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.

(Baton Rouge Advocate)   Dumb: Gun buyback programs. Even dumber: Refusing to take in illegal guns. You know, the ones everyone actually wants off the streets   (theadvocate.com) divider line 237
    More: Dumbass, gun buyback program, sawed-off shotguns, gun buyback, law enforcement officials  
•       •       •

9465 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Dec 2013 at 1:50 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-15 02:53:24 PM
Dimensio:

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

most military rounds today are 7.65 mm, which is smaller than most guns. for that matter a 32 cal fire just fine in said military guns.  no private citizen would be caught dead using a bullet that small.
 
2013-12-15 02:56:30 PM

violentsalvation: howdoibegin: Why are gun buyback programs dumb again?

They aren't necessarily dumb. They just don't curb gun crime, which is what they are intended to do. There are old widows with closets full of hunting rifles and war relics that they don't know what to do with, or how to even ensure they're safe. So these these programs might help them. But there is a potential historical loss depending on who knows what gets turned in. Thankfully these cops had sharp eyes and were fair about it.


Damn, hell of a thing to have just sitting in your closet for 60 years.
 
2013-12-15 03:00:15 PM

liam76: If you don't think the NRA lies, you haven't been paying attention.


The greatest threat to freedom is the absence of criticism....Wole Soyinka.

There are thousands of people here who won't let the NRA get away with lying. And maybe a couple dozen who won't let the gun control crowd get away with lying.

A couple dozen people keep the discussion from being boring circle jerks....same as in the politics tab.


liam76: Define track. They know where guns are coming from since manufacture after 94. In some states they know if they have changed hands. From that they can extrapolate things.


There is always a trail. They can go as far as the guy who bought it from an FFL. Then they ask that guy, who bought it from the FFL, who he sold it to. He either gives them a name or says someone stole it and can produce the police report confirming his reporting of it as stolen. If he sold it to someone the interview continues with that person and so on and so forth. It's old time police work though...not a lot of people are willing to do legwork...everyone wants an easy mode button.

Cops can do better things with their time than siting in the same spot for 3 hours catching one guy speeding.

liam76: What study did they get that from?


according to another article using the same stats...a 1993 study by Hubbard and Edgar that I can not find.

Plenty of cops and other LEO interviewed in articles on the net who claim a majority of the guns they come across are stolen though.
 
2013-12-15 03:04:48 PM

SCUBA_Archer: If you're a concerned citizen that wants to make sure Grandpa's evil Mauser or Colt Single Action Army gets off the streets and becomes rebar for the next generation of buildings, will a $50 gift card affect that decision at all?


Yeah, just call me!


DarkVader: You're trying to create a list of who has guns. This is not acceptable.


No I am not.

There are many way to track it so it isn't in a central list (which is already against the law).


DarkVader: The vast majority people selling a gun privately would be happy to verify that the person they're selling to is not a criminal.


That is BS otherwise the vast majority would use a FFL as a broker.

DarkVader: But unless you can guarantee that said background check will absolutely not be used to track anything, it's not acceptable


As pointed out above it is already against the law.

I don't like the vast majority of laws being passed in states wrt guns, but they are a response to the fed being paralyzed on gun matters. Even when it comes to common sense stuff that the NRA supported 10 or 15 years ago, even when it comes to things that most NRA members support.
 
2013-12-15 03:16:34 PM

Giltric: There are thousands of people here who won't let the NRA get away with lying. And maybe a couple dozen who won't let the gun control crowd get away with lying.


Dude, you lose a lot of crdability by pretending that the NRA is some lonely warrior fighting against big groups for the rights of gun owners. They have a huge industry at their back, and operate little differently than a gun lobby group.


Giltric: There is always a trail. They can go as far as the guy who bought it from an FFL. Then they ask that guy, who bought it from the FFL, who he sold it to. He either gives them a name or says someone stole it and can produce the police report confirming his reporting of it as stolen. If he sold it to someone the interview continues with that person and so on and so forth. It's old time police work though...not a lot of people are willing to do legwork...everyone wants an easy mode button.

Cops can do better things with their time than siting in the same spot for 3 hours catching one guy speeding.


Actually cops can't do that if the person is out of their jurisdiction. And what happens if the original buyer is out of state. It gets expensive quick. Never mind the guy who first bought it can legally say he forgot who he sold it to, or lost the name, etc. Completely legal in most states.

I do agree with you about how cops do a lot of shiat that wastes time.


Giltric: Plenty of cops and other LEO interviewed in articles on the net who claim a majority of the guns they come across are stolen though


Plenty say the opposite. Where does that leave us?

Also see above
 
2013-12-15 03:17:41 PM

Jesstur: Dimensio:

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.

most military rounds today are 7.65 mm, which is smaller than most guns. for that matter a 32 cal fire just fine in said military guns.  no private citizen would be caught dead using a bullet that small.


Actually, 7.65mm is large form most standard issue small arms for military units today.  NATO standard is 5.56mm, the Russians are using the AK-74, which is even smaller at 5.45mm, the latest Chinese rifle is 5.8.  That iygs all right around .22 caliber.
 
2013-12-15 03:34:05 PM

liam76: Dude, you lose a lot of crdability by pretending that the NRA is some lonely warrior fighting against big groups for the rights of gun owners. They have a huge industry at their back, and operate little differently than a gun lobby group.


Not to step in, but I believe he's talking specifically about the gun debate on Fark.
 
2013-12-15 03:41:33 PM

Frank N Stein: liam76: Dude, you lose a lot of crdability by pretending that the NRA is some lonely warrior fighting against big groups for the rights of gun owners. They have a huge industry at their back, and operate little differently than a gun lobby group.

Not to step in, but I believe he's talking specifically about the gun debate on Fark.


Ah, if so Giltric, my apologies.
 
2013-12-15 04:54:53 PM
I like to think of gun buyback programs as a minimum "resale" value for folks who made the mistake of buying worn out used gun that jams constantly.
 
2013-12-15 06:02:19 PM
It seems like they should have a guns for tutus program.
 
2013-12-15 08:36:33 PM

liam76: Frank N Stein: liam76: Dude, you lose a lot of crdability by pretending that the NRA is some lonely warrior fighting against big groups for the rights of gun owners. They have a huge industry at their back, and operate little differently than a gun lobby group.

Not to step in, but I believe he's talking specifically about the gun debate on Fark.

Ah, if so Giltric, my apologies.



No blood, no foul.
 
2013-12-16 12:42:52 AM

Dimensio: Frank N Stein: ftfa: A high-powered Japanese sniper rifle

So a sporterized arisaka? The horror.

No private citizen has need to own a rifle as powerful as a sniper rifle.

Additionally, no private citizen has need to own a rifle chambered in calibers identical or similar to military assault rifles.


Trolling or Stupid....or both.  I'm sure you don't realize that the most popular sniper rifle also happens to be the most popular hunting rifle....The Remington 700.  Not to mention the most popular sniper round is the 308 Winchester, which happens to be less powerful than the WW1 era, 30-06 (the most popular big game hunting cartridge.    Oh and while I'm at it, the military assault rifles that have your panties in a wad, mostly were developed from existing civilian calibers.

If you are trolling....you suck at it for making it too easy.   If you are just stupid, maybe you just learned something.
 
2013-12-16 12:49:10 AM

Dimensio: You are correct; mass murder is entirely impossible without use of a rifle featuring a pistol grip and adjustable stock.


I'm calling bullshiat on this one....everyone knows it's the flash suppressor and foregrip that make it possible to commit mass murder.
 
2013-12-16 01:00:33 AM

Dimensio: I am not actually attempting to "troll". I am attempting to issue statements so outlandish that the intent of sarcasm is obvious to any reader.


The problem here is that your "outlandish" statements sound very much like the batshiat crazy derp routinely coming for the bed wetting gun grabber wannabes.
 
2013-12-16 02:11:05 AM
We need an "opposite" font. It should be in the Add Comment box. I nominate black background with white letters.
 
2013-12-16 02:19:41 AM
Is the government still selling of M1 Garands cheaply? Wonderful rifle...
 
2013-12-16 02:20:32 AM

liam76: GodComplex: Why would petty theft be in the news? No one cares that guns are stolen. Do you hear about every car that's stolen?

Are cars often used to murder people?

GodComplex: there is no law saying you can't sell your possessions, first sale clause and all

In some states there are restrictions where you have to go through a FFL. I have a problem with that, in that it is a pain in the ass and can easily be circumvented by going to another state under the table.

I support the right to sell what you own, but guns are dangerous tools. I have no problem with common sense restrictions, and the only way to ensure people follow them is to track sales. It should be done at the federal level, or at least with standard requirements across the US, and free to sellers.


The problem with requiring to go to an FFL to transfer is they tend to charge money. This falls in the similar vein of 'poll tax' in which you are being required to spend money to exercise a right. It's also pointless because there is no national registry, as that's illegal, and thus no way to enforce this method. Now, if I could call up the NICS at no charge, I'd have no problem doing so.

And a great number of things are dangerous, yet I can freely purchase and own things without government interference. Things like crossbows, gatling guns, and flame throwers. The problem with 'common sense' restrictions is that it's tyranny. Saying, "I can take away your rights cause it's just common sense" is probably one of the most absurd arguments one could make. Course if we were arguing from common sense, we spend more time regulating ladders and making sure kids knew how to swim and less time trying to remove rights.

Common sense is the last defense of someone who has lost the debate, and thus should never be brought up.
 
2013-12-16 03:12:17 AM

GodComplex: liam76: GodComplex: Why would petty theft be in the news? No one cares that guns are stolen. Do you hear about every car that's stolen?

Are cars often used to murder people?

GodComplex: there is no law saying you can't sell your possessions, first sale clause and all

In some states there are restrictions where you have to go through a FFL. I have a problem with that, in that it is a pain in the ass and can easily be circumvented by going to another state under the table.

I support the right to sell what you own, but guns are dangerous tools. I have no problem with common sense restrictions, and the only way to ensure people follow them is to track sales. It should be done at the federal level, or at least with standard requirements across the US, and free to sellers.

The problem with requiring to go to an FFL to transfer is they tend to charge money. This falls in the similar vein of 'poll tax' in which you are being required to spend money to exercise a right. It's also pointless because there is no national registry, as that's illegal, and thus no way to enforce this method. Now, if I could call up the NICS at no charge, I'd have no problem doing so.

And a great number of things are dangerous, yet I can freely purchase and own things without government interference. Things like crossbows, gatling guns, and flame throwers. The problem with 'common sense' restrictions is that it's tyranny. Saying, "I can take away your rights cause it's just common sense" is probably one of the most absurd arguments one could make. Course if we were arguing from common sense, we spend more time regulating ladders and making sure kids knew how to swim and less time trying to remove rights.

Common sense is the last defense of someone who has lost the debate, and thus should never be brought up.


Not just charging money for them, many just plain won't do it. They make  a pittance off of it and are on the hook for keeping all the documentation. Add that to the fact that many people frankly don't live close to an FFL. I live in downtown Chicago. We can't even buy ammo inside the city limits, let alone find an FFL who would facilitate a transfer. I understand the desire to track purchases, so frankly I'm okay with how Illinois handles that. Check for FOID (doesn't apply to states w/o owner id/permit), call ISP to verify FOID validity, and keep record of sale (name, date, serial #) and on you go. Well I guess I think the waiting period is stupid, just a way to inconvenience people who want to purchase weapons. Seller doesn't have to furnish that record unless contacted by police with a warrant.
 
2013-12-16 06:53:11 AM

redmid17: GodComplex: liam76: GodComplex: Why would petty theft be in the news? No one cares that guns are stolen. Do you hear about every car that's stolen?

Are cars often used to murder people?

GodComplex: there is no law saying you can't sell your possessions, first sale clause and all

In some states there are restrictions where you have to go through a FFL. I have a problem with that, in that it is a pain in the ass and can easily be circumvented by going to another state under the table.

I support the right to sell what you own, but guns are dangerous tools. I have no problem with common sense restrictions, and the only way to ensure people follow them is to track sales. It should be done at the federal level, or at least with standard requirements across the US, and free to sellers.

The problem with requiring to go to an FFL to transfer is they tend to charge money. This falls in the similar vein of 'poll tax' in which you are being required to spend money to exercise a right. It's also pointless because there is no national registry, as that's illegal, and thus no way to enforce this method. Now, if I could call up the NICS at no charge, I'd have no problem doing so.

And a great number of things are dangerous, yet I can freely purchase and own things without government interference. Things like crossbows, gatling guns, and flame throwers. The problem with 'common sense' restrictions is that it's tyranny. Saying, "I can take away your rights cause it's just common sense" is probably one of the most absurd arguments one could make. Course if we were arguing from common sense, we spend more time regulating ladders and making sure kids knew how to swim and less time trying to remove rights.

Common sense is the last defense of someone who has lost the debate, and thus should never be brought up.

Not just charging money for them, many just plain won't do it. They make  a pittance off of it and are on the hook for keeping all the documentation. Add that to the fact th ...


I do believe that's the ultimate goal. Sure you can own guns, but you can only buy them from FFLs, oh did we forget to mention we don't issue FFLs anymore? Damn shame.
 
2013-12-16 08:35:45 AM

gregscott: Is the government still selling of M1 Garands cheaply? Wonderful rifle...


If by "cheaply" you mean around $950 for a rack grade rifle (meaning parts from 2-3 manufacturers), and a couple of grand for decent ones through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, than yes, yes they are.  You'll only have to wait 120-180 days for delivery if they have any available.
 
2013-12-16 09:24:54 AM
Imagine how many people trade in perfectly good, collectible guns for $50. I would CRY if I saw a Python in the pile.

If you don't want a gun, go to your local gun store and offer it to them. Chances are you will get more than $50 and prevent a great gun from getting melted.

Thinking further, these events need someone well versed in firearms to inspect them prior to trade in to prevent a travesty.
 
2013-12-16 10:19:07 AM

gregscott: Is the government still selling of M1 Garands cheaply? Wonderful rifle...


They're still selling 'em, but blocked the import of 850,000 that the South Koreans wanted to sell back to us.  So we've got that going for us, which is nice.
 
2013-12-16 10:30:50 AM
Is this a stupid question?

Coworker is a huge gun fan.  Spends all his spare income on them. Goes hunting.  Recently he talked about eating squirrel.  I asked if he used some kind of snare or cage trap for that.  He was offended.  OFFENDED.  Like I had implied something ill about his mother's honor.

"No, you shoot it."

I inquired what kind of impact that makes on the available meat.  While by no means a munitions expert, I suspected even a .22 would rip up your typical squirrel and reduce the aleady limited meat on a critter that size.  Again, deeply offended, he said he only hits them in the head.
 
2013-12-16 10:34:17 AM

Kyro: Is this a stupid question?

Coworker is a huge gun fan.  Spends all his spare income on them. Goes hunting.  Recently he talked about eating squirrel.  I asked if he used some kind of snare or cage trap for that.  He was offended.  OFFENDED.  Like I had implied something ill about his mother's honor.

"No, you shoot it."

I inquired what kind of impact that makes on the available meat.  While by no means a munitions expert, I suspected even a .22 would rip up your typical squirrel and reduce the aleady limited meat on a critter that size.  Again, deeply offended, he said he only hits them in the head.


Yeah, that or bark them.
 
2013-12-16 10:40:32 AM

Kyro: Is this a stupid question?

Coworker is a huge gun fan.  Spends all his spare income on them. Goes hunting.  Recently he talked about eating squirrel.  I asked if he used some kind of snare or cage trap for that.  He was offended.  OFFENDED.  Like I had implied something ill about his mother's honor.

"No, you shoot it."

I inquired what kind of impact that makes on the available meat.  While by no means a munitions expert, I suspected even a .22 would rip up your typical squirrel and reduce the aleady limited meat on a critter that size.  Again, deeply offended, he said he only hits them in the head.


Nah, it's not a stupid question.  People get offended at nothing all the time.  Asking how someone how they got their game shouldn't be offensive.

A .22lr is a small round.  Even a squirrel isn't ripped up too much from that round.  Head shots are ideal, as your coworker said.  Again, his level of butt-hurt is because he's ready to be angry, not the "stupidity" of your question; hunters who want their sport to be seen in a better light should be more open to answering even simple-seeming questions, because a lot of people aren't exposed to hunting at all.
 
2013-12-16 12:25:51 PM

GodComplex: The problem with requiring to go to an FFL to transfer is they tend to charge money.


I would open to it being free by police or paid for by the FFL, or even requiring the govt to reimburse FFL's at a flat rate.


GodComplex: This falls in the similar vein of 'poll tax' in which you are being required to spend money to exercise a right.


You have no right to sell guns to whomever you wish.


GodComplex: It's also pointless because there is no national registry, as that's illegal, and thus no way to enforce this method.


Not true.

You don't need a national registry to run a trace.

GodComplex: Common sense is the last defense of someone who has lost the debate, and thus should never be brought up


Right now there is no federal law preventing you as an individual selling guns to convicted felons or others that we as a society have decided lost the right to bear arms. If you don't like calling a policy to preven that "common sense" fine, but don't pretend it is anything but stupid.


redmid17: Not just charging money for them, many just plain won't do it.


As I said above there are other options. And it would be very easy to make it a condition to have a FFL.
 
2013-12-16 12:33:25 PM

liam76: redmid17: Not just charging money for them, many just plain won't do it.

As I said above there are other options. And it would be very easy to make it a condition to have a FFL.


That still doesn't sidestep the issue that many people live pretty far away from an FFL. I can call the Illinois state police and get a yes/no for free. I have to keep a record of the transaction for ten years.

That system is perfectly fine. Frankly shoving it off to FFLs, who don't want to do it, or police, who have enough work, just doesn't seem like a very good idea. Just opening up access to existing systems is easier and much more politically attainable.
 
2013-12-16 12:38:12 PM

redmid17: liam76: redmid17: Not just charging money for them, many just plain won't do it.

As I said above there are other options. And it would be very easy to make it a condition to have a FFL.

That still doesn't sidestep the issue that many people live pretty far away from an FFL. I can call the Illinois state police and get a yes/no for free. I have to keep a record of the transaction for ten years.


That was one of the other options I was discussing.

I am not saying it shoudl all be through a FFL.


redmid17: That system is perfectly fine.


It is a system where in many states you can sell guns to felons and not be committing a crime.
It is a system where you can sell a gun and claim you don't remember who you sold it to and have commited no crime.

That isn't a "perfectly fine" system.


redmid17: Frankly shoving it off to FFLs, who don't want to do it, or police, who have enough work, just doesn't seem like a very good idea. Just opening up access to existing systems is easier and much more politically attainable


Do it through the post office, it doesn;t have to be the police, but I don't like the idea of any random person ebing able to check if I can legally own a gun.
 
2013-12-16 12:43:07 PM
liam76: redmid17: That system is perfectly fine.

It is a system where in many states you can sell guns to felons and not be committing a crime.
It is a system where you can sell a gun and claim you don't remember who you sold it to and have commited no crime.

That isn't a "perfectly fine" system.


It doesn't work that way in Illinois, which is the state I was talking about.

redmid17: Frankly shoving it off to FFLs, who don't want to do it, or police, who have enough work, just doesn't seem like a very good idea. Just opening up access to existing systems is easier and much more politically attainable

Do it through the post office, it doesn;t have to be the police, but I don't like the idea of any random person ebing able to check if I can legally own a gun.


So you're fine with any random person being able to sell you a gun, but not check to see if you can purchase one? Tell me, what's the difference between me calling the Ill state police to get a yes/no versus taking it to the police station/FFL/post office?

Either way the person is going to know if you can possess a gun and your personal information is going to be kept on file as it is. Even if I sell through an FFL, I'm going to keep a copy of that information as it is. Frankly that's kind of a weird position to hold.
 
2013-12-16 01:02:41 PM

redmid17: It doesn't work that way in Illinois, which is the state I was talking about.


I live in Md, we have to go through a FFL, which is too far in IMHO.
But the point is that the piecemeal laws state to state don't help the problem.


redmid17: So you're fine with any random person being able to sell you a gun, but not check to see if you can purchase one?


No. I made it pretty clear I am against that. Hence why I am for universal background checks.


redmid17: Tell me, what's the difference between me calling the Ill state police to get a yes/no versus taking it to the police station/FFL/post office?


If you are there in person the police will know you actually want to buy it, vice some guy calling up tp find out info about peopel without their permission.


redmid17: Frankly that's kind of a weird position to hold


I think you miss my point.

I don't liek a system wher eyou can call up and get info about peopel who have no interest in buying a gun from you. I am nto talking abotu an actual seller knowing if the person they wan tto sell to knowing if the person can buy a gun.
 
2013-12-16 01:46:57 PM

liam76: redmid17: It doesn't work that way in Illinois, which is the state I was talking about.

I live in Md, we have to go through a FFL, which is too far in IMHO.
But the point is that the piecemeal laws state to state don't help the problem.


redmid17: So you're fine with any random person being able to sell you a gun, but not check to see if you can purchase one?

No. I made it pretty clear I am against that. Hence why I am for universal background checks.


redmid17: Tell me, what's the difference between me calling the Ill state police to get a yes/no versus taking it to the police station/FFL/post office?

If you are there in person the police will know you actually want to buy it, vice some guy calling up tp find out info about peopel without their permission.


redmid17: Frankly that's kind of a weird position to hold

I think you miss my point.

I don't liek a system wher eyou can call up and get info about peopel who have no interest in buying a gun from you. I am nto talking abotu an actual seller knowing if the person they wan tto sell to knowing if the person can buy a gun.


You realize you'd have to have identifying information right, stuff like DL, DOB, full name, et al. I can't just call up and say "Hey ISP, tell me whether or not this man can buy a gun." without it. They'd tell me to pound sand. I can run a background check on you with just your name and get largely the same information. I don't think you understand how the systems actually work.
 
2013-12-16 02:05:05 PM

redmid17: You realize you'd have to have identifying information right, stuff like DL, DOB, full name, et al. I can't just call up and say "Hey ISP, tell me whether or not this man can buy a gun." without it. They'd tell me to pound sand. I can run a background check on you with just your name and get largely the same information.



#1 Not for free you can't.
#2 That is a lot easier to fake or take from a person without their knowledge if they don't have to see anybody in person.


redmid17: I don't think you understand how the systems actually work.


A few posts up you said the system was fine, when in many states there is nothing stopping you from sellingt o felons.
 
2013-12-16 02:12:00 PM

liam76: redmid17: You realize you'd have to have identifying information right, stuff like DL, DOB, full name, et al. I can't just call up and say "Hey ISP, tell me whether or not this man can buy a gun." without it. They'd tell me to pound sand. I can run a background check on you with just your name and get largely the same information.


#1 Not for free you can't.
#2 That is a lot easier to fake or take from a person without their knowledge if they don't have to see anybody in person.


Correct. It costs ~$15 bucks. And I have no farking idea what you are talking about with respect to point 2. Are you saying that it's easier to bypass the system as a felon?

redmid17: I don't think you understand how the systems actually work.

A few posts up you said the system was fine, when in many states there is nothing stopping you from sellingt o felons.


I said the system in Illinois was fine. To refresh your memory:

I can call the Illinois state police and get a yes/no for free. I have to keep a record of the transaction for ten years.That system is perfectly fine.

I never talked about any other "system."
 
2013-12-16 02:25:25 PM

redmid17: Correct. It costs ~$15 bucks. And I have no farking idea what you are talking about with respect to point 2. Are you saying that it's easier to bypass the system as a felon?


I am saying if the buyer never has to be present in person to show ID to an official it is a lot easier to fake who you are selling it to.


redmid17: I never talked about any other "system."


#1 You chimed in when we were talking about the US. If we were talking about gay marriage in the US and you were arguing that there need to be a federal standard, and I said you can get married in MD the system is just fine, that would show I don't knwo what is going on.

#2 the system is just fine only if if you believe there is a magical barrier around Illinois where what happens in other states has no effect on them.
 
2013-12-16 02:33:29 PM
liam76: redmid17: Correct. It costs ~$15 bucks. And I have no farking idea what you are talking about with respect to point 2. Are you saying that it's easier to bypass the system as a felon?

I am saying if the buyer never has to be present in person to show ID to an official it is a lot easier to fake who you are selling it to.

Yes I suppose it's easier to fake the FOID or DL you need to present to the private seller as well as the personal information needed by the cops to vet the purchaser.

redmid17: I never talked about any other "system."

#1 You chimed in when we were talking about the US. If we were talking about gay marriage in the US and you were arguing that there need to be a federal standard, and I said you can get married in MD the system is just fine, that would show I don't knwo what is going on.

#2 the system is just fine only if if you believe there is a magical barrier around Illinois where what happens in other states has no effect on them.


Context is important. That is why I mentioned IL before I talked about the "system." It's also why I said "that" system directly after mentioning IL laws, instead of "the system" or "the US system." Plain conversation shouldn't be this hard mind you. I also never said anything about the disparate laws around the US either. The obvious inference from my post would be that it would be a good idea to expand that system to every state, especially if you actually bothered to read the last two sentences in the post:

Frankly shoving it off to FFLs, who don't want to do it, or police, who have enough work, just doesn't seem like a very good idea. Just opening up access to existing systems is easier and much more politically attainable.

I'm clearly not talking about the IL system, since private sellers already have access to the existing ISP system.

/also are you typing on a phone?
 
2013-12-16 02:58:53 PM

redmid17: liam76: redmid17: Correct. It costs ~$15 bucks. And I have no farking idea what you are talking about with respect to point 2. Are you saying that it's easier to bypass the system as a felon?

I am saying if the buyer never has to be present in person to show ID to an official it is a lot easier to fake who you are selling it to.

Yes I suppose it's easier to fake the FOID or DL you need to present to the private seller as well as the personal information needed by the cops to vet the purchaser.


Just to enlighten you a bit more, here is the statute:  http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/98/098-0508.htm

A step by step process:

1) Find gun you want to buy and arrange selling date/time/place
2) Purchaser shows FOID to Seller. Seller shows FOID to purchaser. (you have to have a FOID to even possess firearms/ammo in IL).
3) Seller contacts ISP to verify that the FOID is valid
4) Seller writes down FOID information, gun information, and date. Must keep for ten years
5) Purchaser smartly puts weapon in case, thanks seller, and drives off.

The only difference between the process is an FFL (or whomever as authorized by govt) looking at the exact same information and calling the exact same number.
 
2013-12-16 02:59:30 PM

redmid17: The obvious inference from my post would be that it would be a good idea to expand that system to every state, especially if you actually bothered to read the last two sentences in the post:

Frankly shoving it off to FFLs, who don't want to do it, or police, who have enough work, just doesn't seem like a very good idea. Just opening up access to existing systems is easier and much more politically attainable.


Opening access isn't requiring people to use them. It isn't obvious that you want all states to require this.

redmid17: I'm clearly not talking about the IL system, since private sellers already have access to the existing ISP system


You just said you were talking about IL in that statement.


That system is perfectly fine. Frankly shoving it off to FFLs, who don't want to do it, or police, who have enough work, just doesn't seem like a very good idea. Just opening up access to existing systems is easier and much more politically attainable

There is your whole statement. If the underlined is supposed to be about IL and the rest isn't you aren't being clear about it at all.

And at the end of the day this semantics abotu IL system or US system is meaningless because the system in IL is broken unless the problem is fixed for the rest fo the US.
 
Displayed 37 of 237 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report