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.

(Denver Channel)   NRA takes a shot at making robocalls in Newtown, CT   (thedenverchannel.com) divider line 649
    More: Dumbass, NRA, Newtown, Connecticut, Sandy Hook Elementary School  
•       •       •

6169 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2013 at 9:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-26 01:29:34 PM

sheep snorter: Would the NRA be upset at this phrases in response:

"Praise Allah. We need high capacity rounds to defend ourselves from these crazy Christians".

"Now we can safely go to Mosque and if a fat white man tries to accost our children, we can shoot him 30 times per each of our guns and all within 10 seconds."

"Can you send some large NRA banners? We could display them on the roadside of our homes and Mosques".



forum-img.pinside.com

/hotlinked
//I think
///stupid image gallery doesn't hand out simple URLs anymore
 
2013-03-26 01:30:25 PM

DeArmondVI: Actually, I was thinking about "arms" as mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. If the intent was to be limited only to guns, and not canons, for example, then they would have said "firearms" and not more broadly "arms". While guns are certainly "arms", so are land mines. I take it that you agree with me that our government is already in violation of our 2nd Amendment by forbidding me to purchase landmines (without a paper trail) in order to protect my private property?

And if you do believe that the federal government is infringing upon that right, what ought we to do about it? Should we just sit back and watch as the tyrants prevent us from actually being able to protect ourselves from an evil government, or should we advocate (vociferously) to our elected officials, and in the national media, that private citizens ought to be able to make their own private minefields?

Do you side with the totalitarians, or with those of us who love the 2nd Amendment more than you?


I was curious where you stood on the issue of firearms and other personal and crew served weapons.  Why didn't you answer that?

I'm in favor of people being able to buy and own anything the police, military, etc. can, including land mines if the police or military are using them.  Most states have laws against booby traps, so deploying those mines in the front yard is illegal.
 
2013-03-26 01:31:08 PM

BayouOtter: mrshowrules:
Who are you talking about?  People selling guns privately online or the brokering the on-line service.  It is a big profit business

For the websites acting as a broker, not the actual private sellers you are discussing.

Prove it.  What are the average number of sales of the average user.  Topsellers.  Ebay has stats on number of sales.  Does this web-site.  You seem very confident there is no signification profit.  $2B in profit.  How many sales and how many sellers does that represent?  You don't know.  I said earlier.  One seller I found admitted to $118K in profit.  It is hard to get information on this because the people doing the private sells don't want to disclose it.  Do want me to find that citation?  What would it change?

and the online sales don't require background checks and they should is my overall point.

Any online sale that crosses state lines requires a background check and must go through an FFL. In-state face to face deals are subject to varying state laws.


i.e., no background check
 
2013-03-26 01:31:57 PM

heypete: mrshowrules: It is a big profit business and the online sales don't require background checks and they should is my overall point.

They don't? Care to point out an example of a gun for sale that doesn't require sending to an FFL (the FFL carries out the background check)?

If a gun is being shipped interstate, it absolutely requires being sent to an FFL. A rifle or shotgun can be shipped within the same state in a private sale, though this is quite rare. Handguns can only be mailed by an FFL to an FFL, regardless of whether or not it's being sent in-state or out-of-state.

Essentially all online gun sales can be thought of as "ship to store" -- you buy the gun online, they ship it to your local dealer, you undergo the background check there.


Read the farking article I linking to.
 
2013-03-26 01:32:47 PM

pedrop357: mrshowrules: Who are you talking about? People selling guns privately online or the brokering the on-line service. It is a big profit business and the online sales don't require background checks and they should is my overall point.

Define brokering-is this a gunbroker.com type site, or is the person accepting firearms for transfer?

If I advertise my gun for sale online to another person in my state, why would I need a broker?
This is no different then me selling it to a friend from work or whatever.

Dealers cannot ship to unlicensed persons (non-dealers) in other states, so if it's out of state, I have to transfer my gun to a dealer in my state, who then transfers it to a dealer in the other state.  That dealer then does a background check on the recipient.


Read the article and then repost your questions.  It is very clear.
 
2013-03-26 01:33:43 PM

mrshowrules: i.e., no background check


Yes, in-state face-to-face private sales do not require a background check in most states and it's been that way since 1993.  They've also never required paperwork.

A person in the business of selling firearms needs a license and has to do paperwork and perform background checks.

If you have a problem with the thresholds the ATF uses to determine the difference between private sale and unlicensed dealing, perhaps you should take that up with them.
 
2013-03-26 01:34:43 PM

mrshowrules: BayouOtter: mrshowrules:
Who are you talking about?  People selling guns privately online or the brokering the on-line service.  It is a big profit business

For the websites acting as a broker, not the actual private sellers you are discussing.

Prove it.


No. You prove it.  You are the one that made the claim.

and the online sales don't require background checks and they should is my overall point.

Any online sale that crosses state lines requires a background check and must go through an FFL. In-state face to face deals are subject to varying state laws.


I.E. You statement about all online sales not requiring background checks is bullshiat.
 
2013-03-26 01:36:49 PM

mrshowrules: pedrop357: mrshowrules: Who are you talking about? People selling guns privately online or the brokering the on-line service. It is a big profit business and the online sales don't require background checks and they should is my overall point.

Define brokering-is this a gunbroker.com type site, or is the person accepting firearms for transfer?

If I advertise my gun for sale online to another person in my state, why would I need a broker?
This is no different then me selling it to a friend from work or whatever.

Dealers cannot ship to unlicensed persons (non-dealers) in other states, so if it's out of state, I have to transfer my gun to a dealer in my state, who then transfers it to a dealer in the other state.  That dealer then does a background check on the recipient.

Read the article and then repost your questions.  It is very clear.


Basically, some people are using gunbroker.com and other online sites to arrange sales of firearms to people in their states the way people used to use the classifieds, bulletin boards, etc.

If you can prove that the people selling those guns are not selling pieces from a private collection, but are instead acting as dealers without a license, feel free to clue the ATF in.
 
2013-03-26 01:48:15 PM

mrshowrules: redmid17: mrshowrules: BayouOtter: mrshowrules:

Are you shiatting me?  It is a $Billion a year business and the guy literally closed up his gun store to make more money brokering on-line sales of guns.

He switched from a gun store business to an internet business similar to Craigslist.

You claimed you had links to guys making hundreds of thousands of dollars as private sellers of their personal firearms. I'm not seeing it.

Oh for farksake.  I said over a $100K.  I can provide you an example of a guy who made $118K.  I found it earlier.  Would that make any farking difference in this debate.  When did the amount of profit become the issue.  Let's say it is somewhere more than a meal for your family and less than $1M.  Who the fark cares.

Were those the people running the auction or selling the guns? Getting a cut of a private sale because you're an intermediary is pretty universal. The ATF doesn't ignore those sites. Obviously someone selling their enough guns to the tune of 118K is potentially worrisome. However it can also be a serious gun collector selling off some rare NFA weapons. Nice full auto guns go for 15K-20K. Selling one or two of those even a year hardly warrants any more scrutiny than NFA transfers already get.

The ATF doesn't track private sales.   It mentions this in the article.  Anyways, there is no volume limits on private sells or gun store sales so why have that as a consideration for background checks?


The guy in the article you linked to is essentially running an online version of the classifieds. Do you want to treat the newspaper as a dealer of firearms, even if it never sells them?
 
2013-03-26 01:51:33 PM

mrshowrules: Read the farking article I linking to.


I did.

It mentioned that guns were being listed for sale on the site, but they never explicitly stated that the guns weren't being shipped to FFLs. For all you know, every gun sold on GunBroker is shipped to an FFL. The article never says otherwise.

As others have pointed out, some of the sites are basically online classified sites that cater to gun owners. It's perfectly legal in most states for two people to meet up and conduct a private sale and people have listed guns for sale in newspaper classified ads for years. How is this any different?

Also, there's a lot of things for sale on GunBroker and other sites that aren't guns or otherwise restricted: ammo, accessories, magazines, parts, etc. are all commonly sold. It wouldn't surprise me if the bulk of the site's income came from commissions related to such items. Such things are commonly sold on eBay and other auction sites.
 
2013-03-26 01:54:04 PM

redmid17: The guy in the article you linked to is essentially running an online version of the classifieds. Do you want to treat the newspaper as a dealer of firearms, even if it never sells them?


I wasn't talking about that guy.  I was talking about the people selling on his website.  Presumably with $2B in sales someone is making more than cab fare.

Are you an Alt or there actually more than 1 person in this thread that thinks there isn't serious profit for some private sellers?
 
2013-03-26 01:57:06 PM

mrshowrules: redmid17: The guy in the article you linked to is essentially running an online version of the classifieds. Do you want to treat the newspaper as a dealer of firearms, even if it never sells them?

I wasn't talking about that guy.  I was talking about the people selling on his website.  Presumably with $2B in sales someone is making more than cab fare.


2 billion over more than ten years, dealing in all sorts of firearm accessories, spread over potentially millions of users. So no.
 
2013-03-26 01:58:06 PM

pedrop357: I was curious where you stood on the issue of firearms and other personal and crew served weapons.  Why didn't you answer that?

I'm in favor of people being able to buy and own anything the police, military, etc. can, including land mines if the police or military are using them.  Most states have laws against booby traps, so deploying those mines in the front yard is illegal.


Under the framework that the intent and reason for the 2nd Amendment is to allow all citizens the ability to stand a legitimate chance against a naughty federal government in a guerilla warfare setting, yes, I do believe it to not only a sacred Constitutional right, but also plain simple common sense, that a person should be able to own as many land mines, grenades, semi/fully auto rifles, and surface-to-air missiles.

Since those are all weapons in use by either police or (more commonly) the military, it stands to reason that we need to be ready to go to war against Uncle Sam at a moment's notice. The fact that we have been steathily disarmed of our rocket launchers, surface to air capabilites, and land mine ownership ought to send a chill up every True Patriot's spine.

These are dark, dark days.
 
2013-03-26 01:58:13 PM

mrshowrules: redmid17: The guy in the article you linked to is essentially running an online version of the classifieds. Do you want to treat the newspaper as a dealer of firearms, even if it never sells them?

I wasn't talking about that guy.  I was talking about the people selling on his website.  Presumably with $2B in sales someone is making more than cab fare.

Are you an Alt or there actually more than 1 person in this thread that thinks there isn't serious profit for some private sellers?


You're under the impression that the bulk of the people selling on the site are not dealers.  What makes you think they're all private sellers, selling items from a private collection?

If they're really acting as unlicensed dealers, someone should have told the ATF what they knew.
 
2013-03-26 01:58:39 PM

heypete: mrshowrules: Read the farking article I linking to.

I did.

It mentioned that guns were being listed for sale on the site, but they never explicitly stated that the guns weren't being shipped to FFLs. For all you know, every gun sold on GunBroker is shipped to an FFL. The article never says otherwise.

As others have pointed out, some of the sites are basically online classified sites that cater to gun owners. It's perfectly legal in most states for two people to meet up and conduct a private sale and people have listed guns for sale in newspaper classified ads for years. How is this any different?

Also, there's a lot of things for sale on GunBroker and other sites that aren't guns or otherwise restricted: ammo, accessories, magazines, parts, etc. are all commonly sold. It wouldn't surprise me if the bulk of the site's income came from commissions related to such items. Such things are commonly sold on eBay and other auction sites.


If you are going to jump into an exchange, at least try and get up to speed on what is being talked about.

The point I was making is that private sales are a money making business and private sellers can make significant profits and some gun stores actually don't make that much money because of overhead (or whatever reason).  Therefore the profit/volume argument against a store versus a private seller regarding background checks is pretty stupid.
 
2013-03-26 02:01:29 PM

mrshowrules: If you are going to jump into an exchange, at least try and get up to speed on what is being talked about.

The point I was making is that private sales are a money making business and private sellers can make significant profits and some gun stores actually don't make that much money because of overhead (or whatever reason). Therefore the profit/volume argument against a store versus a private seller regarding background checks is pretty stupid.


Private sellers can only legally sell their own guns acquired for personal use.  They cannot get into the business of selling firearms without a license.

Are you suggesting that there's a significant profit to be made selling items from a private collection on a regular basis?
 
2013-03-26 02:01:54 PM

mrshowrules: redmid17: The guy in the article you linked to is essentially running an online version of the classifieds. Do you want to treat the newspaper as a dealer of firearms, even if it never sells them?

I wasn't talking about that guy.  I was talking about the people selling on his website.  Presumably with $2B in sales someone is making more than cab fare.

Are you an Alt or there actually more than 1 person in this thread that thinks there isn't serious profit for some private sellers?


What BayouOtter said above me. You don't know the revenue stream breakdown, if the sellers are FFLs or not, and if the final transactions are face to face. You're basically railing against the classified ads.
 
2013-03-26 02:03:17 PM
mrshowrules:
The point I was pulling out of my ass is that private sales are a money making business and private sellers can make significant profits not that I ever give evidence to support this, despite claiming to have many examples of a private seller making 100K+ a year from sales and some gun stores actually don't make that much money because of overhead (or whatever reason) yet still magically stay in business despite making no money.   Therefore based on faulty and false premises I believe all sales should be subject to background checks.

Fixed that for you.
 
2013-03-26 02:13:03 PM

mrshowrules: The point I was making is that private sales are a money making business and private sellers can make significant profits and some gun stores actually don't make that much money because of overhead (or whatever reason).  Therefore the profit/volume argument against a store versus a private seller regarding background checks is pretty stupid.


I won't deny that there's certainly a potential for profit in private sales: there are some rather valuable firearms out there that could command a hefty price.

Anyway, arguing about profit or volume isn't really relevant -- the only thing that matters is that the ATF defines "engaged in the business" in regards to what constitutes a "dealer" to mean "a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms".

A guy who sells, one time, a rare gun that nets him $50,000 isn't engaged in the business of selling firearms, even though he makes a hefty profit.

A collector who decides to sell off his entire collection of 200 guns isn't engaged in the business of selling firearms, even though he sells a large volume of guns.
 
2013-03-26 02:24:55 PM

SRD: I'm done here. And I do care about those dead children. There I's a quote I like though take it as you wish.

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery...


And yet you probably have no problem with people telling how your sex life should be.
 
2013-03-26 02:25:58 PM

Rwa2play: SRD: I'm done here. And I do care about those dead children. There I's a quote I like though take it as you wish.

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery...

And yet you probably have no problem with people telling how your sex life should be.


You got a permit for that strawman?
 
2013-03-26 02:27:38 PM

pedrop357: Rwa2play: SRD: I'm done here. And I do care about those dead children. There I's a quote I like though take it as you wish.

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery...

And yet you probably have no problem with people telling how your sex life should be.

You got a permit for that strawman?


Yeah, I borrowed it from SRD.
 
2013-03-26 02:41:01 PM

BayouOtter: mrshowrules:
The point I was pulling out of my ass is that private sales are a money making business and private sellers can make significant profits not that I ever give evidence to support this, despite claiming to have many examples of a private seller making 100K+ a year from sales and some gun stores actually don't make that much money because of overhead (or whatever reason) yet still magically stay in business despite making no money.   Therefore based on faulty and false premises I believe all sales should be subject to background checks.

Fixed that for you.


You sound like someone who has lost an argument.  I provided an article indicating that a single website that shows that private sales are big business.

Here is the guy who made $118K

http://www.fbi.gov/elpaso/press-releases/2010/ep082410.htm

How many more examples do you need before you drop this as a talking point?
 
2013-03-26 02:49:51 PM

heypete: mrshowrules: The point I was making is that private sales are a money making business and private sellers can make significant profits and some gun stores actually don't make that much money because of overhead (or whatever reason).  Therefore the profit/volume argument against a store versus a private seller regarding background checks is pretty stupid.

I won't deny that there's certainly a potential for profit in private sales: there are some rather valuable firearms out there that could command a hefty price.

The potential has been realized/documented for some people.  Certainly the majority of sales are probably low profit but there are people who have made a business out of it.  To deny it serves no purpose.

Anyway, arguing about profit or volume isn't really relevant -- the only thing that matters is that the ATF defines "engaged in the business" in regards to what constitutes a "dealer" to mean "a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms".

Seeing as ATF is not tracking private sales, it would be impossible for them to identify abuse.

A guy who sells, one time, a rare gun that nets him $50,000 isn't engaged in the business of selling firearms, even though he makes a hefty profit.

I'm not concerned (nor should the public be concerned IMHO) of sales of this nature.

A collector who decides to sell off his entire collection of 200 guns isn't engaged in the business of selling firearms, even though he sells a large volume of guns.


I disagree.  People invest in guns as a nest egg.  You could build a collection over a long period of time worth a small fortune.  When you sell it to private buyers you should have to do background checks.  Actually, if you sell a single gun or a hundred, you should have to get  a background check done.  If a dangerous felon or someone with a mental illness history wants to buy a gun, he will look for a private seller and that has to be prevented.

The 2nd Amendment right does not protect citizen's convenience in selling their guns.
 
2013-03-26 02:52:18 PM

redmid17: mrshowrules: redmid17: The guy in the article you linked to is essentially running an online version of the classifieds. Do you want to treat the newspaper as a dealer of firearms, even if it never sells them?

I wasn't talking about that guy.  I was talking about the people selling on his website.  Presumably with $2B in sales someone is making more than cab fare.

Are you an Alt or there actually more than 1 person in this thread that thinks there isn't serious profit for some private sellers?

What BayouOtter said above me. You don't know the revenue stream breakdown, if the sellers are FFLs or not, and if the final transactions are face to face. You're basically railing against the classified ads.


Background checks for private sales whether gun shows, parking lots, classifieds, family or whatever.  The online thing was just an example to show the type of money/profit involved.
 
2013-03-26 02:53:40 PM

mrshowrules: BayouOtter: mrshowrules:
The point I was pulling out of my ass is that private sales are a money making business and private sellers can make significant profits not that I ever give evidence to support this, despite claiming to have many examples of a private seller making 100K+ a year from sales and some gun stores actually don't make that much money because of overhead (or whatever reason) yet still magically stay in business despite making no money.   Therefore based on faulty and false premises I believe all sales should be subject to background checks.

Fixed that for you.

You sound like someone who has lost an argument.  I provided an article indicating that a single website that shows that private sales are big business.

Here is the guy who made $118K

http://www.fbi.gov/elpaso/press-releases/2010/ep082410.htm

How many more examples do you need before you drop this as a talking point?


So he was breaking the law the whole time?
 
2013-03-26 02:53:44 PM

pedrop357: mrshowrules: If you are going to jump into an exchange, at least try and get up to speed on what is being talked about.

The point I was making is that private sales are a money making business and private sellers can make significant profits and some gun stores actually don't make that much money because of overhead (or whatever reason). Therefore the profit/volume argument against a store versus a private seller regarding background checks is pretty stupid.

Private sellers can only legally sell their own guns acquired for personal use.  They cannot get into the business of selling firearms without a license.

Are you suggesting that there's a significant profit to be made selling items from a private collection on a regular basis?


yes.
 
2013-03-26 02:58:30 PM

mrshowrules: pedrop357: mrshowrules: If you are going to jump into an exchange, at least try and get up to speed on what is being talked about.

The point I was making is that private sales are a money making business and private sellers can make significant profits and some gun stores actually don't make that much money because of overhead (or whatever reason). Therefore the profit/volume argument against a store versus a private seller regarding background checks is pretty stupid.

Private sellers can only legally sell their own guns acquired for personal use.  They cannot get into the business of selling firearms without a license.

Are you suggesting that there's a significant profit to be made selling items from a private collection on a regular basis?

yes.


If they're selling on a regular basis and making a profit, it would certainly seem like they're actually dealing in firearms without a license.
 
2013-03-26 02:59:07 PM

mrshowrules: The 2nd Amendment right does not protect citizen's convenience in selling their guns.


Yeah, just like the 1st amendment not protect a citizen's convenience in publishing their papers.
 
2013-03-26 03:00:42 PM

pedrop357: mrshowrules: BayouOtter: mrshowrules:
The point I was pulling out of my ass is that private sales are a money making business and private sellers can make significant profits not that I ever give evidence to support this, despite claiming to have many examples of a private seller making 100K+ a year from sales and some gun stores actually don't make that much money because of overhead (or whatever reason) yet still magically stay in business despite making no money.   Therefore based on faulty and false premises I believe all sales should be subject to background checks.

Fixed that for you.

You sound like someone who has lost an argument.  I provided an article indicating that a single website that shows that private sales are big business.

Here is the guy who made $118K

http://www.fbi.gov/elpaso/press-releases/2010/ep082410.htm

How many more examples do you need before you drop this as a talking point?

So he was breaking the law the whole time?


Well, only the ones who get caught will say how much money the are making.  This article has more context:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/want-buy-gun-without-bac kg round-check-armlist-can-help
 
2013-03-26 03:03:45 PM

pedrop357: mrshowrules: The 2nd Amendment right does not protect citizen's convenience in selling their guns.

Yeah, just like the 1st amendment not protect a citizen's convenience in publishing their papers.


Bad analogy.  Free speech is always free speech.  Getting a gun is not the same as getting rid of one.  The 2nd Amendment protects your right to purchase not making it easier to sell what you have already purchased.
 
2013-03-26 03:07:08 PM

mrshowrules: Well, only the ones who get caught will say how much money the are making. This article has more context:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/want-buy-gun-without-bac kg round-check-armlist-can-help


Sounds like lots of breaking of existing laws-dealing without a license, transfers to people not residents of the state, etc.

This is the sort of thing the NRA talks about when they say to enforce existing laws.

BTW, a person who will currently sell to someone who can't prove they live in that state for an extra $200 is not going to be following any laws about background checks on private sales.
 
2013-03-26 03:07:42 PM

pedrop357: mrshowrules: pedrop357: mrshowrules: If you are going to jump into an exchange, at least try and get up to speed on what is being talked about.

The point I was making is that private sales are a money making business and private sellers can make significant profits and some gun stores actually don't make that much money because of overhead (or whatever reason). Therefore the profit/volume argument against a store versus a private seller regarding background checks is pretty stupid.

Private sellers can only legally sell their own guns acquired for personal use.  They cannot get into the business of selling firearms without a license.

Are you suggesting that there's a significant profit to be made selling items from a private collection on a regular basis?

yes.

If they're selling on a regular basis and making a profit, it would certainly seem like they're actually dealing in firearms without a license.


Like I said, it would be nice if the ATF was tracking this.  If background checks were mandatory, that would certainly solve that problem.
 
2013-03-26 03:07:50 PM

mrshowrules: pedrop357: mrshowrules: The 2nd Amendment right does not protect citizen's convenience in selling their guns.

Yeah, just like the 1st amendment not protect a citizen's convenience in publishing their papers.

Bad analogy.  Free speech is always free speech.  Getting a gun is not the same as getting rid of one.  The 2nd Amendment protects your right to purchase not making it easier to sell what you have already purchased.


not a bad analogy.  Gun rights is always gun rights.  Making it hard to sell a gun implies making it hard to get one.
 
2013-03-26 03:08:59 PM

mrshowrules: pedrop357: mrshowrules: pedrop357: mrshowrules: If you are going to jump into an exchange, at least try and get up to speed on what is being talked about.

The point I was making is that private sales are a money making business and private sellers can make significant profits and some gun stores actually don't make that much money because of overhead (or whatever reason). Therefore the profit/volume argument against a store versus a private seller regarding background checks is pretty stupid.

Private sellers can only legally sell their own guns acquired for personal use.  They cannot get into the business of selling firearms without a license.

Are you suggesting that there's a significant profit to be made selling items from a private collection on a regular basis?

yes.

If they're selling on a regular basis and making a profit, it would certainly seem like they're actually dealing in firearms without a license.

Like I said, it would be nice if the ATF was tracking this.  If background checks were mandatory, that would certainly solve that problem.


You really are a moron if you think the kinds of people talked about in your articles would conduct background checks.  They're already breaking multiple laws and collecting a special premium to do so.
 
2013-03-26 03:09:01 PM

pedrop357: mrshowrules: Well, only the ones who get caught will say how much money the are making. This article has more context:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/want-buy-gun-without-bac kg round-check-armlist-can-help

Sounds like lots of breaking of existing laws-dealing without a license, transfers to people not residents of the state, etc.

This is the sort of thing the NRA talks about when they say to enforce existing laws.

BTW, a person who will currently sell to someone who can't prove they live in that state for an extra $200 is not going to be following any laws about background checks on private sales.


You realize the NRA and the GOP block the ATF and every possible opportunity to enforce existing laws?  You know this right?
 
2013-03-26 03:10:14 PM
mrshowrules:

You realize the NRA and the GOP block the ATF and every possible opportunity to enforce existing laws?  You know this right?

Examples please.
 
SRD [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 03:13:07 PM

pedrop357: whidbey: SRD: Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was just a blip on the map.   Oh well. Shiat happens, right?

The second allows us to own similar arms to the average soldier.

The fark it does.

Then what arms does it allow us to own, and what do you base that on?


Well according to the words of many of the founders. It should be basic arms soldiers have. There are many places you can find the info. It even allowed the private owning of artillary weapons cannons and such. Things like jets etc dont fall in line with that. Just average weapons rifles grenades some cannons. Hell even many of the warships were privately owned back then.  If i wasnt on my phone i would find all the selections of the founders speaking of it but its kinda pain from such a small device.
 
2013-03-26 03:15:37 PM

pedrop357: mrshowrules: pedrop357: mrshowrules: pedrop357: mrshowrules: If you are going to jump into an exchange, at least try and get up to speed on what is being talked about.

The point I was making is that private sales are a money making business and private sellers can make significant profits and some gun stores actually don't make that much money because of overhead (or whatever reason). Therefore the profit/volume argument against a store versus a private seller regarding background checks is pretty stupid.

Private sellers can only legally sell their own guns acquired for personal use.  They cannot get into the business of selling firearms without a license.

Are you suggesting that there's a significant profit to be made selling items from a private collection on a regular basis?

yes.

If they're selling on a regular basis and making a profit, it would certainly seem like they're actually dealing in firearms without a license.

Like I said, it would be nice if the ATF was tracking this.  If background checks were mandatory, that would certainly solve that problem.

You really are a moron if you think the kinds of people talked about in your articles would conduct background checks.  They're already breaking multiple laws and collecting a special premium to do so.


They have been hiding thousands of purchases and sales under the pretense of "private sales".  Require background checks and they could be nailed on a single sale if they don't follow the rules.

You shouldn't be allowed to sell one gun and make $100 or 100 guns and make $10,000 without background checks is my point.  Why should a gun store have this burden and not other sellers?  Will someone please think of the poor gun stores?
 
SRD [TotalFark]
2013-03-26 03:16:21 PM

whidbey: SRD: I'm done here. And I do care about those dead children. There I's a quote I like though take it as you wish.

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery...

Because a comprehensive gun regulation policy to ensure we have a safer society=slavery.

Sure, bud.


Well it depends. They have shown they will keep tighter and tighter restrictions. The laws passed in the 1960s some the strongest for guns, Were taken from the laws Hitler put on the jews to disarm them. Dodd of CT translated hitlers laws and changed to english during the racial riots they didnt want blacks having guns. So yes it does equal slavery. Because they will keep taking more and more rights away they never say ok we are done.
 
2013-03-26 03:16:42 PM

pedrop357: mrshowrules:

You realize the NRA and the GOP block the ATF and every possible opportunity to enforce existing laws?  You know this right?

Examples please.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/17/1179688/-Must-see-Jon-Stewa rt -exposes-how-the-NRA-GOP-PREVENT-the-ATF-from-enforcing-current-gun-la ws
 
2013-03-26 03:19:01 PM

SRD: pedrop357: whidbey: SRD: Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was just a blip on the map.   Oh well. Shiat happens, right?

The second allows us to own similar arms to the average soldier.

The fark it does.

Then what arms does it allow us to own, and what do you base that on?

Well according to the words of many of the founders. It should be basic arms soldiers have. There are many places you can find the info. It even allowed the private owning of artillary weapons cannons and such. Things like jets etc dont fall in line with that. Just average weapons rifles grenades some cannons. Hell even many of the warships were privately owned back then.  If i wasnt on my phone i would find all the selections of the founders speaking of it but its kinda pain from such a small device.


I agree with the bare minimum being that people can own anything a soldier or police officer can carry.  I'd also say that people should be able to own armed ships as they did in days past and armed aircraft as a natural extension of that.

Really I just want to see what whidbey thinks.  Rather then dance around with him/her, I'd like them to just come right out and say what the 2nd amendment means in their opinion.
 
2013-03-26 03:20:42 PM

pedrop357: mrshowrules: pedrop357: mrshowrules: The 2nd Amendment right does not protect citizen's convenience in selling their guns.

Yeah, just like the 1st amendment not protect a citizen's convenience in publishing their papers.

Bad analogy.  Free speech is always free speech.  Getting a gun is not the same as getting rid of one.  The 2nd Amendment protects your right to purchase not making it easier to sell what you have already purchased.

not a bad analogy.  Gun rights is always gun rights.  Making it hard to sell a gun implies making it hard to get one.


Then background checks in general are against the 2nd amendment.  This goes right back to what I said at the beginning of the thread.  You either support background checks for purchases or you don't.  Full stop.

Let me rephrase.  The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to make private sales simpler than retail sales.  It is not a 2nd Amendment issue unless you argue that background checks themselves are a 2nd Amendment issue.
 
2013-03-26 03:25:05 PM

mrshowrules: pedrop357: mrshowrules:

You realize the NRA and the GOP block the ATF and every possible opportunity to enforce existing laws?  You know this right?

Examples please.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/17/1179688/-Must-see-Jon-Stewa rt -exposes-how-the-NRA-GOP-PREVENT-the-ATF-from-enforcing-current-gun-la ws


Lots of nonsense.
-The ATF doesn't have a director.  They still have agents, managers, deputy directors right?
-Trace data can't be released anymore (it was being severely abused, read up on the history of the Tihart amendment)
-The federal government has been directly prohibited from maintaining a firearm registry since 1986, and was never empowered to create one.

Sorry, the 20th century history firearm registration in other countries shows just how badly it can be abused, as do some smaller examples in this country.  The ATF has also been caught seriously abusing its powers in the past-see the various congressional records of 1982 and later about ATF conduct.
 
2013-03-26 03:25:17 PM

SRD: pedrop357: whidbey: SRD: Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was just a blip on the map.   Oh well. Shiat happens, right?

The second allows us to own similar arms to the average soldier.

The fark it does.

Then what arms does it allow us to own, and what do you base that on?

Well according to the words of many of the founders. It should be basic arms soldiers have. There are many places you can find the info. It even allowed the private owning of artillary weapons cannons and such. Things like jets etc dont fall in line with that. Just average weapons rifles grenades some cannons. Hell even many of the warships were privately owned back then.  If i wasnt on my phone i would find all the selections of the founders speaking of it but its kinda pain from such a small device.


If all citizens are technical militia/soldiers, then by definition anything they would use would be military/soldiers weapons.  That's a bit of a circular argument when you think about it.   They must have been doing some really good drugs when the raised the idea of militias in an amendment about everyone  being able to buy guns.
 
2013-03-26 03:26:12 PM

mrshowrules: pedrop357: mrshowrules: pedrop357: mrshowrules: The 2nd Amendment right does not protect citizen's convenience in selling their guns.

Yeah, just like the 1st amendment not protect a citizen's convenience in publishing their papers.

Bad analogy.  Free speech is always free speech.  Getting a gun is not the same as getting rid of one.  The 2nd Amendment protects your right to purchase not making it easier to sell what you have already purchased.

not a bad analogy.  Gun rights is always gun rights.  Making it hard to sell a gun implies making it hard to get one.

Then background checks in general are against the 2nd amendment.  This goes right back to what I said at the beginning of the thread.  You either support background checks for purchases or you don't.  Full stop.

Let me rephrase.  The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to make private sales simpler than retail sales.  It is not a 2nd Amendment issue unless you argue that background checks themselves are a 2nd Amendment issue.


If it's all-or-nothing, then I don't support background checks.
 
2013-03-26 03:30:14 PM

mrshowrules: If all citizens are technical militia/soldiers, then by definition anything they would use would be military/soldiers weapons. That's a bit of a circular argument when you think about it. They must have been doing some really good drugs when the raised the idea of militias in an amendment about everyone being able to buy guns.


Not really.

It's hard to have an effective militia if the federal government can disarm all of the individual people who might be called into militia service.

it's also hard to have an effective militia if the only arms the people can own are less effective than the weapons they will be facing.
 
2013-03-26 03:31:29 PM

pedrop357: mrshowrules: pedrop357: mrshowrules:

You realize the NRA and the GOP block the ATF and every possible opportunity to enforce existing laws?  You know this right?

Examples please.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/17/1179688/-Must-see-Jon-Stewa rt -exposes-how-the-NRA-GOP-PREVENT-the-ATF-from-enforcing-current-gun-la ws

Lots of nonsense.
-The ATF doesn't have a director.  They still have agents, managers, deputy directors right?
-Trace data can't be released anymore (it was being severely abused, read up on the history of the Tihart amendment)
-The federal government has been directly prohibited from maintaining a firearm registry since 1986, and was never empowered to create one.

Sorry, the 20th century history firearm registration in other countries shows just how badly it can be abused, as do some smaller examples in this country.  The ATF has also been caught seriously abusing its powers in the past-see the various congressional records of 1982 and later about ATF conduct.


You wanted examples.  Boy, did you ever quickly dismiss those examples.  You say enforce existing laws.  You realized the ATF is responsible for enforcing those laws right.  The GOP blocking the appointment of a GOP director to you is not obstructionism.  Preventing the ATF from tracking gun sales is not obstructionism.

Read this:

When law enforcement officers recover a gun and serial number, workers at the bureau's National Tracing Center here - a windowless warehouse-style building on a narrow road outside town - begin making their way through a series of phone calls, asking first the manufacturer, then the wholesaler and finally the dealer to search their files to identify the buyer of the firearm.

About a third of the time, the process involves digging through records sent in by companies that have closed, in many cases searching by hand through cardboard boxes filled with computer printouts, hand-scrawled index cards or even water-stained sheets of paper.

In an age when data is often available with a few keystrokes, the A.T.F. is forced to follow this manual routine because the idea of establishing a central database of gun transactions has been rejected by lawmakers in Congress, who have sided with the National Rifle Association, which argues that such a database poses a threat to the Second Amendment. In other countries, gun rights groups argue, governments have used gun registries to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens.

Which party is responsible for this?   Show your work.
 
2013-03-26 03:39:44 PM

pedrop357: If it's all-or-nothing, then I don't support background checks.


Well at least that makes sense.  Earlier someone stated that they were against gun control even if the result made society more dangerous (I paraphrase).  Also a more honest position.

People against gun control don't bother me.  It is people who pretend they are for "enforcing existing laws" or only "current gun controls" that don't work that annoy me.   People who think gun proliferation is actually reducing deaths in the US annoy me.  Say you want this personal freedom with no gun control regardless of the impact to society, and you will at least have some credibility.

Existing gun control laws are stupid.  When a person is convicted numerous times of domestic abuse/violence can buy ten AR-15s but a person convicted of copyright infringement and service 3 months in prison 30 years ago, can't buy a hunting rifle.  farking stupid and it is only getting stupider.
 
2013-03-26 03:43:55 PM

mrshowrules: Read this:

When law enforcement officers recover a gun and serial number, workers at the bureau's National Tracing Center here - a windowless warehouse-style building on a narrow road outside town - begin making their way through a series of phone calls, asking first the manufacturer, then the wholesaler and finally the dealer to search their files to identify the buyer of the firearm.

About a third of the time, the process involves digging through records sent in by companies that have closed, in many cases searching by hand through cardboard boxes filled with computer printouts, hand-scrawled index cards or even water-stained sheets of paper.

In an age when data is often available with a few keystrokes, the A.T.F. is forced to follow this manual routine because the idea of establishing a central database of gun transactions has been rejected by lawmakers in Congress, who have sided with the National Rifle Association, which argues that such a database poses a threat to the Second Amendment. In other countries, gun rights groups argue, governments have used gun registries to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens.


Damn right the ATF is prohibited from maintaining an end-to-end1 registry and it's entirely due to the abuses of registration information in other countries, as well the ATFs abuses of its powers in years past.

The ATF has to do it the hard way just like the police have to search places the hard way by going to a judge and getting a warrant rather than just walking in and looking around.

The ATF DOES currently receive records about manufactured firearms within a few days of those firearms being made and nothing in the law prohibits them from digitizing that information, so there's no excuse for them to have to search stained boxes and whatnot for that information.
 
Displayed 50 of 649 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report