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.

(Townhall)   The '40% of firearms sales are private and unchecked' statistic is outdated. The current reality is that only 3.9% occur at gun shows. Which makes Republican opposition to universal background checks 10 times as stupid   (townhall.com) divider line 299
    More: Ironic, Republican, gun shows, National Institute of Justice, firearms dealer, background checks, debunking, loyal opposition, NRA News  
•       •       •

1219 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Apr 2013 at 11:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-12 10:19:18 AM
Those are two divergent claims.  Gun-show sales are only a part of private sales; the majority are person-to-person deals.

If you look at how criminals get their guns, it is through one of three ways normally:
1. Steal it.  IIRC around 10% of weapons identified as used in crimes were stolen.
2. Buy it from a straw purchaser.  Universal background check law strengthens the protections against this, but really only on the prosecution side.  Right now, however, while it is illegal to sell to someone that is ineligible to buy, there is no requirement to check that status.  Straw purchasers are thus extremely hard to prosecute.
3. A long chain of private sales, usually of descending legitimacy over time.  The last FBI report I read on this identified it as the primary source of crime-linked guns.  The long chain of owners makes them very difficult to trace.

Most people are inclined to not rock the boat and follow societal rules. I'd like to think that most gun owners don't want to arm felons, and the universal background check requirement would motivate them to check and then NOT sell it to the guy with a carjacking record inadvertently.  Put some teeth into the law that allows law enforcement to actually investigate ineligible people that try to buy weapons (those teeth were surgically extracted by NRA-supported amendments), and you've got a good deal for the law-abiding, and a bad deal for criminals that will slowly stem the flow of arms to the street.

Not a miracle cure, certainly, but more effective than they pretend it not to be.
 
2013-04-12 10:59:40 AM
 Which makes Republican opposition to universal background checks a ban on private firearms transfers 10 times as stupid

FTFY Subby.  Calling it "Universal Background Checks" is merely a nice way of saying you always have to get government permission to acquire a firearm.

Also, from a practical standpoint, it is impossible to have an enforceable universal background check system without some sort of record-keeping requirement (how would you know after the fact if the law was actually followed otherwise?).  That is tantamount to registration of all firearms transactions, as a Form 4473 would have to be filled out for every single background check performed.

No deal.
 
2013-04-12 11:09:32 AM
Yeah, but that 4% might be just the people we need to save us from a UN invasion.
 
2013-04-12 11:14:20 AM
What is the objection to licensing gun owners, similar to licensing car drivers? "Checked out and cool to own firearms" the same way as "checked out and cool to drive cars" ?

Not trolling, genuinely curious.
 
2013-04-12 11:25:17 AM

Therion: What is the objection to licensing gun owners, similar to licensing car drivers? "Checked out and cool to own firearms" the same way as "checked out and cool to drive cars" ?

Not trolling, genuinely curious.


Because while no one is arguing about confiscating cars, historically there is a track record in many countries, including parts of the United States, of using registration lists and license information to confiscate firearms, and even just 4 short months ago the governor of my state said confiscation of certain guns was on the table.

Also, cars and firearms are legally two separate things:  Guns are explicitly protected by the Constitution, cars are not.

In addition, you don't need a license just to *OWN* a car, or to drive it on private property.  For example, you don't need a license to drive a truck on your farm or a dirt sprinter on a race track.  You only need a license to drive a car on public roads, similar to a hunting license or concealed carry license for a gun. that shows you know the laws related to safe use in public.
 
2013-04-12 11:29:30 AM

dittybopper: historically there is a track record in many countries, including parts of the United States, of using registration lists and license information to confiscate firearms


Yeah, but if the license is "cool to own", da ebbil gubbamint doesn't have a list of your guns.
 
2013-04-12 11:37:59 AM

Therion: What is the objection to licensing gun owners, similar to licensing car drivers? "Checked out and cool to own firearms" the same way as "checked out and cool to drive cars" ?

Not trolling, genuinely curious.


Because jack-booted federal thugs will break down your door and take away your guns. It's the first step toward 0bama declaring himself President for Life.
 
2013-04-12 11:45:24 AM
Gun nuts, on the same side as Al Qaeda, North Korea, Iran, and Syria.
 
2013-04-12 11:57:10 AM

Therion: What is the objection to licensing gun owners, similar to licensing car drivers? "Checked out and cool to own firearms" the same way as "checked out and cool to drive cars" ?

Not trolling, genuinely curious.


Because any regulation is the first step towards confiscation. Also cars kill way more people than guns, and furthemore.
 
2013-04-12 11:58:09 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Therion: What is the objection to licensing gun owners, similar to licensing car drivers? "Checked out and cool to own firearms" the same way as "checked out and cool to drive cars" ?

Not trolling, genuinely curious.

Because jack-booted federal thugs will break down your door and take away your guns. It's the first step toward 0bama declaring himself President for Life.


Here is a great one going around on Facebook.  I am convinced that the conservative mind is actually not of the same species as Homo sapiens.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-04-12 11:58:31 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Because jack-booted federal thugs will break down your door and take away your guns. It's the first step toward 0bama declaring himself President for Life.


Don't forget you'll get throw in a FEMA work camp
 
2013-04-12 12:00:13 PM
It's almost as if Republicans want to keep the guns flowing to terrorists, Mexicans, and gangbangers!
 
2013-04-12 12:00:36 PM
The current reality is that only 3.9% occur at gun shows.

Now I can understand why closing the "gun-show loophole" is such a high priority.
 
2013-04-12 12:02:17 PM

Therion: dittybopper: historically there is a track record in many countries, including parts of the United States, of using registration lists and license information to confiscate firearms

Yeah, but if the license is "cool to own", da ebbil gubbamint doesn't have a list of your guns.


What they do have is a list of every single person who is likely to own a gun.  Why go to the trouble of getting a license if you don't own one and don't plan on owning one?

The fact that you have a license to own a firearm then becomes probable cause that you do in fact own at least one, and that can be used as a legal justification for a search if it came down to it.

The distinction between a detailed list of firearms that a person owns, and a license that says a person is entitled to own a firearm is really irrelevant when considering the ways in which such records may be abused.

For a non-gun example, let's say somehow ham radio gets banned.  Maybe some terrorists used ham radio equipment to communicate before a massive attack on US soil, thus bypassing almost all computerized monitoring of things like e-mail, cell phones, etc.  I have a ham radio license.   That is legal evidence that I do in fact own ham radios, and I can't imagine a judge refusing to sign a search warrant to search my home to look for banned transmitters and receivers.  After all, I went to the trouble to take a test and get a license.  Why would I do that unless I planned on owning and using ham radio equipment?

Also, I get a chuckle out of this:  da ebbil gubbamint

Can you guarantee me that 20, 50 or 100 years from now the government won't be tyrannical?  Maybe I'll be dead before that happens, but what about my son?  And what about his children?  After all, no government lasts forever, and even democracies eventually fall.  It is inevitable that it will happen, the only question is when.
 
2013-04-12 12:03:34 PM

dittybopper: Also, from a practical standpoint, it is impossible to have an enforceable universal background check system without some sort of record-keeping requirement (how would you know after the fact if the law was actually followed otherwise?).


It's unlawful to sell tobacco products to a person under 18 without a background check (looking at their ID).  There is no record-keeping requirement to this.
It's unlawful to sell alcohol to a person under 21 without a background check (again, ID); and again, no record-keeping requirement.

By your logic, there has never been a bar or convience store which has had their license to sell alcohol revoked for selling to a minor, because there is no way to enforce those laws.

Universal background check could be very easily accomplished.  Set up a webpage where you can enter in a person's name, date of birth, and social security number.  You hit enter and it either says "There's no reason this guy can't buy a firearm", "You can't sell to him", or "The info you gave doesn't match up".  If you don't get the Weeners, then selling a weapon to that person is illegal.

And actually, this would probably be even more effective than tobacco or alcohol restrictions since beer & cigs don't have serial numbers engraved on them.  If the cops find someone with a pile of weapons they aren't supposed to earn, then they can call up Smith & Wesson and find out who they delivered to, send in a person who can't pass the background check, and see if the store still sells to them.
 
2013-04-12 12:03:38 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Lionel Mandrake: Because jack-booted federal thugs will break down your door and take away your guns. It's the first step toward 0bama declaring himself President for Life.

Don't forget you'll get throw in a FEMA work camp


I am getting so tired of the lack of progress on FEMA camps.   Back in 08 I was told by the conservatives that if Obama won they would all be thrown in FEMA camps.  I was going to sit out the election but then with the promise of conservatives in camps I got out and voted for Obama.  Damn you Obama for not living up to conservative hyperbole
 
2013-04-12 12:06:15 PM

dittybopper: Therion: dittybopper: historically there is a track record in many countries, including parts of the United States, of using registration lists and license information to confiscate firearms

Yeah, but if the license is "cool to own", da ebbil gubbamint doesn't have a list of your guns.

What they do have is a list of every single person who is likely to own a gun.  Why go to the trouble of getting a license if you don't own one and don't plan on owning one?


No, they have list of every person who is not ALLOWED to own a gun.  Background checks don't look for people the government has said is OK to sell to, it looks for people that they have said you CAN'T sell to.

I bet you also think the no-fly list is a list of the people who are allowed to get on planes.
 
2013-04-12 12:08:08 PM
What police thing of gun control:

Linky
 
2013-04-12 12:11:31 PM
i get so damned mad when that 40% crap gets thrown around. that and 90% want - background checks - get rid of HCM - ban assault weapons - gun confiscation. it doesn't matter what the talking head is pushing but you can bet that 90+/-% figure will come out. of course they never cite where that comes from, what poll, by who, what specific questions, etc etc.

if the gun control folks were just a little more honest and a little less likely to try getting what they want with just appeals to emotion there might actually be good legislation. there really are gun owners who don't want criminals shooting up your neighborhood. we also don't want to be made criminals by outlawing our legal behavior.
 
2013-04-12 12:17:29 PM

Curious: i get so damned mad when that 40% crap gets thrown around. that and 90% want - background checks - get rid of HCM - ban assault weapons - gun confiscation. it doesn't matter what the talking head is pushing but you can bet that 90+/-% figure will come out. of course they never cite where that comes from, what poll, by who, what specific questions, etc etc.

if the gun control folks were just a little more honest and a little less likely to try getting what they want with just appeals to emotion there might actually be good legislation. there really are gun owners who don't want criminals shooting up your neighborhood. we also don't want to be made criminals by outlawing our legal behavior.


You sound fat and mentally insane.
 
2013-04-12 12:18:01 PM
Remind me of which massacres would have been prevented had this law been in place?

I'm not opposed to the universal background checks, but it's just another silly distraction that does nothing to fix the problem.  They might as well pass a law that says you have to spin in a circle three times and touch your nose before buying a gun.  It might make clueless liberals feel better about themselves, but it won't fix the problem.
 
2013-04-12 12:18:49 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: You sound fat and mentally insane.


What a "reasonable gun control proponent with whom gun owners should negotiate in good faith" may sound like.
 
2013-04-12 12:19:15 PM

bmongar: I am getting so tired of the lack of progress on FEMA camps.


The whole thing is being held up by negotiations between Obama and the UN over where the confiscated American guns are going to go. The UN wants them confiscated and destroyed, but Obama wants to give them to Palestinians and Mexican drug lords. Last I heard, they're currently working out a deal where the Palestinians and Mexican drug lords are going to be formally commissioned as a UN Peacekeeping force to actually  guard the FEMA camps, and  then get the confiscated American guns when they're deployed the US soil.

There's another boondoggle brewing over whether the True American Patriots are going to be used for target practice by the new UN Peacekeeping force, or medically sterilized, re-educated, and sent to Africa as slaves. Oh man, that one's going to be a biatch.
 
2013-04-12 12:20:18 PM

dittybopper: What they do have is a list of every single person who is likely to own a gun. Why go to the trouble of getting a license if you don't own one and don't plan on owning one?

The fact that you have a license to own a firearm then becomes probable cause that you do in fact own at least one, and that can be used as a legal justification for a search if it came down to it.


Probable cause DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.  There has to be a crime first.  If the person in question is not suspected of a crime, then the police/government CANNOT have probable cause.  Simply that someone is using their second amendment rights is not probable cause to check for guns, mostly because owning guns isn't illegal in and of itself.  You need a crime first, then you need reasonable suspicion.  There are exceptions, like hearing someone scream, which gives you probable cause to break in to save a life, but those are few, far between, and highly contested.

dittybopper: For a non-gun example, let's say somehow ham radio gets banned. Maybe some terrorists used ham radio equipment to communicate before a massive attack on US soil, thus bypassing almost all computerized monitoring of things like e-mail, cell phones, etc. I have a ham radio license. That is legal evidence that I do in fact own ham radios, and I can't imagine a judge refusing to sign a search warrant to search my home to look for banned transmitters and receivers. After all, I went to the trouble to take a test and get a license. Why would I do that unless I planned on owning and using ham radio equipment?


Analogy does not work:  there is no constitutional right to ham radios, while there is one for guns.  Do you know how difficult an amendment is to pass?  Also, your ham radio would probably be grandfathered in (assuming you follow the grandfathering procedure, unlike those dumb-asses in California who didn't, and thus got their then-banned assault rifles confiscated), due to the ban on ex post facto laws.

/Now, to pre-empt your "but they WERE bought and owned before the law" schtick; yeah, but could you prove it?  That's what the grandfathering procedure was for;  to provide legal proof that those guns were bought and owned before the ban was put in place.  You don't follow that, we can't assume that you did get it earlier.
 
2013-04-12 12:20:18 PM
So much for reasonable discussion before the trolls (both pro and anti) stepped in.

(nice things, can't have, this is.)
 
2013-04-12 12:20:41 PM
PA already requires a background check for all transfers (except for giving them to your children).

What the hell is the problem?
 
2013-04-12 12:20:53 PM

factoryconnection: Most people are inclined to not rock the boat and follow societal rules. I'd like to think that most gun owners don't want to arm felons, and the universal background check requirement would motivate them to check and then NOT sell it to the guy with a carjacking record inadvertently. Put some teeth into the law that allows law enforcement to actually investigate ineligible people that try to buy weapons (those teeth were surgically extracted by NRA-supported amendments), and you've got a good deal for the law-abiding, and a bad deal for criminals that will slowly stem the flow of arms to the street.


Think of it like piracy.  If you make going about it the right way easier and cheaper more people will be more willing to said act.  Making it more illegaler does nothing.  A system that is easy and cheap to do for PtoP sales is the way to go.  Either bribe local police to do this over the phone or set up a website to do the background.  Forcing people to go to a dealer for a PtoP sale will net less people.
 
2013-04-12 12:21:08 PM

dittybopper: The fact that you have a license to own a firearm then becomes probable cause that you do in fact own at least one, and that can be used as a legal justification for a search if it came down to it.


On technicality, they already have this list. The form you fill out to purchase a weapon is kept by the dealer for 20 years in paper form.
 
2013-04-12 12:22:52 PM
(not counting M. Triskaidekaphobia , thanks for the rational contribution)
 
2013-04-12 12:26:04 PM

Therion: What is the objection to licensing gun owners, similar to licensing car drivers? "Checked out and cool to own firearms" the same way as "checked out and cool to drive cars" ?

Not trolling, genuinely curious.


It is mostly due to the overactive imaginations of many fierarms enthusiasts.
 
2013-04-12 12:27:12 PM

Karac: It's unlawful to sell tobacco products to a person under 18 without a background check (looking at their ID).  There is no record-keeping requirement to this.
It's unlawful to sell alcohol to a person under 21 without a background check (again, ID); and again, no record-keeping requirement.


Those aren't background checks.

A background check requires contacting the National Instant Check System.  That system by law is not allowed to retain records.  In order to prove a check was done, you'd have to fill out a Form 4473 and write the approval number the system generates on the Form 4473.

Otherwise, two people could claim they complied with the law when they didn't.

Also, your particular examples prove the futility:  Who among us hasn't been able to acquire tobacco and alcohol when we were underage?  Without record keeping requirements, how are you going to contend the law is enforceable?

Final nail in the coffin of your argument:  All of the proposals put forth actually require a Form 4473 to be filled out and a record to be entered in the bound book of the FFL facilitating the transaction.
 
2013-04-12 12:28:04 PM

bmongar: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Lionel Mandrake: Because jack-booted federal thugs will break down your door and take away your guns. It's the first step toward 0bama declaring himself President for Life.

Don't forget you'll get throw in a FEMA work camp

I am getting so tired of the lack of progress on FEMA camps.   Back in 08 I was told by the conservatives that if Obama won they would all be thrown in FEMA camps.  I was going to sit out the election but then with the promise of conservatives in camps I got out and voted for Obama.  Damn you Obama for not living up to conservative hyperbole


I voted for Fartbongo twice, and I still haven't gotten any gifts!!

Where's my Reaganphone Bushphone Obamaphone??
 
2013-04-12 12:31:44 PM

dittybopper: Therion: dittybopper: historically there is a track record in many countries, including parts of the United States, of using registration lists and license information to confiscate firearms

Yeah, but if the license is "cool to own", da ebbil gubbamint doesn't have a list of your guns.

What they do have is a list of every single person who is likely to own a gun.  Why go to the trouble of getting a license if you don't own one and don't plan on owning one?

The fact that you have a license to own a firearm then becomes probable cause that you do in fact own at least one, and that can be used as a legal justification for a search if it came down to it.

The distinction between a detailed list of firearms that a person owns, and a license that says a person is entitled to own a firearm is really irrelevant when considering the ways in which such records may be abused.

For a non-gun example, let's say somehow ham radio gets banned.  Maybe some terrorists used ham radio equipment to communicate before a massive attack on US soil, thus bypassing almost all computerized monitoring of things like e-mail, cell phones, etc.  I have a ham radio license.   That is legal evidence that I do in fact own ham radios, and I can't imagine a judge refusing to sign a search warrant to search my home to look for banned transmitters and receivers.  After all, I went to the trouble to take a test and get a license.  Why would I do that unless I planned on owning and using ham radio equipment?

Also, I get a chuckle out of this:  da ebbil gubbamint

Can you guarantee me that 20, 50 or 100 years from now the government won't be tyrannical?  Maybe I'll be dead before that happens, but what about my son?  And what about his children?  After all, no government lasts forever, and even democracies eventually fall.  It is inevitable that it will happen, the only question is when.


So you're not saying it's a conspiracy, but it's a conspiracy.
 
2013-04-12 12:33:26 PM

coeyagi: Lionel Mandrake: Therion: What is the objection to licensing gun owners, similar to licensing car drivers? "Checked out and cool to own firearms" the same way as "checked out and cool to drive cars" ?

Not trolling, genuinely curious.

Because jack-booted federal thugs will break down your door and take away your guns. It's the first step toward 0bama declaring himself President for Life.

Here is a great one going around on Facebook.  I am convinced that the conservative mind is actually not of the same species as Homo sapiens.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x637]


I don't even...
 
2013-04-12 12:34:25 PM

dittybopper: Can you guarantee me that 20, 50 or 100 years from now the government won't be tyrannical? Maybe I'll be dead before that happens, but what about my son? And what about his children? After all, no government lasts forever, and even democracies eventually fall. It is inevitable that it will happen, the only question is when.


You do fully realize that the gov has the technology to find you from space, direct an automated robot towards you that can fire a missile to kill you from 5 miles out?
 
2013-04-12 12:34:38 PM
friday13:
Probable cause DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT.  There has to be a crime first.

You mean like when the dog sits down?
 
2013-04-12 12:35:13 PM

dittybopper: Can you guarantee me that 20, 50 or 100 years from now the government won't be tyrannical?


Can you? Can anyone?
 
2013-04-12 12:35:39 PM
I love the tyrannical government argument. If the gov did go tyrannical its not like Ted Nugent and his marry band of AR-15 wielding outdoor enthusiasts would have much luck fighting off the modern NWO army.
 
2013-04-12 12:36:06 PM

Dr Dreidel: dittybopper: Can you guarantee me that 20, 50 or 100 years from now the government won't be tyrannical?

Can you? Can anyone?


Nope.  But let's remove the safeguards against that nonetheless.
 
2013-04-12 12:36:10 PM

Therion: What is the objection to licensing gun owners, similar to licensing car drivers? "Checked out and cool to own firearms" the same way as "checked out and cool to drive cars" ?

Not trolling, genuinely curious.


How about this, due to the Westboro Baptist Church, we will be passing legislation that requires a license in order to express your 1st Amendment rights.  Because there are certain individuals out there who utilize their 1A rights in a way I dont agree with, and there are many out there who agree with me.  Everyone in the US will be required to obtain a license from an organization TBD with fees that will are TBD.
 
2013-04-12 12:36:19 PM

dittybopper:  Guns are explicitly protected by the Constitution, cars are not.



don't forget the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment. and if we are going to go the "well back in the day it meant this..." argument, then the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets.
 
2013-04-12 12:36:51 PM

MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: The fact that you have a license to own a firearm then becomes probable cause that you do in fact own at least one, and that can be used as a legal justification for a search if it came down to it.

On technicality, they already have this list. The form you fill out to purchase a weapon is kept by the dealer for 20 years in paper form.


But that's just it:  Not every gun transfer was from a dealer, so not all guns were covered.

This is an attempt to make *ALL* guns come on to that "list", at least the ones that get transferred.
 
2013-04-12 12:38:15 PM

Fart_Machine: So you're not saying it's a conspiracy, but it's a conspiracy.


Hell no.  No conspiracy needed.

There was no conspiracy needed for confiscation to happen in other countries, just a gradual tightening of the laws.
 
2013-04-12 12:38:37 PM

that bosnian sniper: There's another boondoggle brewing over whether the True American Patriots are going to be used for target practice by the new UN Peacekeeping force, or medically sterilized, re-educated, and sent to Africa as slaves. Oh man, that one's going to be a biatch.

Some are too fat to fit in the Black Helicopters. This is why more Bacon Inspired Menus™ is the Real American restaurant push these days, or at least that's what the Patriotic™ Cardiologist says.
 
2013-04-12 12:39:33 PM

Gavenger: Therion: What is the objection to licensing gun owners, similar to licensing car drivers? "Checked out and cool to own firearms" the same way as "checked out and cool to drive cars" ?

Not trolling, genuinely curious.

How about this, due to the Westboro Baptist Church, we will be passing legislation that requires a license in order to express your 1st Amendment rights.  Because there are certain individuals out there who utilize their 1A rights in a way I dont agree with, and there are many out there who agree with me.  Everyone in the US will be required to obtain a license from an organization TBD with fees that will are TBD.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-12 12:39:57 PM

dittybopper: Karac: It's unlawful to sell tobacco products to a person under 18 without a background check (looking at their ID).  There is no record-keeping requirement to this.
It's unlawful to sell alcohol to a person under 21 without a background check (again, ID); and again, no record-keeping requirement.

Those aren't background checks.

A background check requires contacting the National Instant Check System.  That system by law is not allowed to retain records.  In order to prove a check was done, you'd have to fill out a Form 4473 and write the approval number the system generates on the Form 4473.

Otherwise, two people could claim they complied with the law when they didn't.

Also, your particular examples prove the futility:  Who among us hasn't been able to acquire tobacco and alcohol when we were underage?  Without record keeping requirements, how are you going to contend the law is enforceable?

Final nail in the coffin of your argument:  All of the proposals put forth actually require a Form 4473 to be filled out and a record to be entered in the bound book of the FFL facilitating the transaction.



The cops think someone is selling guns without doing background checks.
They send in someone to try to buy a gun.
When the seller doesn't do the background check, they put the cuffs on him.

Two people aren't going to claim they both complied with the law when one of them is the arresting officer.
You know, sort of the exact same way they catch people for selling tobacco and alcohol to minors without checking ID.
 
2013-04-12 12:41:04 PM

Johnson: dittybopper:  Guns are explicitly protected by the Constitution, cars are not.


don't forget the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment. and if we are going to go the "well back in the day it meant this..." argument, then the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets.


Both of those arguments were explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court *TWICE* in the last 5 years.  Stop using them.  It makes you look silly.
 
2013-04-12 12:41:43 PM

Johnson: dittybopper:  Guns are explicitly protected by the Constitution, cars are not.


don't forget the "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment. and if we are going to go the "well back in the day it meant this..." argument, then the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets.


And you also believe the the 1st amendment only applies to flyers hand printed with movable lead type.
 
2013-04-12 12:42:15 PM

factoryconnection: Those are two divergent claims.  Gun-show sales are only a part of private sales; the majority are person-to-person deals.

If you look at how criminals get their guns, it is through one of three ways normally:
1. Steal it.  IIRC around 10% of weapons identified as used in crimes were stolen.
2. Buy it from a straw purchaser.  Universal background check law strengthens the protections against this, but really only on the prosecution side.  Right now, however, while it is illegal to sell to someone that is ineligible to buy, there is no requirement to check that status.  Straw purchasers are thus extremely hard to prosecute.
3. A long chain of private sales, usually of descending legitimacy over time.  The last FBI report I read on this identified it as the primary source of crime-linked guns.  The long chain of owners makes them very difficult to trace.

[snip].


...Only if they're reasonably secure financially.  It's ridiculously easy to prosecute alleged straw purchasers of lesser financial means* (as well as those in the lower echelons of what we classify as middle-class).  If prosecuted, other than simply pleading guilty, your legal options generally are:

1 - Represent yourself (good luck with that)
2 - Request a Public Defender.  They'll almost certainly recommend a plea bargain (for a variety of reasons, which may or may not be based on your interests)
3 - Hire a lawyer.

In the first two scenarios, you're probably going to receive a conviction.  The second may or may not involve jail time, but the prosecution will doubtless get a "win" and the State will get to keep all of your property they deem to have been involved. (though they were probably going to get that regardless of whether they charged you, much less convicted you).  Given that firearms provide an easy, reliable return at auction, this provides a fairly simple calculation for determining who you can safely prosecute, *ahem*, profitably.

In the third scenario... well, I hope you have twenty or so thousand bucks (conservative estimate) just lying around.  Oh, you don't?  But you can come up with it, right?  Without ending up in financial ruin?  Oh, you can't?  Back to options 1 and 2 for you, then.  Best wishes, chum.

If the hypothetical person in this scenario is guilty, then I guess this outcome is acceptable.  Since our system presumes otherwise, one could hope for a better set of options.

* not unique to prosecutions related to firearm straw purchases; it's always easier to prosecute poor people.
 
2013-04-12 12:42:57 PM

coeyagi: Lionel Mandrake: Therion: What is the objection to licensing gun owners, similar to licensing car drivers? "Checked out and cool to own firearms" the same way as "checked out and cool to drive cars" ?

Not trolling, genuinely curious.

Because jack-booted federal thugs will break down your door and take away your guns. It's the first step toward 0bama declaring himself President for Life.

Here is a great one going around on Facebook.  I am convinced that the conservative mind is actually not of the same species as Homo sapiens.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x637]


o_O

Is this argument here that Native Americans ought to have killed more Europeans with guns? Is Manifest Destiny no longer a noble part of our past for True Patriotstm? What an odd thought salad that trolls well, but doesn't really mesh with historical conservative American nationalism.
 
Displayed 50 of 299 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report