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.

(NBC News)   43% of gun owners think that the laws covering gun sales should be stricter. Easy for them to say   (firstread.nbcnews.com) divider line 449
    More: Fail, Morning Joe, Americans, gun laws, assault weapons, Just Seventeen, United States Public Debt  
•       •       •

954 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Apr 2013 at 11:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-04 01:33:28 AM

Kludge: redmid17: Even if your stats were right (they aren't)...

Okay, even if we work from the inflated Gallup poll from 2011, and we ignore that gun owners as a percentage of the population has been in decline...

That's 34% of adult Americans who own guns.

57% of that 34% want gun laws to stay the same, or be relaxed.

That's 19% of all Americans... Counting persons under 18, 16%.


So if polls said slavery was ripe to make a comback or that RvW should be overturned you would be okay with it?

What about mandatory registration of real name and address  for everyone to see for being able to post on messgae boards....
 
2013-04-04 01:33:41 AM

redmid17: Kludge: 22% of Americans own guns.  Not to be confused with the oft touted polling that 35% of households that have guns.

22% of Americans.

57% of that 22% want gun laws to stay the same, or be relaxed.

That's 13% of all Americans.

Clearly we should do what they say.

Even if your stats were right (they aren't), the bill of rights was put there, among other things, to balance majority rule vs minority rights.


Now the paranoid farks who are already armed to the tooth are an oppressed minority because some congresscritters are proposing to regulate the Militia for once?
That's farking hilarious - in a throw up until dry heaves start and then throw up some more kind of way.

/What of the right of the 100,000+ Americans who suffer from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) to remain unshot?
 
2013-04-04 01:36:14 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: /What of the right of the 100,000+ Americans who suffer from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) to remain unshot?


Maybe they should find better friends who are not involved in criminal activity, they may even be involved in criminal activity themselves.

They should find a hobby like hunting to kill time instead of selling drugs. Hunting is safer by far.
 
2013-04-04 01:36:50 AM

Giltric: What about mandatory registration of real name and address  for everyone to see for being able to post on messgae boards


Let me launch a scathing post in your direction and let's see if you or some other random innocent farkerstander drops dead as a result.
/Surprise, surprise. It didn't work.
/You're still alive, stupid.
 
2013-04-04 01:38:58 AM

Giltric: Kludge: redmid17: ...

So if polls said slavery was ripe to make a comback or that RvW should be overturned you would be okay with it?

What about mandatory registration of real name and address  for everyone to see for being able to post on messgae boards....


Slavery is not making a comeback.  Abortion is heavily regulated. The last one would be debatable if the first amendment mentioned "well-regulated speech".
 
2013-04-04 01:45:09 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Giltric: What about mandatory registration of real name and address  for everyone to see for being able to post on messgae boards

Let me launch a scathing post in your direction and let's see if you or some other random innocent farkerstander drops dead as a result.
/Surprise, surprise. It didn't work.
/You're still alive, stupid.


So you don't care about saving the lives of self concious teen and pre teen girls from asphyixiating themselves?
Even if it saves one life?
Go tell the parents of this girl she is not worth saving and neither are other girls like her.
Look at her face long and hard.

media.katu.com
 
2013-04-04 01:47:07 AM

Kludge: Giltric: Kludge: redmid17: ...

So if polls said slavery was ripe to make a comback or that RvW should be overturned you would be okay with it?

What about mandatory registration of real name and address  for everyone to see for being able to post on messgae boards....

Slavery is not making a comeback.  Abortion is heavily regulated. The last one would be debatable if the first amendment mentioned "well-regulated speech".


The militia is to be "well regulated", but he right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".

Have you never read the amendment?
 
2013-04-04 01:47:51 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: redmid17: Kludge: 22% of Americans own guns.  Not to be confused with the oft touted polling that 35% of households that have guns.

22% of Americans.

57% of that 22% want gun laws to stay the same, or be relaxed.

That's 13% of all Americans.

Clearly we should do what they say.

Even if your stats were right (they aren't), the bill of rights was put there, among other things, to balance majority rule vs minority rights.

Now the paranoid farks who are already armed to the tooth are an oppressed minority because some congresscritters are proposing to regulate the Militia for once?
That's farking hilarious - in a throw up until dry heaves start and then throw up some more kind of way.

/What of the right of the 100,000+ Americans who suffer from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) to remain unshot?


If you want to say something useful, feel free to.
 
2013-04-04 01:55:19 AM
Giltric: ...

The militia is to be "well regulated", but he right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".

Have you never read the amendment?


It's only one sentence long.  And no where does it say or imply that guns cannot be subject to regulation, in fact it specifically says regulation.

But clearly you are a man who is a passionate defender of what you imagine the constitution says, so I won't argue with you further.
 
2013-04-04 01:57:56 AM

Kludge: And no where does it say or imply that guns cannot be subject to regulation, in fact it specifically says regulation.


Citation?
 
2013-04-04 01:59:43 AM

Giltric: Kludge: And no where does it say or imply that guns cannot be subject to regulation, in fact it specifically says regulation.

Citation?


You seriously need a citation for the second amendment?
 
2013-04-04 02:04:28 AM

Giltric: Kludge: And no where does it say or imply that guns cannot be subject to regulation, in fact it specifically says regulation.

Citation?


The 2nd amendment obviously has regulation in it, and Heller does allow for regulation:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. "

The issue is that most of the proposed legislation really isn't reasonable when working from a framework of Miller, Heller, and McDonald for a variety of reasons.
 
2013-04-04 02:07:11 AM

Kludge: Giltric: Kludge: And no where does it say or imply that guns cannot be subject to regulation, in fact it specifically says regulation.

Citation?

You seriously need a citation for the second amendment?



Problem?
Maybe you are reading the amendment out of some Brady Group propaganda leaflet.
 
2013-04-04 03:39:30 AM
I'm kind of torn.  As I have stated before, we need to enforce the gun laws we already have instead of creating new ones.  It is, however, very easy to get a pistol if you're a law abiding citizen and a clean record.  I know because I just bought my first one and it took all of about 5 minutes and I was paying for it.  I wouldn't have a problem with a 7 day waiting period for a pistol bought through a dealer.  I mean, if you HAVE to have that pistol NOW then you are probably the exact person who doesn't need one NOW.  Criminals will always get illegal throw away guns.  Harsher penalties won't deter them.  The fear of the death sentence won't deter them.  More gun laws will just make it harder for the ones who are responsible gun owners.
 
2013-04-04 03:49:00 AM

Bigdogdaddy: I'm kind of torn.  As I have stated before, we need to enforce the gun laws we already have instead of creating new ones.  It is, however, very easy to get a pistol if you're a law abiding citizen and a clean record.  I know because I just bought my first one and it took all of about 5 minutes and I was paying for it.  I wouldn't have a problem with a 7 day waiting period for a pistol bought through a dealer.  I mean, if you HAVE to have that pistol NOW then you are probably the exact person who doesn't need one NOW.  Criminals will always get illegal throw away guns.  Harsher penalties won't deter them.  The fear of the death sentence won't deter them.  More gun laws will just make it harder for the ones who are responsible gun owners.


Is there really any good reason to force a waiting period? Has it actually been proven to reduce anything? Certainly hasn't helped the Chicago murder rate, but that's hardly a thorough review of the topic.
 
2013-04-04 06:53:52 AM
Mrbogey: liam76: If you are "Joe American" the straw purchaser you are probably going to re-think your career, and if you don't the authorities will have a lot more tools to get you.

If you are "Joe American" he thug you are probably going to have to work a lot farking harder to get a gun because of how tought it will be to sell one to someoen who shouldn't own one.

Joe Strawpurchaser- "Dammit, that gun I bought last month is stolen! Guess I'll go buy another one! Hope this one doesn't get stolen again."


You don't think police are going to notice the guy who loses 20+ guns a year?


Or better yet, just fake a name. Buy a gun under someone else's name from a private buyer.

What is stopping them from just faking a name now?


That you think criminals are stupid to not take any precautions doesn't  mean they'll be hard pressed. What you will guarantee though is people who do have legitimate issues get caught up in the legal system having to defend themselves.

I never said they are stupid (thought many are). My point was that this will make it more difficult for them and give better tools to law enforcement to catch people who are selling guns to people who shouldn't have them. Just because there is no magic bullet or perfect answer that will stop all of them doesn't mean this is a bad idea.


But luckily once you have someone who would normally not be on the wrong side of the legal system gets thrown in prison we'll have the usuals biatching about how we imprison too many people. Because really, that's the solution to America's crime problem, subject more people to criminal scrutiny and have cops chasing around technical violators... who we all know are the REAL criminals.

If you are selling guns to people who can't pass a background check (which is the main point of this bill, every other "problem, real or imagined" can be fixed) you should be subject to criminal scrutiny. That is not a "technical violation".
 
2013-04-04 06:57:45 AM

Bigdogdaddy: I'm kind of torn.  As I have stated before, we need to enforce the gun laws we already have instead of creating new ones.  It is, however, very easy to get a pistol if you're a law abiding citizen and a clean record.  I know because I just bought my first one and it took all of about 5 minutes and I was paying for it.  I wouldn't have a problem with a 7 day waiting period for a pistol bought through a dealer.  I mean, if you HAVE to have that pistol NOW then you are probably the exact person who doesn't need one NOW.  Criminals will always get illegal throw away guns.  Harsher penalties won't deter them.  The fear of the death sentence won't deter them.  More gun laws will just make it harder for the ones who are responsible gun owners.


That isn't true for all states.

As far as criminals always getting throw away guns?  I don't buy that.

"Some" criminals will.  But the ease of them getting guns is directly tired to how easy it is for "law abiding responsible" gun owners to sell to them.
 
2013-04-04 07:17:38 AM

Kludge: But clearly you are a man who is a passionate defender of what you imagine the constitution says, so I won't argue with you further.


Actually, he has the USSC on his side. You're the passionate defender of what you believe it says since you're arguing counter to them.

liam76: If you are selling guns to people who can't pass a background check (which is the main point of this bill, every other "problem, real or imagined" can be fixed) you should be subject to criminal scrutiny. That is not a "technical violation".


You seem to be operating under the believe that law enforcement will only catch "real criminals". It doesn't. It catches violators of the law. Not all of who are out to commit criminal activity. But the person who accidentally fails to properly file paperwork or commits a technical violation of the law with no criminal intent won't feel better knowing it makes America 0.000001% safer.
 
2013-04-04 07:35:28 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: redmid17: Kludge: 22% of Americans own guns.  Not to be confused with the oft touted polling that 35% of households that have guns.

22% of Americans.

57% of that 22% want gun laws to stay the same, or be relaxed.

That's 13% of all Americans.

Clearly we should do what they say.

Even if your stats were right (they aren't), the bill of rights was put there, among other things, to balance majority rule vs minority rights.

Now the paranoid farks who are already armed to the tooth are an oppressed minority because some congresscritters are proposing to regulate the Militia for once?
That's farking hilarious - in a throw up until dry heaves start and then throw up some more kind of way.

/What of the right of the 100,000+ Americans who suffer from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) to remain unshot?


Everyone has the right not to get shot, it's up to you to exercise it.
The paranoia is firmly with the 'Ban Everything' crowd right now, they're just trying to get others to feed off of it.  Maybe you need a tank to drive to work, to feel safe.  Supporting the current administrations efforts to take guns and ammunition out of the hands of law abiding citizens, while arming the drug cartels?  Now that is one incredible perspective.
 
2013-04-04 08:11:05 AM

Mrbogey: liam76: If you are selling guns to people who can't pass a background check (which is the main point of this bill, every other "problem, real or imagined" can be fixed) you should be subject to criminal scrutiny. That is not a "technical violation".

You seem to be operating under the believe that law enforcement will only catch "real criminals". It doesn't. It catches violators of the law. Not all of who are out to commit criminal activity. But the person who accidentally fails to properly file paperwork or commits a technical violation of the law with no criminal intent won't feel better knowing it makes America 0.000001% safer


If you are selling guns to people who haven't had a background check, if that is the law of ther land, that isn't an "accident".  Nor is it a "technical violation".

That is what you are biatching about.  A law saying that if you are going to sell a gun to someone you have to make sure they have a background check.
 
2013-04-04 08:55:21 AM

BayouOtter: liam76: BayouOtter: liam76:
He seems to be full of shiat, as ar the links he rests on. They imply you must fill out a from within 24 hours of a gun being lost/stolen, whent he law says you must only "report it" within 24 hours of "knowing about it". I make a phone call and I have reported on it.

Just make sure you call the attorney general!

They also mention the authorities.  You call the cops, you are good.  If you are really concerned that they would get you on not contacting the AG, you can shoot him an email.

Page 14, line 17
within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the appropriate local authorities.''

You can't just 'call the cops'. I really hope you don't go on a week-long trip and lose your gun - you've got 24 hours to get back to civilization or you get slapped with a felony. (You also can't just report things over the phone, there are papers to sign and statements to make that require being face to face with officers.)



You're right. Losing a gun should be treated exactly the same way as losing your reading glasses.  Heaven forbid what would happen if gun owners had to contemplate the paperwork involved with losing their gun in between their couch and the wall.  It might make them. . .*gasp* more responsible with their guns.
 
2013-04-04 09:01:09 AM

spif: Am I the only one around here who is farking tired of the simple fact that the only gun violence events that are used for these arguments are the ones where mostly white people are getting killed instead of the vast amounts of gang related violence in large cities?


No, just like I'm tired of us focusing on rifles when handguns are far more often involved in crimes.  But sometimes we do go for style over substance.
 
2013-04-04 09:05:38 AM

pueblonative: You're right. Losing a gun should be treated exactly the same way as losing your reading glasses. Heaven forbid what would happen if gun owners had to contemplate the paperwork involved with losing their gun in between their couch and the wall. It might make them. . .*gasp* more responsible with their guns


Thsi is a red herring.

There is no requirement for paperwork.

All you are going to have to do is call the cops.

And if you think calling the cops is too much of a hassle when a gun is lost or stolen, you aren't a responsible gun owner.
 
2013-04-04 09:07:25 AM

liam76: There is no requirement for paperwork.

All you are going to have to do is call the cops.

And if you think calling the cops is too much of a hassle when a gun is lost or stolen, you aren't a responsible gun owner.


Agreed.  I'm saying that if there was I wouldn't have a problem with it.  And since most of the gun owners here are responsible, they shouldn't have a problem with it either, or much of a need.
 
2013-04-04 09:13:43 AM

liam76: Bigdogdaddy: I'm kind of torn.  As I have stated before, we need to enforce the gun laws we already have instead of creating new ones.  It is, however, very easy to get a pistol if you're a law abiding citizen and a clean record.  I know because I just bought my first one and it took all of about 5 minutes and I was paying for it.  I wouldn't have a problem with a 7 day waiting period for a pistol bought through a dealer.  I mean, if you HAVE to have that pistol NOW then you are probably the exact person who doesn't need one NOW.  Criminals will always get illegal throw away guns.  Harsher penalties won't deter them.  The fear of the death sentence won't deter them.  More gun laws will just make it harder for the ones who are responsible gun owners.

That isn't true for all states.

As far as criminals always getting throw away guns?  I don't buy that.

"Some" criminals will.  But the ease of them getting guns is directly tired to how easy it is for "law abiding responsible" gun owners to sell to them.


Respectfully, I know of no gun owner that would sell his pistol to someone who was a criminal or someone he didn't know.  I'm sure it happens, but the people I know are smart enough to know that is a bad idea.
 
2013-04-04 09:30:47 AM

Bigdogdaddy: liam76: Bigdogdaddy: I'm kind of torn.  As I have stated before, we need to enforce the gun laws we already have instead of creating new ones.  It is, however, very easy to get a pistol if you're a law abiding citizen and a clean record.  I know because I just bought my first one and it took all of about 5 minutes and I was paying for it.  I wouldn't have a problem with a 7 day waiting period for a pistol bought through a dealer.  I mean, if you HAVE to have that pistol NOW then you are probably the exact person who doesn't need one NOW.  Criminals will always get illegal throw away guns.  Harsher penalties won't deter them.  The fear of the death sentence won't deter them.  More gun laws will just make it harder for the ones who are responsible gun owners.

That isn't true for all states.

As far as criminals always getting throw away guns?  I don't buy that.

"Some" criminals will.  But the ease of them getting guns is directly tired to how easy it is for "law abiding responsible" gun owners to sell to them.

Respectfully, I know of no gun owner that would sell his pistol to someone who was a criminal or someone he didn't know.  I'm sure it happens, but the people I know are smart enough to know that is a bad idea.


But the fact is that it is happening.  So why the opposition to punich those that are doing soemthing none of the gun owners you know would ever do?

While owning a gun is a right, selling it comes with responsibility.  Half an hour of extra paperwork is completely reasonable.
 
2013-04-04 09:41:52 AM

liam76: Bigdogdaddy: liam76: Bigdogdaddy: I'm kind of torn.  As I have stated before, we need to enforce the gun laws we already have instead of creating new ones.  It is, however, very easy to get a pistol if you're a law abiding citizen and a clean record.  I know because I just bought my first one and it took all of about 5 minutes and I was paying for it.  I wouldn't have a problem with a 7 day waiting period for a pistol bought through a dealer.  I mean, if you HAVE to have that pistol NOW then you are probably the exact person who doesn't need one NOW.  Criminals will always get illegal throw away guns.  Harsher penalties won't deter them.  The fear of the death sentence won't deter them.  More gun laws will just make it harder for the ones who are responsible gun owners.

That isn't true for all states.

As far as criminals always getting throw away guns?  I don't buy that.

"Some" criminals will.  But the ease of them getting guns is directly tired to how easy it is for "law abiding responsible" gun owners to sell to them.

Respectfully, I know of no gun owner that would sell his pistol to someone who was a criminal or someone he didn't know.  I'm sure it happens, but the people I know are smart enough to know that is a bad idea.

But the fact is that it is happening.  So why the opposition to punich those that are doing soemthing none of the gun owners you know would ever do?

While owning a gun is a right, selling it comes with responsibility.  Half an hour of extra paperwork is completely reasonable.


Legislating responsibility has never worked.  Punishing the irresponsible for their actions might.  However, we do not do that.  When we start punishing those that break the spider web of laws already on the books, I will support more laws and regulations.
 
2013-04-04 09:58:14 AM

JunkyJu: Now the paranoid farks who are already armed to the tooth are an oppressed minority because some congresscritters are proposing to regulate the Militia for once?
That's farking hilarious - in a throw up until dry heaves start and then throw up some more kind of way.

/What of the right of the 100,000+ Americans who suffer from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) to remain unshot?

Everyone has the right not to get shot, it's up to you to exercise it.
The paranoia is firmly with the 'Ban Everything' crowd right now, they're just trying to get others to feed off of it.  Maybe you need a tank to drive to work, to feel safe.  Supporting the current administrations efforts to take guns and ammunition out of the hands of law abiding citizens, while arming the drug cartels?  Now that is one incredible perspective.


The current administration is trying to take guns and ammunition out of the hands of anybody except the mentally ill and criminals?
[citation_sorely_needed.jpg]
[you're_trippin_balls,_yo.gif]
 
2013-04-04 10:02:26 AM

liam76: Mrbogey: liam76: If you are selling guns to people who can't pass a background check (which is the main point of this bill, every other "problem, real or imagined" can be fixed) you should be subject to criminal scrutiny. That is not a "technical violation".

You seem to be operating under the believe that law enforcement will only catch "real criminals". It doesn't. It catches violators of the law. Not all of who are out to commit criminal activity. But the person who accidentally fails to properly file paperwork or commits a technical violation of the law with no criminal intent won't feel better knowing it makes America 0.000001% safer

If you are selling guns to people who haven't had a background check, if that is the law of ther land, that isn't an "accident".  Nor is it a "technical violation".

That is what you are biatching about.  A law saying that if you are going to sell a gun to someone you have to make sure they have a background check.


The ATF *loves* going after technical violations and paperwork violations. Hell that's most of why FOPA was passed and they certainly haven't eased up on it much since, given that they pretty much ignore it when a felon tries to buy a gun legally. Yes it's good that the felon was denied a gun purchase, but it's also a ten year penalty for lying on a 4473. It's kind of hard to forget that you have a felony record or spent more than a year in jail, amongst other disqualifying characteristics. Do you think that the 35K or so felons a year  who fail this route being off the street would have an effect on violent crime?

So while they "lack the resources" to go after what should be a fairly easy prosecution with defendant provided, concrete evidence, they can roll in with plenty of officers to search for illegal explosives on a guy whose company is sponsored by a tannerite manufacturer (allegedly for making money, not selling to criminals or anything violent) or this trainwreck of stupidity?
 
2013-04-04 10:16:41 AM

Bigdogdaddy: Legislating responsibility has never worked. Punishing the irresponsible for their actions might. However, we do not do that. When we start punishing those that break the spider web of laws already on the books, I will support more laws and regulations


Laws about drunk driving beg to disagree.

What spider web of laws do I break by selling my gun to somebody I know nothing about?


redmid17: The ATF *loves* going after technical violations and paperwork violations. Hell that's most of why FOPA was passed and they certainly haven't eased up on it much since, given that they pretty much ignore it when a felon tries to buy a gun legally. Yes it's good that the felon was denied a gun purchase, but it's also a ten year penalty for lying on a 4473. It's kind of hard to forget that you have a felony record or spent more than a year in jail, amongst other disqualifying characteristics. Do you think that the 35K or so felons a year who fail this route being off the street would have an effect on violent crime


It is easy to argue in court that you *thought* it was expunged, didn't apply to you, that your parole officer told you it was cool, etc.

At the end of the day no felon got a gun, no criminal was armed, so I am not that butt hurt about them not going after those people.

If I were crafting the law it would be a misdemeanor for selling your gun simply without having the person do a background check.  It woudl be a felony if you sold to someone who couldn't pass a background check.


redmid17: So while they "lack the resources" to go after what should be a fairly easy prosecution with defendant provided, concrete evidence, they can roll in with plenty of officers to search for illegal explosives on a guy whose company is sponsored by a tannerite manufacturer (allegedly for making money, not selling to criminals or anything violent) or this trainwreck of stupidity


I am not going to argue that the ATF is a great or even good LE agency.

The point is that this would give them very big teeth when it came to people doing what we can all agree is very bad, selling guns to felons and the like.
 
2013-04-04 10:18:28 AM

redmid17: what should be a fairly easy prosecution with defendant provided


You should re-read your link.

It spelled otu a number of reasons why they don't, and in rebuttal to your point there,

We believe that the number of referrals and prosecutions is low because of the difficulty in obtaining convictions in NICS cases.  These cases lack "jury appeal" for various reasons.  The factors prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm may have been nonviolent or committed many years ago.  The basis for the prohibition may have been noncriminal (e.g., a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military).  It is also difficult to prove that the prohibited person was aware of the prohibition and intentionally lied to the FFL [federally licensed dealer].  We were also told that in parts of the United States where hunting historically has been part of the regional culture, juries are reluctant to convict a person who attempted to purchase a hunting rifle.
 
2013-04-04 10:20:20 AM

liam76: redmid17: what should be a fairly easy prosecution with defendant provided

You should re-read your link.

It spelled otu a number of reasons why they don't, and in rebuttal to your point there,

We believe that the number of referrals and prosecutions is low because of the difficulty in obtaining convictions in NICS cases.  These cases lack "jury appeal" for various reasons.  The factors prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm may have been nonviolent or committed many years ago.  The basis for the prohibition may have been noncriminal (e.g., a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military).  It is also difficult to prove that the prohibited person was aware of the prohibition and intentionally lied to the FFL [federally licensed dealer].  We were also told that in parts of the United States where hunting historically has been part of the regional culture, juries are reluctant to convict a person who attempted to purchase a hunting rifle.


I did see that part. Still doesn't change the fact that 35K former felons applied and surely more than the 64 prosecuted had some type of felony that was the kind that wouldn't fall into those categories.
 
2013-04-04 10:28:07 AM

redmid17: liam76: redmid17: what should be a fairly easy prosecution with defendant provided

You should re-read your link.

It spelled otu a number of reasons why they don't, and in rebuttal to your point there,

We believe that the number of referrals and prosecutions is low because of the difficulty in obtaining convictions in NICS cases. These cases lack "jury appeal" for various reasons. The factors prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm may have been nonviolent or committed many years ago. The basis for the prohibition may have been noncriminal (e.g., a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military). It is also difficult to prove that the prohibited person was aware of the prohibition and intentionally lied to the FFL [federally licensed dealer]. We were also told that in parts of the United States where hunting historically has been part of the regional culture, juries are reluctant to convict a person who attempted to purchase a hunting rifle.

I did see that part. Still doesn't change the fact that 35K former felons applied and surely more than the 64 prosecuted had some type of felony that was the kind that wouldn't fall into those categories


Doesn't matter what type of felony it is, it is still difficult to prove they knowingly lied.

At I said above, the point is that this would give them very big teeth when it came to people doing what we can all agree is very bad, selling guns to felons and the like.
 
2013-04-04 10:46:05 AM

liam76: redmid17: liam76: redmid17: what should be a fairly easy prosecution with defendant provided

You should re-read your link.

It spelled otu a number of reasons why they don't, and in rebuttal to your point there,

We believe that the number of referrals and prosecutions is low because of the difficulty in obtaining convictions in NICS cases. These cases lack "jury appeal" for various reasons. The factors prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm may have been nonviolent or committed many years ago. The basis for the prohibition may have been noncriminal (e.g., a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military).

Doesn't matter what type of felony it is, it is still difficult to prove they knowingly lied.


I disagree, actually. Martha Stewart shouldn't be barred from own guns, or voting. She did some insider trading, not brutally shot and kidnapped some nuns. Felonies used to be serious, violent crimes, but these days so many things are felonies that you end up barring a ton of people that don't need to be barred.

Honestly, I don't really get the 'prohibited persons' part anyhow - if somebody is so dangerous and violent they can't be trusted with a gun, they can't be trusted with gasoline, or axes, or giant 1-ton hunks of metal they can accelerate to 60 miles per hour. In short, they should be locked up until they aren't dangerous anymore.

Somebody that did some dumbass robbery thirty years ago and served his time/parole shouldn't have his rights eliminated forever. Its stupid.
 
2013-04-04 10:46:29 AM

liam76: redmid17: liam76: redmid17: what should be a fairly easy prosecution with defendant provided

You should re-read your link.

It spelled otu a number of reasons why they don't, and in rebuttal to your point there,

We believe that the number of referrals and prosecutions is low because of the difficulty in obtaining convictions in NICS cases. These cases lack "jury appeal" for various reasons. The factors prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm may have been nonviolent or committed many years ago. The basis for the prohibition may have been noncriminal (e.g., a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military). It is also difficult to prove that the prohibited person was aware of the prohibition and intentionally lied to the FFL [federally licensed dealer]. We were also told that in parts of the United States where hunting historically has been part of the regional culture, juries are reluctant to convict a person who attempted to purchase a hunting rifle.

I did see that part. Still doesn't change the fact that 35K former felons applied and surely more than the 64 prosecuted had some type of felony that was the kind that wouldn't fall into those categories

Doesn't matter what type of felony it is, it is still difficult to prove they knowingly lied.

At I said above, the point is that this would give them very big teeth when it came to people doing what we can all agree is very bad, selling guns to felons and the like.


I just don't believe that part unless they have someone else filling out the 4473. I'm sure you've filled one out. How does one not know whether or not they are a felon?

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-04 10:51:01 AM

redmid17: I just don't believe that part unless they have someone else filling out the 4473. I'm sure you've filled one out. How does one not know whether or not they are a felon


Peopel are idiots, not really paying attention, etc.

the point is it is very tought to prove beyond a reasoanbel doubt they knew that should be a no.

And now that I think about it, what happens if you check yes?  Does the dealer say, no dice and stops there, ro submit it anyway?
 
2013-04-04 11:06:27 AM

liam76: redmid17: I just don't believe that part unless they have someone else filling out the 4473. I'm sure you've filled one out. How does one not know whether or not they are a felon

Peopel are idiots, not really paying attention, etc.

the point is it is very tought to prove beyond a reasoanbel doubt they knew that should be a no.

And now that I think about it, what happens if you check yes?  Does the dealer say, no dice and stops there, ro submit it anyway?


The dealer will run the NCIS check regardless of the 4473 answer.  A non-violent felony doesn't necessarily prohibit a person from possessing a weapon, only certain classes of felonies  (violent, weapons, kidnapping, rape, etc.).  However if you lie on the 4473 and are caught, that is a felony, so you can automatically check YES from that point forward.
 
2013-04-04 11:11:01 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Now the paranoid farks who are already armed to the tooth are an oppressed minority because some congresscritters are proposing to regulate the Militia for once?
That's farking hilarious - in a throw up until dry heaves start and then throw up some more kind of way.

/What of the right of the 100,000+ Americans who suffer from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) to remain unshot?


Something quite ironic about a person who fears everyone who owns a gun claiming that gun owners are the paranoid ones.

Maybe we just need to make the Gun Free Zone signs at schools bigger.  Clearly Lanza just didn't see them and didn't realize he should leave his guns at home that day.  Never mind that the only thing that stopped his rampage was a bullet.
 
2013-04-04 11:11:28 AM

liam76: redmid17: I just don't believe that part unless they have someone else filling out the 4473. I'm sure you've filled one out. How does one not know whether or not they are a felon

Peopel are idiots, not really paying attention, etc.

the point is it is very tought to prove beyond a reasoanbel doubt they knew that should be a no.

And now that I think about it, what happens if you check yes?  Does the dealer say, no dice and stops there, ro submit it anyway?


I don't think it's automatic show stopper. Plenty of people have remedied those records (ie gotten themselves declared mentally sound and taken off the mentally adjudicated list or had a crime expunged), so I imagine they'd want the check run anyway. You can appeal those decisions anyway, as the article also notes.
 
2013-04-04 11:12:01 AM

SCUBA_Archer: liam76: redmid17: I just don't believe that part unless they have someone else filling out the 4473. I'm sure you've filled one out. How does one not know whether or not they are a felon

Peopel are idiots, not really paying attention, etc.

the point is it is very tought to prove beyond a reasoanbel doubt they knew that should be a no.

And now that I think about it, what happens if you check yes?  Does the dealer say, no dice and stops there, ro submit it anyway?

The dealer will run the NCIS check regardless of the 4473 answer.  A non-violent felony doesn't necessarily prohibit a person from possessing a weapon, only certain classes of felonies  (violent, weapons, kidnapping, rape, etc.).  However if you lie on the 4473 and are caught, that is a felony, so you can automatically check YES from that point forward.


Then isn't the conclusion he drew fromthe article he linked wrong, that all 35k of the peopel with felonies are guilty of a crime?
 
2013-04-04 11:14:07 AM

liam76: SCUBA_Archer: liam76: redmid17: I just don't believe that part unless they have someone else filling out the 4473. I'm sure you've filled one out. How does one not know whether or not they are a felon

Peopel are idiots, not really paying attention, etc.

the point is it is very tought to prove beyond a reasoanbel doubt they knew that should be a no.

And now that I think about it, what happens if you check yes?  Does the dealer say, no dice and stops there, ro submit it anyway?

The dealer will run the NCIS check regardless of the 4473 answer.  A non-violent felony doesn't necessarily prohibit a person from possessing a weapon, only certain classes of felonies  (violent, weapons, kidnapping, rape, etc.).  However if you lie on the 4473 and are caught, that is a felony, so you can automatically check YES from that point forward.

Then isn't the conclusion he drew fromthe article he linked wrong, that all 35k of the peopel with felonies are guilty of a crime?


The 35K quoted in the article would fall under the the "certain classes" of felonies he mentioned. If they weren't banned, they wouldn't have failed the NICS check

/circular i know
 
2013-04-04 11:16:01 AM

SCUBA_Archer: liam76: redmid17: I just don't believe that part unless they have someone else filling out the 4473. I'm sure you've filled one out. How does one not know whether or not they are a felon

Peopel are idiots, not really paying attention, etc.

the point is it is very tought to prove beyond a reasoanbel doubt they knew that should be a no.

And now that I think about it, what happens if you check yes?  Does the dealer say, no dice and stops there, ro submit it anyway?

The dealer will run the NCIS check regardless of the 4473 answer.  A non-violent felony doesn't necessarily prohibit a person from possessing a weapon, only certain classes of felonies  (violent, weapons, kidnapping, rape, etc.).  However if you lie on the 4473 and are caught, that is a felony, so you can automatically check YES from that point forward.



Not sure if it has been said in the thread in regards to lieing on a 4473 but....

When the person lies and is denied his purchase, would they seek out a firearm through other off the books methods? What happens when they kill someone or commit a crime with a firearm when they should be in jail for a mandatory minimum but their is nothing sexy about prosecuting a paper crime or at least no will to prosecute.....

Even if it saves one life....yeah right.
 
2013-04-04 11:16:16 AM

redmid17: liam76: SCUBA_Archer: liam76: redmid17: I just don't believe that part unless they have someone else filling out the 4473. I'm sure you've filled one out. How does one not know whether or not they are a felon

Peopel are idiots, not really paying attention, etc.

the point is it is very tought to prove beyond a reasoanbel doubt they knew that should be a no.

And now that I think about it, what happens if you check yes?  Does the dealer say, no dice and stops there, ro submit it anyway?

The dealer will run the NCIS check regardless of the 4473 answer.  A non-violent felony doesn't necessarily prohibit a person from possessing a weapon, only certain classes of felonies  (violent, weapons, kidnapping, rape, etc.).  However if you lie on the 4473 and are caught, that is a felony, so you can automatically check YES from that point forward.

Then isn't the conclusion he drew fromthe article he linked wrong, that all 35k of the peopel with felonies are guilty of a crime?

The 35K quoted in the article would fall under the the "certain classes" of felonies he mentioned. If they weren't banned, they wouldn't have failed the NICS check

/circular i know


You were arguing that those 35k should be prosecuted.  The crime is lying on that form.  The missing piece here is proof that all 35k lied.  We don't have that, unless I am missing something.
 
2013-04-04 11:21:54 AM
Chief Flynn in his argument with Senator Graham claimed that in his state 80k people lied or failed their background checks.

Prosecuting more than the 44 people that they did prosecute would probably put a large dent in the rate of gun related crime.
 
2013-04-04 11:22:02 AM

liam76: redmid17: liam76: SCUBA_Archer: liam76: redmid17: I just don't believe that part unless they have someone else filling out the 4473. I'm sure you've filled one out. How does one not know whether or not they are a felon

Peopel are idiots, not really paying attention, etc.

the point is it is very tought to prove beyond a reasoanbel doubt they knew that should be a no.

And now that I think about it, what happens if you check yes?  Does the dealer say, no dice and stops there, ro submit it anyway?

The dealer will run the NCIS check regardless of the 4473 answer.  A non-violent felony doesn't necessarily prohibit a person from possessing a weapon, only certain classes of felonies  (violent, weapons, kidnapping, rape, etc.).  However if you lie on the 4473 and are caught, that is a felony, so you can automatically check YES from that point forward.

Then isn't the conclusion he drew fromthe article he linked wrong, that all 35k of the peopel with felonies are guilty of a crime?

The 35K quoted in the article would fall under the the "certain classes" of felonies he mentioned. If they weren't banned, they wouldn't have failed the NICS check

/circular i know

You were arguing that those 35k should be prosecuted.  The crime is lying on that form.  The missing piece here is proof that all 35k lied.  We don't have that, unless I am missing something.


Those people did not check "yes" for the 'I am a felon' option on the form.
 
2013-04-04 11:30:35 AM

SCUBA_Archer: demaL-demaL-yeH: Now the paranoid farks who are already armed to the tooth are an oppressed minority because some congresscritters are proposing to regulate the Militia for once?
That's farking hilarious - in a throw up until dry heaves start and then throw up some more kind of way.

/What of the right of the 100,000+ Americans who suffer from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) to remain unshot?

Something quite ironic about a person who fears everyone who owns a gun claiming that gun owners are the paranoid ones.

Maybe we just need to make the Gun Free Zone signs at schools bigger.  Clearly Lanza just didn't see them and didn't realize he should leave his guns at home that day.  Never mind that the only thing that stopped his rampage was a bullet.


Some enlightenment:
I am specifically in favor of Congress reinstating the Militia as mandatory service the way the Founders intended - for every citizen over the age of 16. That includes registering all weapons (Militia Acts of 1792 -  Section X), mandatory drilling, weapons training and qualification, inspection of all arms and ammunition, mental and physical screening and standards applied, members subject to military regulations (Congress  used the ones they approved in 1779 for that), and service in whatever capacity one is capable.
If you're a criminal, you are barred from bearing arms. If you are mentally incompetent, you are barred until you are well. You will secure all weapons properly in your home or at your local militia armory (rotating guard duty, too, bub). Concealed carry? Nope. If you're under arms, you will be visibly under arms. Carrying in forbidden zones - schools and the like - has militia felony consequences. Brandishing, assault, firing inside city limits - felony militia consequences. You are a member of the militia, and your arms are subject to militia regulation. And if you are a conscientious objector, you are exempt from bearing arms, but you must serve in another capacity.
 
2013-04-04 11:35:22 AM

redmid17: Those people did not check "yes" for the 'I am a felon' option on the form


Can you find anywhere in the articel where it says that.

My reading of it just shows the 35k is the number who failed for being felons.
 
2013-04-04 11:47:41 AM

liam76: redmid17: Those people did not check "yes" for the 'I am a felon' option on the form

Can you find anywhere in the articel where it says that.

My reading of it just shows the 35k is the number who failed for being felons.


Admittedly I do not see that either (nor in the report) but I don't really see people checking "yes" for the felony question when they fill it out, intentionally or not.
 
2013-04-04 11:55:29 AM

redmid17: liam76: redmid17: Those people did not check "yes" for the 'I am a felon' option on the form

Can you find anywhere in the articel where it says that.

My reading of it just shows the 35k is the number who failed for being felons.

Admittedly I do not see that either (nor in the report) but I don't really see people checking "yes" for the felony question when they fill it out, intentionally or not.


I have never actually filled it out.

the guns I "owned" were my family's that I have had at my house.

I assumed the dealer asked you and said no dice if you answered yes.  I think if the article had solid numbers abotu peopel who lied that woudl be a big deal.
 
Displayed 49 of 449 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report