laws in the first place. It's completely backwards.


Except that those guns start out as legal guns and then become illegal in ways that we could track if we wanted to. A guy buying 300 guns a month? Well, that's suspicious. What if we could knock on his door and ensure he still has possession of the 2,000 guns he's the registered owner of? Because this guy is buying those guns, selling them into the illegal market, and not reporting any sale, because he doesn't have to. That's where illegal guns come from- universal background checks, registering owners, and keeping a database would allow us to figure out exactly where guns are entering the illegal market, arrest the people responsible, and lock them up for decades.
 
2013-03-06 10:49:37 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: dittybopper: This article alone should be proof enough that the NRA isn't the lobbying group of the firearms manufacturers like many people seem to think it is.

I suspect that any manufacturers who actually publicly endorse such a deal will find themselves on the end of a very nasty boycott by users.  It won't be *ALL* NRA members or gun owners, but enough to hurt them financially.   It happened to Smith and Wesson 13 years ago when they caved to the Clinton Administration, and the only way they financially survived that was being bought by another company for a pittance, and having that company repudiate the agreement.

I actually wanted a revolver with a built in lock.  Once again the mouth breathing morons out there won't let us have nice things.


what're you talking about? most hammerless S&W j-frame 38's have integrated locking mechanisms...
 
2013-03-06 10:49:39 AM  
The NRA's job is to create fear in the ignorant through misinformation in order to perpetuate paranoia.  This leads to record sales of guns and ammunition.  They've been quite successful since a black man became president.  It isn't surprising though that since they've had to troll the ignorant white male for the last 8 years that they've tarnished some of their reputation outside of their target market.
 
2013-03-06 10:50:09 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Spot checks and stings have worked fine for busting alcohol sales to minors or sales done without checking ID, in conjunction with complaints. I would imagine a similar system is in place for background checks (given it's enforced by the same agencies) and it seems to have kept them honest to this point.


Not really, straw purchases are barely enforced and the ATF has very little resources or teeth to actively pursue current law that can be enforced (which is little at best).

The recent judiciary committee bill introduced to committee has a combined universal background check including private sales and puts straw purchases, and defines gun trafficking as federal offenses which should give the ATF more teeth in preventing things like 80% of all guns involved in crime in a city coming from 2 or 3 out of state dealers.
 
2013-03-06 10:51:09 AM  

dittybopper: vpb: Not all gun owners are drooling redneck anti government militia wackos, and not all gun manufacturers make assault weapons.

These background checks would have been just fine back in the 80's when the NRA was more inclined toward hunters and target shooters than the lunatic fringe.

Oh, you mean the 1970's or 1960's, before the Fudds got kicked out of the leadership, right?  Because universal background checks for all transfers were a no-go back in the 1980's also.  In fact, the NRA helped push through a significant loosening of reporting requirements of the 1968 Gun Control Act in 1986, called the "Firearms Owners Protection Act".


And at the same time they backed the closing of the FA part of the NFA registry to new additions....

The NRA really likes to pick and choose what subgroups of the american gun owning public they like to support.  And, instead of finding compromise and trade-offs, they go for the "we'll roll over just don't hurt us too bad".

The few times I've had extra $ to donate, it has gone to GOA and JPFO
 
2013-03-06 10:51:29 AM  

lenfromak: How about a background check before you can buy a printing press or paper? Makes as much sense, as I'm sure the quaint, little alternative newspaper would agree.


Yes guns and paper are exactly the same. You're so smart.
 
2013-03-06 10:52:14 AM  

cptjeff: Complete registration would be great


Worked really well in Poland in the 1930s, didn't it?
 
Displayed 50 of 396 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report