Virginia Tech Survivor With Hidden Camera Films Dangerous Gun Sales at Gun Shows

[marmar]

from HuffPost:




Paul Helmke
President, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Posted: November 18, 2009

Virginia Tech Survivor With Hidden Camera Films Dangerous Gun Sales at Gun Shows




Should someone who wants to buy a military-style assault weapon be required to undergo a criminal background check?

In America they don't have to.

In fact, felons, gangsters, wife-beaters, and the dangerously mentally ill can buy as many military-style assault weapons, semi-automatic pistols and other firearms as they can carry, with no questions asked.

They just have to know where to go.

It's no secret. There are thousands of gun shows in 43 states that don't require Brady criminal background checks for all gun show sales.

Why do criminals and traffickers go to gun shows? As the bank robber Willie Sutton might have put it, "Because that's where the guns are."

Our weak gun laws make it lethally simple for unlicensed gun vendors to sell as many firearms as they can to whomever they can, cash and carry.

Colin Goddard proved it. Colin survived being shot four times at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007. After learning more about our nearly non-existent laws restricting access to guns, he took it upon himself to document how easy we make it for dangerous people to get guns in this country.

Watch Colin's story here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/virginia-tech-survivor-wi_b_362152.html


This past summer, Colin went to gun shows across America in Minnesota, Ohio, Texas and his home state of Virginia. Equipped with a hidden camera and accompanied by a resident of each state he visited, Colin filmed how recklessly -- even callously -- unlicensed gun sellers sold military-style assault weapons and semi-automatic pistols with no criminal background check, and without even requiring identification. ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/virginia-tech-survivor-wi_b_362152.html

[defendandprotect]

1. But it's all about the 2nd amendment -- not about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ . . . nor politics -- !!!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. You are right Helmke is all about politics.

[defendandprotect]

15. If being against "military assault weapons for everyone" is political . . . I'm there!!!

Simply common sense for self-preservation ---

Meanwhile, the second amendment has an opening clause -- which cannot be ignored.

GOP/NRA are two of the largest hoaxes ever played on American public!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. How a gun looks is really important to you I guess. It seems silly to base laws on looks.

[defendandprotect]

22. What is important, is the security of the state -- and the state has the right to control guns . . .

no court in the land is going to say that is NOT true!!!

Meanwhile, the goal of the GOP/NRA is to create a violent America --

most members are waking up to that now.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. Firearms are heavily controlled. The current laws are working just fine.

[defendandprotect]

58. All you're saying is that you are pro-GOP/NRA thinking . . . though I hear many are leaving...

waking up --

[Tejas]

48. The "state" has NO "rights" whatsoever - nt

[defendandprotect]

59. In the end, courts will give states the right to control violence -- and that includes guns . . .

[Euromutt]

64. The state does not have rights, it has power

And when that power is exercised legitimately, it is called authority. The legitimacy of authority derives from the power being coupled to responsibility. Power without responsibility, in the hands of all but the most benign, can all too readily devolve into tyranny.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on several occasions that the state bears no responsibility for the protection of the individual citizen. If you call 911 and nobody shows up in time to save or, or even fails to show up at all, you can't sue the government. Since the state has thus rejected the responsibility for the protection of the individual citizen, it has thereby abdicated the authority to deprive the individual citizen of the means to protect him- or herself. The most effective means of self-protection, given current technology, is firearms. That's why police continue to carry guns, even though they have a spectrum of "less-than-lethal" options available to them, including pepper spray, tasers, etc. (and the versions available to the police are more powerful than those available to private citizens).

Thus, unless and until the state is prepared to accept responsibility for any harm that befalls its citizens through criminal violence, it has no legitimate authority to deprive them of the freedom to keep and bear arms for self-protection.

[defendandprotect]

65. Whatever it has, the STATE will be forced by the public to STOP the GOP/NRA's ..

"Wild West America" . . .

[Euromutt]

89. Viva mob rule, eh?

There are two small problems with your pipe dream.

The first is the Constitution, in this particular instance the Second Amendment. See, the commonly wielded definition of a democracy in this day and age is "the will of the majority, with respect for the rights of the minority." Things like constitutions are there to prevent a tyranny of a (slim) majority depriving a minority of its freedoms. But you can change the Constitution; all it takes, once an amendment has been formally proposed, is ratification by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. which brings me to the second problem...

Do you think you're going to find 38 states prepared to abolish the Second Amendment? I think you're suffering from what friendly_iconoclast on this forum has termed BEIKVFMcG ("But Everyone I Know Voted For McGovern") syndrome, the mistaken belief that one's views represent those of a majority, even an overwhelming majority, based on interacting with a non-representative sample of the population. Strange as it may sound to you, the overwhelming majority of posters, and certainly those who have been consistently present for some time, identify as Democrats, and yet there are still plenty of us who don't want to see gun control extended purely on the basis of "but guns are only good for killing"-type appeals to emotion. Now think that you have to also convince the swing voters and probably a segment of those who identify as Republicans, and you've got your work cut out for you.

What I'm telling you is this: you are not "the public," no matter how hard you wish otherwise. The most recent Gallup polls (not noted for producing RKBA-friendly results) indicate that a majority of the American public do not share your views. That doesn't necessarily make your opinions in private firearms ownership incorrect, but it does mean that your notion of what "the public" wants is very probably wrong.

[defendandprotect]

148. Oh, you mean the elite description of democracy . . . what do they call it? Mobocracy?

[Euromutt]

226. You say "elite" as if it's a dirty word

Some of that Palin folksy style rub off on ya?

[paulsby]

165. also known as pauline kael syndrome

when she lamented that she couldn't understand how nixon won when everybody she knows didn't vote for him. that says a lot more about the narrowness of pauline kael's friends, than about the election

[SteveM]

190. Please note the 14th Amendment...

...and its history in the defense of civil rights (most especially in preventing the states from denying civil rights).

[Tejas]

49. and.......

"no court in the land is going to say that is NOT true!!!"


You base this ASSumption on.......?

[defendandprotect]

60. And . . . courts will control guns because the public will demand it . ..

yes -- we have a noisy minority of GOP/NRA . . . but in the end the public --

and police want gun controls extended.

[Euromutt]

67. Got evidence for that assertion?

To the best of my understanding, most rank and file LEOs don't have a problem with the current state of firearms laws. Various police chiefs may say otherwise, but they're all too often political appointees, who find it advisable to repeat the opinion of the mayors and city councils who appointed them, and can fire them.

The several month-long storm of sales of firearms and ammunition following the election of Barack Obama as president indicates that there's a rather large segment of the populace who would prefer not to see gun controls extended, and snapped up firearms and ammunition lest they they might not be able to in the not-too-distant future. Believe me, a lot of those people buying guns earlier this year weren't people who were already gun owners; a lot of them were people who had considered acquiring one or more firearms, and decided to move before that option was taken away from them.

[defendandprotect]

84. Members are leaving NRA ... and GOP . . . Courts will side with states and public vs NRA . . .

and their profits --

And no court is going to finally decide that the NRA runs America --

In the end, they will agree that the states have the right to control guns.

And they do -- if you simply look at Katrina and who took the guns away!

[eqfan592]

91. Wow, how wrong are you ever.

Sure, members may be leaving the GOP, but the problem your having is that being in the "gop" is not a requirement for being a gun owner nor for believing that the Brady Campaign (Ironically, a GOP organization) is full of shit on this issue. Firearm ownership rates continue to increase, as does support for concealed carry. The majority of Americans either wish to actually loosen the current restrictions or keep the same level of restrictions. Those seeking more restrictions are in the minority now, and they become a smaller minority every day.

The reality is that it's YOU and the Brady Campaign that are actually working for a "more violent" America, though I'm sure you don't even realize this. There's no statistical evidence that shows any sort of causal relationship between firearms ownership and violent crime. Everything we can see points to there being other much larger factors, such as education, poverty, etc. People like yourself and the Brady campaign are a constant distraction from these issues. You either make people believe that this useless legislation will actually fix the problems (which they wont) or you push people who do buy into it away from the progressive movement (even though your ideals are regressive) which costs us support in getting the changes we need to have a real impact on violent crime.

You and the Brady Bunch the real problem here, defendandprotect,. Not us.

[Euromutt]

95. No, I said *evidence*, you bliss ninny

Not more unsupported assertion and pipe dreams. I'm talking about survey results that indicate that an overwhelming majority of the voting populace and law enforcement officers in this country share your opinion. Because, frankly, I don't believe either group does.

And as I recall, the weapons confiscations in the wake of Katrina required a damn sight more government personnel than Louisiana had available. Federal agents, cops from as far away as California and New Jersey, Blackwater goons, and even then they could only manage it in a place that had just been hit by a natural disaster where a large chunk of the populace had evacuated. I know of at least a couple of residents of New Orleans who didn't have their firearms confiscated because they took them with them when they left before the storm hit.

And Nagin's order to confiscate privately owned firearms was ultimately ruled to be illegitimate.

[DonP]

101. Huh? NRA membership is at an all time high. Ntxt

[paulsby]

167. still waiting for you to backup your claim

about what cops think.

as somebody who has been a cop for over 20 yrs, i suggest i have a better idea about what they think about gun control than you do.

cite me your poll

[paulsby]

166. show me a poll that says that the police

want gun controls extended

and don't show me IACP crap. that is an assocation of police CHIEFS they are no more representative of what cops think than an organization of CEO's of auto companies is going to speak for assembly line worker.

i'm a cop and most cops support RKBA.

show me a poll that shows that cops support stricter gun controls.

[PavePusher]

218. You just endorsed a policy that would allow slavery.

How very "Progressive" of you.

"Bread and Circuses" anyone...?

You are... MASSIVE FACEPALM

[Tejas]

50. by the way.....

"Meanwhile, the goal of the GOP/NRA is to create a violent America --"


Care to enlighten your audience with examples of mandates or statements of agenda, or even blood-in-the-streets diatribes besides what Brady et al might have to say?

[Tejas]

51. 4 fails in such a short post, you win an intarweb!

"most members are waking up to that now."

No, most members are much further ahead of the game than you, where have you been?


Geez, 4 out of 4, I think you just set a record for the most hyperbole vs shortest post.

[oneshooter]

107. What is important, is the security of the state -- and the state has the right to control guns

Sounds like a certain mustachioed fellow in 1936 Germany!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[taurus145]

131. What drivel! Dangerous, but still drivel

What is important in this country is the security of the people. We do not live to serve and protect the state. Government exists to serve and protect the people.

We generally avoid referring to the government as the state. It's been overdone in the communist parts of the world. As a practical matter, it avoids confusion as well; 50 states - one Federal government.

I'll keep editing until I learn to typr.

[cabluedem]

228. Yes. The NRA and common gun ownership is going bye bye. nt

[X_Digger]

230. What planet are you from, and when does the ship leave to go back home?

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/07/graphics_matter.html

(Click on the graph, I'll be kind and not link it directly).

[eqfan592]

232. THANK YOU!

I remember seeing that graph some time ago and forgot to bookmark it! I've just fixed that. Thanks for posting it!

[Linoge]

242. Spaceba

Speaking as the proprietor of the webpage in question, thanks for not directly posting the graph! I appreciate the traffic, and definitely appreciate the lack of bandwidth abuse :).

[Euromutt]

54. Not "military," it's "military-style"; there's a reason the latter term is used

You know what "<adjective>-style" means in marketing, right? I'm sure you see the term every time you enter a supermarket. It means the adjective cannot truly be applied to the product, but the manufacturers certainly hope you'll think it's a decent simulacrum of the real thing. At the least offensive end of the spectrum, we have "Canadian-style" bacon, which is for all intents and purposes identical to the back bacon found in Canada, but not actually from Canadian pigs; at the more offensive end, we have "home made-style" baked goods and desserts, where the term is meant to invoke an impression of the product being lovingly hand-crafted in small batches by a kindly, (grand)motherly lady, rather than being mass-produced in some factory, which is what they actually are. Then, at the far end of the offensive end of the "-style" spectrum, we have "military-style assault weapons."

"Assault weapon" is a neologism coined in the late 1980s by noted gun prohibitionist Josh Sugarmann to broadly indicate a firearm that is a semi-automatic-only (i.e. fires one shot with each pull of the trigger) version of a weapon that in military use would be capable of automatic and/or burst fire (i.e. fires multiple shots with each pull of the trigger); examples include assault rifles like the M16 and AK-series, and sub-machine guns like the Thompson, Uzi and MAC-10. The very fact that these firearms are, in their military-issue versions, capable of automatic fire makes their "assault weapon" versions non-military. Their very utility to any military force derives from their automatic fire-capability. Ergo, "military-style" ≠ military.

On the other hand, we have weapons like the M1 and M1A1 carbines pictured in the OP. These are indisputably military weapons (not "military-style"), in that that they were standard-issue military weapons 50-70 years ago. However, when they were in service, they were by no means "assault weapons." The M1 carbine was designed to be a defensive firearm to be issued to personnel who would not usually directly inflict damage on the enemy, like truck drivers, radio operators, infantry company commanders, etc. and for whom it would therefore be inconvenient to carry the larger and heavier M1 Garand rifle, but who might need something with a bit more range and firepower than a pistol could provide if they found themselves in trouble.

The fact is that most of the weapons commonly identified as examples of "military-style assault weapons" are not military, and all of them are ill-suited to military assaults, as they lack the firepower derived from automatic fire capability, which the actual military weapons have.

[benEzra]

55. Actual MILITARY "assault weapons" (aka real assault rifles) are as tightly controlled as bombs.

Non-automatic Title 1 CIVILIAN rifles with modern styling, on the other hand, are available on the same basis as any other non-automatic civilian rifle, as it should be.

[defendandprotect]

57. Well, we should all be cheering that loophole, I presume???

[Euromutt]

61. What loophole?

Weapons capable of automatic fire derive a large part of their lethality from that capability; that's why armed forces use them, instead of the semi-auto-only versions of the same basic design. The US armed forces use M16 variants capable of automatic fire; they don't use the semi-auto-only versions that are inaccurately described as "military-style assault weapons." Similarly, Mikhail Kalashnikov designed his automatic rifle to be fired primarily in automatic mode, not least because one of the weapons it was supposed to replace was the PPSh-41 sub-machine gun. The PPSh-41, for your info, fires a pistol cartridge that is not especially lethal by itself, but it fires 15 of them per second, and with a 71-round drum magazine, it can spit 15 rounds per second for nearly five seconds.

The point being that single rounds from these weapons are likely to not be fatal; that's why the military weapons have the option of firing a lot of them in a short space of time. Civilian-legal semi-auto-only weapons (so called "assault weapons") do not.

[defendandprotect]

66. The "style" which keeps assault weapons not so controlled . . .

[Euromutt]

98. There is no loophole

There's one set of rules that governs possession and transfer of automatic weapons, and another set that governs the possession and transfer of non-automatic weapons. Different classes of firearm, different sets of laws. Where's the loophole?

[HALO141]

222. dude...

There's no way in hell you could REALLY be that fucking deluded.

[benEzra]

63. There's no loophole; ALL automatic weapons are restricted; NON-automatic weapons aren't

as long as they meet the barrel length, overall length, etc. requirements of the National Firearms Act that apply to ALL civilian firearms.

You do realize that you're talking about banning the most popular civilian rifles in the United States, yes? And that more Americans lawfully own them than hunt?

[defendandprotect]

69. ...because Americans really, really need "military-style" assault weapon!!!!

[eqfan592]

81. wow, epic logic fail for you! (nt)

[defendandprotect]

85. wow, epic logic fail for you! (nt)

[eqfan592]

93. no, epic logic fail for you!

I can do this all day, buddy. The difference is that you're wrong. See some recent posts for confirmation of this. :P

[Euromutt]

106. Freedom isn't predicated on need

Freedom is getting to do whatever you want, even if other people can't see the attraction, as long as you don't inflict material harm on any unwilling parties.

We don't need the internet; we managed without it up to a few decades ago didn't we? And if we got rid of the internet, we could certainly cut down on all sorts of harmful activities, such as the identity theft, dissemination of child pornography, communication between terrorists and organized criminals... Mind you, all those activities occurred before the internet arrived too, so it's not like you'd eradicate those if you got rid of the internet. And so, on balance, we keep it because even if it makes certain criminal activities easier, it provides a large measure of convenience and entertainment to its users.

Nobody needs to go clubbing all night, or engage in BDSM, or drink coffee, or buy Kenny G records, or (a handful of cancer patients excepted) smoke marijuana, but we can't legitimately ban these activities simply because nobody needs to engage in them.

The overwhelming majority of people who legally possess semi-automatic firearms--including long guns with detachable magazines and pistol grips and bayonet lugs and whatnot--don't use them to unlawfully inflict harm on others. Why should their freedom be restricted because of the comparatively tiny number of people who do? Would it be legitimate to confiscate everybody's cars because a minority of drivers fuck up every year, resulting in 46,000+ deaths? Would it be legitimate to confiscate everyone's computers because a comparatively small number of identity thieves use them to commit credit card fraud? Would it?

[benEzra]

126. Just like Americans really, really need "subversive" websites like this one...

Look past the loaded term intended to get you to just shut your brain down and react on emotion, and look at what is actually being restricted. Wasting political capital to outlaw rifle handgrips that stick out, when all rifles combined account for only 2.6% of murders and falling, is asinine.

[paulsby]

168. the need canard

combined with an argument against aesthetic gun qualities.

[Caliman73]

130. No, you should actually use your brain to think about REAL differences.

Rather than continuing to have knee jerk emotional responses. There are far more effective ways to decrease violence in society than trying to ban the objects by which some people choose to commit that violence. Unfortunately scared people are non-thinking people and the cling to whatever they think MIGHT make them safe. They support the State in restricting rights until the State decides to restrict a right with which they agree.

Are you in favor of the State restricting speech that the State deems a threat to its security? You must be in favor or racial profiling and searches without warrants right? I mean they are going after people that they feel are a threat to the State. All those people that are being held with no charges and no access to due process? That is cool right?

[taurus145]

135. There's no loophole

Think about it. No matter how similar a true AK and a sporting version of the AK may look, a sporting AK is not a military version. NO FULL AUTO OPTION!

It's analogous to a cross dresser: No matter how much he/she may look like the opposite sex, it's the plumbing that counts.

[Tejas]

140. The NRA is the biggest hoax played on -you-

"GOP/NRA are two of the largest hoaxes ever played on American public!"




There are 80 million gun owners in this country, the NRA has 4 million members.


If you have trouble with the math, feel free to ask for help.

[Redneck Socialist]

2. Oh noes, teh horrors...

:eyes:

It's the living room exception and the parking lot loophole.

Everyone run for your lives!

<runs around with arms in air screaming>

[Irreverend IX]

3. Not this shit again.

Gun shows have never been a common source of crime guns. There's nothing special about gun shows that allows people to buy and sell guns without a background check. Private individuals who aren't in the business of selling firearms can sell a gun to another person anytime, and online classifieds are a bigger venue for these sales than gun shows are now. And there's always a major police presence at gun shows, making them an inhospitable environment for criminals.

[joecool65]

14. Interesting graph

But where do "family & friends" purchase their weapons?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. They purchase the guns legally and illegally transfer them to criminal relatives.

[greennina]

18. Exactly!

It's existing gun owners that need to be banned. The shows are only a small reason for the violence in this country. As your graph shows, it's people that are stupid enough to own one of those things giving them to someone that is even more stupid.

[Edweird]

29. That's right! Look at New Hampshire - essentially NO restrictions - knee deep in blood and guts!!!!

And we all know how prisons - being gun free (and knife) free are bastions of tranquility and safety. OBVIOUSLY guns are the problem. Don't you feel sorry for those poor poor criminals that have been corrupted by those evil stupid gun owners? Maybe you should host them in your home. Give them place to 'detox'. Since your place is surely gun free, you must not have anything to worry about from even the most violent of criminals. Right?

[Euromutt]

45. How do you ban a class of people?

And do you lean towards deportation or execution of existing gun owners?

It might be noted that there over the past ten years, there have been fewer than 500,000 (and generally fewer than 400,000) violent crimes (simple and aggravated assault, sexual assault and rape, robbery and homicide) committed with firearms annually. Assuming that the BJS numbers are still applicable, and even assuming each weapon was used for one crime, and came from a different source every time, that means that something in the order 175,000 firearm owners tops are responsible for transferring firearms to people they shouldn't have. There are an estimated 80 million gun owners, so the "family and friends" we're talking about make up maybe 0.2% of the total number of firearm owners. For every gun owner who gives/sells a gun to a friend or relative who's legally prohibited from owning a firearm, there are 499 who do not. Does it really seem fair to hold those other 499 (or more) responsible for the misconduct of the one?

[defendandprotect]

70. By ending the Drug War, for one . . . . and by stopping the GOP/NRA . . . .

[eqfan592]

111. I agree on ending the drug war....

...but "Stopping the NRA" has nothing to do with it. But you know this already. It's been made pretty clear to you by multiple posters.

[defendandprotect]

203. And I presume you have noticed the many posters who agree?

The NRA is a tool of the GOP -- it is intended to create FEAR among the public --

and to create a violent America.

It's succeeded in large part.

The Drug War, of course, is part of that on both counts!!

[DonP]

241. Pssst, don't tell all the Dems the NRA supported in the last election.

My Rep, Debbie Halvorsen got an A rating from the NRA and the Illinois State Rifle Assn. she's also a member of the NRA and so is her son in the Army.

Maybe we should demand that she and the rest of the Dems all give the money the NRA-ILA gave her campaign back, and you can write all the Dems they supported a personal check to replace it. That way they can meet your self defined standard of Dem "Purity".

You have a really simplistic view on life don't you. Is all of your thinking based on bumper stickers, or just the political part?

[defendandprotect]

246. It would seem more like those who worship guns and violence have a simplistic ...

view --

I'd have no problem with voting against a Democrat who supported the GOP/NRA agenda ...

[X_Digger]

249. Then you have a lot of democrats to campaign against.

Howard Dean, Bill Richardson are the two that come to mind.

[defendandprotect]

250. We certainly do . . .

and if Howard Dean is involved, I'd have no problem with that either --

I like Dean -- however, I'd like to hear his reasons for backing a GOP/NRA agenda ...

[X_Digger]

252. So you admit that the "NRA=GOP" is bullshit?

I mean, obviously if a lot of democrats are of a similar mind, then your two dimensional paper doll treatment of the issue must be blown to confetti, right?

[defendandprotect]

255. No -- it's the GOP/NRA just as surely as it is the GOP/"pro-life" movement . . .

You think the Democratic Party can be infiltrated and co-opted by corporations and

moved to the right, but not by DINO's who do the same thing in the Democratic Party --

think DLC.

We have a bunch of holy roller Dems -- on C Street/The Family -- a "pro-life" movement

in the Democratic Party!! Stupak!!

You don't think the same would be done with the NRA???

Wow . . . naive --

[eqfan592]

258. That would make sense....

....if protecting the 2nd Amendment wasn't a progressive ideal. But given that it is, and always has been, in spite of the true "infestation" coming from conservative orgs like the Brady Campaign, you couldn't be more wrong.

[X_Digger]

259. The DLC / Third Way is the _source_

..of anti-gun planks in the Democratic platform.

Until the late 60's, it was _democrats_ who stood up for gun rights, and _republicans_ who were for taking gun rights away from 'those kind of people' (minorities, women, union members / organizers, "communists and socialists").. you really should look at the history of gun control legislation.

Free tip: Google "Ronald Reagan Mulford Act"

[defendandprotect]

263. If the DLC is anti-gun then they are correct . . . for once . . .

Democratic platform is anti-gun -- another correct step --

Until the 1960's the NRA wasn't being used by the right as it is now . . .

Listen to Michael Moore speak about that --

This is an issue of SELLING GUNS/arming everyone --

creating a violent America -- creating a "third world America."

On an issue like guns, you really don't need much "history" to understand their violence

and the need to rid our societies of them --

[X_Digger]

265. If this, if that..

Why do you continue to blather on about a subject in which you obviously lack knowledge?

[defendandprotect]

268. The subject is the GOP/NRA and their destructive policies for America . . .

your concentration is simply on having a gun in your hand --

Sad truth -- keep it --

You're now on "Ignore" --

[PavePusher]

271. A short list of some of their policies?

Please?

[defendandprotect]

273. Avoiding regulation of guns - creating an atmosphere of fear to create a need for guns ...

You don't think GOP policies are destructive for America -- ???

Or are you saying that ONLY in the case of guns is the GOP destructive--- ????

[eqfan592]

276. Several of the regulations on the books now....

..came from republicans, such as the import ban from Bush Sr, or the Brady Bill that was created and supported by various republicans (such as Ronald Reagan).

Before you can argue that avoiding further regulation of firearms than we already have is a destructive policy, you have to prove that this regulation will actually do anything to lower the crime rate. This is something you have failed totally at doing.

[PavePusher]

278. Cite? Proof? Come on, you can do this.... n/t

[X_Digger]

272. My "concentration" is knowing the subject at hand

The history of firearms, firearms legislation, the politics of gun control past and present- you know, subjects that might prove useful for a productive discussion.

[eqfan592]

275. lol, so you just ignore people who call you out on your shit, is that basically it?

Nice. Very enlightened of you. Your problem is that you're totally unwilling to accept when you've been shown to be wrong, as has been done multiple times now on this thread. That's OK though, you can place us on ignore, but that doesn't stop other people from watching you get pwned :P

[eqfan592]

254. Well, at least you've dropped any pretence of actually wanting to debate the issue.

What's funny is that you claim those of us who don't agree with you have a "simplistic" view. Yet while people on our side of bombarded you with large amounts of statistical data and other evidence to make our points, you have failed to do the same. Your entire view seems to be based off of bumper sticker one-liners, which is pretty damned simplistic in my book.

[defendandprotect]

56. Presume you run a gun show?

[JonQ]

71. Damn your statistics man!

Why can't you just be outraged by this? Guns sold at these shows are scary looking! Many of them are even black.

Think about all the children(tm) that will be saved if we ban these things.

Note, do not actually research the actual number that will be saved by this proposal, or the costs, that would mean that you hate children and work for the NRA.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Hang on - I'm making a big batch of popcorn.

[eqfan592]

37. Seriously, this "popcorn" stuff needs to stop.

The "joke" stopped being funny about 80,000 uses ago. These are serious issues that are affecting our nation one way or another, with people who have wildly different viewpoints on how they are to be solved, and your stupid ass bullshit excuse for a joke is degrading to people on both sides of the debate. It's rude and disrespectful, and it's about god-damned time for it to stop.

[Tejas]

52. I happen to like popcorn

Levity isn't a crime, and at times it could be the only thing preventing 30 applications of 7.62 to my monitor.

:rofl:

[eqfan592]

92. lol, true.

I was in the middle of a migraine when I made that previous post, and for whatever reason is just REALLY pissed me off. (Don't worry grabbers, no shots were fired because of my rage. I know you like to believe that when a gun owner gets mad, the first thing they like to do is grab a gun and start shooting the place up, but this is not in fact the case.) :P

[paulsby]

169. lighten up francis nt

[eqfan592]

186. See post 92. (nt)

[paulsby]

188. i'm there nt

[eqfan592]

194. Good deal then. :)

And I recommend this photo when using the "Francis" quote.




:toast:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. And none of it was against the law and that's the way it should stay.

[LynneSin]

20. so you're ok if a psycho neighbor or abuse spouse or a crazed nut job...

can just walk into a gunshow like that and buy a gun.

:eyes:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. Those adjudicated mentally ill are legally barred from firearm possession.

As are those who are convicted of spousal abuse. I would love the see the NICS opened up to private sellers but that's not enough for some here.

[LynneSin]

30. Clearly it doesn't make a different to some sellers at these gun shows

This isn't about preventing law-abiding citizens the rights to buy and own a gun. It's about closing these loopholes that make it too easy for criminals to buy them

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. The dealers at gun shows are regulated by federal law.

[defendandprotect]

75. The GOP/NRA aren't famous for listening . .. . it's about power and $$$$ ....

and they will trample whatever is in their way to get it --

[slackmaster]

100. Unlicensed people HAVE NO WAY TO CHECK THE BACKGROUND of a prospective buyer

Make NICS available to the general public, with safeguards to prevent misuse.

[defendandprotect]

205. We can have a delay for a medical procedure like abortion, but not for guns . .. ???

Certainly no one needs a gun immediately --

no background check -- no gun!

[X_Digger]

210. So one stupid measure deserves another?

Seriously? That's the best you got?

[defendandprotect]

244. No . . . one wrong decision CAN be followed by one correct decision . . .

[X_Digger]

245. Same decision, same infringement..

.. oh, but when it's 'ooh teh gunz' it's all good, ehn?

My what hypocrisy.

[defendandprotect]

248. The GOP/NRA view of the 2nd amendment is the infringement . . .

on the peace of our societies --

As at least one former US Supreme Court Justice has made clear --

[X_Digger]

251. So you don't think that making one wait..

.. for an abortion is an infringement?

You should talk to MLK..

"A right delayed is a right denied." by Martin Luther King Jr.

[defendandprotect]

256. Okay . . .

now you're becoming nonsensical --

MLK, Jr. was talking about Segregation, Inc. --

And in terms of justice denied --

Having juries decide one's fate is "a right denied" -- ?

Abortions grow more serious in days and weeks -- whether they are elective or

medically urgent.

Just the contrary is true of guns. Look at the situation with the guy at Ft. Hood.

Would a delay have helped there? A background check? Of course!!

[eqfan592]

260. OMFG!

"Just the contrary is true of guns. Look at the situation with the guy at Ft. Hood.

Would a delay have helped there? A background check? Of course!!"

PROVE IT!!!! Jesus Christ man, you have TOTALLY FAILED to offer proof for a SINGLE assertion you have made in this entire discussion! Just once, offer up some evidence that the shit that dribbles out of your brain actually has some basis in reality and PROVE IT!

Also, I was unaware that there was no background check done in that incident. Please site a source. And for the record, I can already provide sources stating that you are incorrect in this, but I'm giving you a chance to show where you might have read this incorrect assessment.

[X_Digger]

261. Let me restate: are arbitrary waits for the exercise..

.. of a constitutionally protected right an infringement of the right? If you think that's cool, you really should talk to our GLBT members about that.

[defendandprotect]

262. Restating it isn't going to help the reasoning . . .

Reread my last post to you --

Ft. Hood -- and many other instances of violence -- show us that keeping records in government

hands, background checks and delay work to the benefit of society as a whole in the matter of GUNS.



None of the other issues you are discussing -- homosexual rights, abortion -- which are human

rights -- are the same.


And it's just another attempt to confuse the issue -- or to confuse yourself.

[X_Digger]

264. Exactly how would an _arbitrary_ delay help?

If you're arguing for a more thorough background check, that's another issue, but an _arbitrary_ delay?

Do you even know about the waiting period introduced with the Brady Bill? In 1994, when the Brady Act became law, a mandatory 5 day waiting period was imposed on all handgun purchases. This waiting period was in effect until 1998 when the NICS (National Instant Check System) was implemented. The DOJ (Clinton's DOJ, mind you) determined that the arbitrary waiting period had _no_ effect on crime prevention. None. Nada. Zip.

None of the other issues you are discussing -- homosexual rights, abortion -- which are human

rights -- are the same.

So wrong.

Self-defense, effective self-defense is the first right of being human. Even the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts the right to life and security of person. (Hence the right to defend life and security.) Philosophers from the 17th century on have asserted this. Locke said it best.

http://www.4lawschool.com/lib/locketable.htm

And thus it is that every man in the state of Nature has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury (which no reparation can compensate) by the example of the punishment that attends it from everybody, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal who, having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger, one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security.

[defendandprotect]

269. When you begin to concentrate less on violent defense and move to life-affirming

responses, you may work yourself out of your rut --

Meanwhile, shall we permit you to have a tank or an atomic bomb to protect yourself --

or will you choose to strap grenades to your body . . . just in case?

Evidently, the idea of working for a peaceful society escapes you.

Nor do you seem to recall, rather conveniently, what "Katrina" showed you -- your guns

were taken away. And that will always happen.

Bye --

Happy Thanksgiving --

[X_Digger]

274. Post-Katrina, state legislatures in 16 states and the US congress..

.. passed laws forbidding the practice of confiscating legally owned firearms during an emergency.

So much for "always"

Fairfax, VA - Michigan’s State Legislature has passed a two-bill package backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to create the state’s “Emergency Powers Protection Act” (HB 6363 and HB 6364). The new laws prevent local governments from confiscating lawfully owned firearms during a declared state of emergency, as witnessed in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.

“Law-abiding Michiganders have won a significant victory in the State Legislature,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina confirmed a fear long-held by American gun owners: the day government bureaucrats declare our Second Amendment null and void, leaving law-abiding citizens defenseless in the midst of chaos and lawlessness.

“We promised then to take measures to ensure that the Second Amendment is not another casualty during a declared emergency and we are proud to have delivered on that promise.”

In the first year since Hurricane Katrina, state legislatures in Alaska, Idaho, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia and Louisiana passed measures that echo the spirit of Michigan’s “Emergency Powers Protection Act”.

This fall, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate passed a similar federal bill with broad, bipartisan support, which President Bush signed in October.

To ensure that law-abiding Missourians won't ever suffer the same fate as those in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, legislation is currently moving through the General Assembly that would protect your Second Amendment rights during a state of emergency.

State lawmakers cited the chaotic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina they gave preliminary approval January 29 to legislation that would block government officials from seizing firearms during a state of emergency in Georgia.

[PavePusher]

279. And again you avoid answering questions.

Tell me, if some criminal is trying or threatening to kill me, what "life-affirming response" do you suggest I use? Right now, I am prepared to affirm my own life, I can not gaurantee my response will affirm the life of the criminal.

Awaiting your suggestions.

[Euromutt]

280. You need to take your own advice

Nidal Malik Hasan bought the FN Five-seveN he used in the Fort Hood shooting from a federally licensed dealer, which means he underwent a NICS check to buy it. He also bought it more than two months before he committed his mass murder.

And for all the people who complain "why was he allowed to buy a gun?" my question is "why was he allowed onto a military facility?" Well, maybe the evidence against him wasn't all that strong. And Christ, he worked surrounded by other mental health professionals; how come none of them picked up on the guy's state of mind? You can't blame failure to prevent the Fort Hood shooting solely on firearms policy.

And actually, firearms rights do have a common root with gay rights and abortion rights, namely that they all derive from the principle of the right to self-determination. You have the right to defend yourself against an attempt to illegitimately infringe upon your freedom, and stealing your material possessions, or inflicting permanent injury or even death upon your person are all illegitimate infringements upon your freedom. Hence the right to self-defense. Given that you have the right to defend yourself, it follows that you have the right to defend yourself with the most effective means available; when it comes to protecting your life and limb, there's no reason you should be expected to fight with one hand tied behind your back.

[SteveM]

191. Please understand this: Gun shows do not sell guns...

Gun shows are little more than rent-a-halls where gun sellers/buyers come to transact business. Those who wish to buy/sell guns RENT table space to do this. The only difference between a gun show and someone selling a gun over the kitchen table is the rental fee.

Where do you think people will go if you "close these loopholes?" My guess is to court.

Also, why is only 1.7% of guns purchased by thugs at gun shows? Could it be because virtually all gun shows are monitored (inside and outside) by LEOs? And the crims know this? Only the stupidest thugs purchase at a gun show. Do you understand, now?

You may wish to join the debate over how or if NICS should be extended to the general public, and not to just FFL holders.

[defendandprotect]

206. The industry needs to be regulated -- including gun shows --

no background check -- no gun!

[SteveM]

236. Then advocate for the position that ALL citizens have access to NICS...

If you have been in this forum for even a short time, you would know that there are a considerable number of 2A defenders who advocate for this position; currently, those folks who are NOT federal firearms licensed dealers CANNOT access the NICS system, even if they wanted to.

If you wish to be constructive, and you have a mind for the technology of data storage, come up with a way that people can access the system, yet not have a permanent record held by the government (which would be tantamount to gun registration).

Do you really understand what a "gun show" is? It is a meeting place, as in a vacant field, as over a kitchen table. It is NOT an institute or agency. If you were to only pass legislation that said: You cannot sell/buy a gun at a gun show unless the buyer goes through a BG test, then gun sales would show up in that vacant lot near your house. If you wish to outlaw that, you would have a First Amendment problem. Your trying to, in the words of David Bowie, "put out the fire with gasoline."

[defendandprotect]

243. You're game-playing . .. we need a permanent record held by government . . .

AND we need total regulation of the "selling" of guns --

We also need a time delay -- and a lot of paperwork!!

Background checks . . .

[eqfan592]

247. How about you provide some evidence that long wait times and lots of paper work...

...will have any impact on crime???

Hell, I'm not even sure if there's evidence to show that background checks had any impact on crime due to the existence of a black market making it easy to circumvent the background check system entirely (a problem that wouldn't be solved even by making private sales require a background check). I'm not saying I'm against background checks, as its a fairly minor measure of safety to take and isn't much of an inconvenience. But the entire approach of attacking firearms to stop crime is a total waste of time in the long run. You can NOT stop crime by trying to control the implements of it. People find ways around your controls or they find new implements.

Crime must be combated at the SOURCE.

[X_Digger]

253. "A right delayed is a right denied.." MLK n/t

[defendandprotect]

257. In the case of Segregation, MLK, Jr. was correct ---

and, of course, THAT'S what MLK was commenting upon --

We use juries to decide the fate of cases . . . that's a delay we are willing to

take to ensure that justice is served.

Same with guns -- take the time to do a background check -- make sure that this isn't

an emotional purchase as in the case at Ft. Hood -- !!

[Euromutt]

266. How is a background check going to stop an "emotional purchase"?

How is any government supposed to set up and maintain a database of people's emotional states at any given moment? Is the NICS check going to involve a tarot card reader to determine the prospective buyer's emotional state at the time of purchase?

Besides, Nidal Hasan bought the FN Five-seveN last August, more than two months before he committed his mass murder. He did not buy the gun and then use it shoot to 43 people in a sudden fit of emotion.

[eqfan592]

267. Thank you for the info, Euromutt

I already shot down his idea that Nidal Hasan did not have a background check performed, but I couldn't track down specific info on when he purchased it.

Needless to say, though, that defendandprotect doesn't really seem interested in facts.

[SteveM]

281. No games at all: there shall be NONE of what you want. Clear? (nt)

[defendandprotect]

74. Right ... just like this latest nut at Fort Hood was "barred from fireaarm posssession" . . .???

[slackmaster]

102. He was barred from possession by the base's no-weapons policy

HTH

[defendandprotect]

204. ... but he went out and bought a weapon . . . no problems!!

Why are you ignoring that???

[oneshooter]

108. He was barred from possessing a firearm

INSIDE the boundaries of the Post. OUTSIDE of the Post he was allowed, by law, the possession of firearms. Just like you are, if you choose to. Just because you CHOOSE not to doesn't mean that others can not. If they CHOOSE to. A big part of the American freedoms is the right to choose.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[paulsby]

170. heck you don't even have to be convicted

all you need is a judge to determine based on a preponderance of evidence that a spouse or other domestic relation has reason to be in fear of you. heck, judges will even do it frequently against the wishes of the alleged victim.

a conviction is nice, of course

[Euromutt]

179. Got any evidence of this ever actually happening?

Seung-hui Cho bought both his guns from a licensed firearm dealer, and passed two NICS checks he shouldn't have. And the reason he did was because of bureaucratic foot-dragging on the part of the Virginia state government in reporting him to the FBI as having been adjudicated "a danger to himself and others" and thus mentally incompetent to possess firearms.

The fact that someone might theoretically get hurt if the state doesn't ban the relevant activity really isn't sufficient cause to restrict the freedom of citizens who haven't done anything wrong. Theoretically, listening to heavy metal and/or playing Dungeons & Dragons might cause teenagers to commit suicide--it's impossible to prove a negative, after all--but the fact is that despite some people's best attempts in the late 1980s/early 1990s, no compelling evidence could be produced that it did.

Similarly, one element notably lacking in these videos from Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign is evidence that drug gang members, wife-beaters and mass murderers do acquire any firearms they may use from gun shows. Surely, if there were evidence that this were the case, the gun control lobby would not hesitate to trumpet it from the rooftops. So the fact that they aren't is a strong indicator that such evidence does not exist.

[katandmoon]

7. In THIS country, people have more right to own a gun than you have not to be killed by one.

The NRA has done a very good job of brainwashing, aided by the fact that guns are shaped like phallic symbols.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. katandmoon, infatuated with penises as usual

[defendandprotect]

77. Yep . . . no one notices the relationsip between gun and penis . . .!!

[taurus145]

137. The only penis my wife has is mine

and she owns more guns than me.

The only penis envy she has is that I stand comfortably to pee. She told me so.

Any more questions?

[PavePusher]

219. You are...

MASSIVE FACEPALM

[michreject]

17. The right to buy a gun has been around longer

Than the NRA.

Try again.

[rl6214]

44. Seems that you have a penis problem

Or a penis envy problem or a penis worship problem because you always seem to some how related everything to a penis.

[virginia mountainman]

53. HA HA! google is your freind...

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,740 for katandmoon penis. (0.28 seconds)

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=katandmoon+penis&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Exposing truly obsessed folks, one post at a time...

[JonQ]

73. That is pretty funny

[taurus145]

138. Oh, you rotten fucker! Now I gotta go change clothes.

and clean the coffee off my keyboard and monitor.

I haven't laughed that hard in ages.

[JonQ]

72. Not really

your right to own a gun can go away, your right to not be murdered by one is permanent.

And I find your obsession with "phallic symbols" a bit disturbing. You may find out that clears up if you just get laid once in a while.

[defendandprotect]

76. The GOP has pushed the NRA vision of "Wild West America" . . .

and needless to say the Drug War has helped them create FEAR --

[virginia mountainman]

104. One question..

Just how do you plan to "defending and protect"??

[defendandprotect]

161. Well let's see. . . we can spend tons of taxpayer money on peace or war . . .

hmm... which way to go?

More nukes, or more peace?

tough one there --

[eqfan592]

187. so all you need for peace is cash? Gee, I had no idea!

:sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

195. No . . . what you need is more weapons and more guns -- we all understand that!!

That's the road to peace . . . I'm sure --

:sarcasm:

[eqfan592]

197. Ahhh, welcome again to the party, Mr. Strawman!!

[defendandprotect]

207. We're aware you learned a new word . . .

now learn to apply it --

[slackmaster]

103. Your reply reminds me of the joke about the guy taking a Rohrshach test

He described every ink blot as "breasts".

The doctor said "You seem to think about breasts a lot."

The patent replied "YOU'RE the one showing the dirty pictures!"

[taurus145]

174. I liked the Buschemi twist in Armageddon

"That one looks like you - wit breasts."

[paulsby]

171. penis canard

how original.

[SteveM]

192. Kinda late in the thread for the 'ol hooter-shooter stuff, aren't you? (nt)

[HALO141]

223. Feel free to leave any time.

Let me know if you need help packing.

[Euromutt]

225. Oh, horsecrap; if someone fatally shoots you, it's a criminal offense

Even if it's unintentional, we're still looking at an involuntary manslaughter charge. And no prior effort on your part is required to make sure that it is.

If you're miffed that it's not physically impossible for you to be shot, well, you can't blame the NRA for that, just like it's not the AAA's fault that it's not physically impossible for you to be killed in a motor vehicle collision. The risk of the latter occurring is significantly higher than the former, incidentally.

[Bitwit1234]

8. Remember they had a bill that

expired during bush's reign and the republicans wouldn't renew it.

[X_Digger]

35. The vote to not renew was 90 - 8 n/t

[pipoman]

153. A bill (sic) (actually a law) which cannot be demonstrated

to have prevented a single solitary violent act...none..

[anonymous171]

9. Stopped reading at "assault weapon"

[NNN0LHI]

10. Well lets see if this gets as much coverage as ACORN

[Kaleva]

11. This statement from the article is wrong

"One gun show seller in Ohio sold an AK-47 military-style assault rifle to Colin's associate, ..."

The AK-47 assault rifle is regulated by the following acts:

Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986
1968 Gun Control Act
1934 National Firearms Act

Unless one wants to spend a long stretch in prison, one cannot sell or buy an AK-47 assault rifle at a gun show.

Edit: Most likely, the gun in question was an semi-automatic AK-47 knock off.

[defendandprotect]

78. Ah . . . you missed it . . . "STYLE" . . . . the loophole . ..

[eqfan592]

83. I'm looking at all your posts here....

...did you forget your meds today?

[defendandprotect]

88. Is that your debate? An attempt at insults?

[eqfan592]

94. You're not really trying to debate though.

You ignore what everybody else says and are railing on and on with your poorly framed "arguments" and expressions of jaw-droppingly bad logic. This is what I call "ranting" instead of debating.

[defendandprotect]

112. Was the difference in the weapon "style" or not?

[eqfan592]

117. The article claims it's a "military-style" firearm.

This is factually incorrect. Other than "looking mean" the semi-auto knockoffs of the AK-47 are just that. Functionally it is equivalent to any other semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine.

A "military-style" firearm, to me, implies that it is functionally equivalent to a firearm that would be issued in the military, which is not the case here, given the difference between semi-auto and full-auto capabilities.

[defendandprotect]

208. Explain to me what anyone would think of "style" if they were not the NRA speaking????

If there are similarities at all . . . then it would be in the "style" of -- !!

That's the loophole --

[X_Digger]

212. Put down the bottle or step away from the keyboard..

.. you're not making sense anymore.

[HALO141]

224. How the fuck is that a "loophole?!?"

[Euromutt]

231. You know the phrase "style over substance"?

The manufactroversy over so-called "assault weapons" is about style, and by that I mean it's not about substance.

Let's take a look at two pictures:



Above, we have a Zastava M70AB2, a Yugoslav-made variant of the basic AK design, and standard issue to Yugoslav National Army paratroops and armored vehicle crews. Close examination of the fire selector lever (the vaguely triangular thing above the trigger) shows that it can be set to three positions: safe (top), automatic (middle) and semi-automatic (bottom).



This is a Zastava M70AB2 "Hunter." In appearance, it is almost identical to the rifle above, except that the fire selector lever has only two positions, safe and semi-auto. The "Hunter" version cannot fire on automatic because certain internal parts (sear, bolt carrier) are different. Of course, you can't see the difference without disassembling the rifles.

So we have two rifles almost identical in style (which is the idea), but crucially different in substance. The military version can produce automatic fire, the civilian one cannot. That makes the military version substantially more lethal than the civilian one. It's technically not even correct to call the civilian version an "AK," because "AK" stands for Avtomat Kalshnikova, Russian for "Kalashnikov's automatic rifle"; the design is intended to be used primarily on automatic, which is why the selector lever goes from "safe" to "automatic" first, and then to "semi-auto." ("Battle rifles" like the Belgian FAL and German G3 have selector levers that go to from "safe" to "semi-auto" and then to "automatic"; they are designed to be used primarily on semi-auto, with full auto being an option for emergencies.) The civilian-legal versions of the Kalashnikov rifle cannot fire on automatic, so they are not, strictly speaking "AK"s. At most, they are "PK"s: poluavtomat Kalashnikova ("Kalashnikov's semi-automatic").

Sheez, I don't know why I'm bothering to explain all this. It'll most likely fall on deaf ears anyway.

[eqfan592]

233. It's always worthwhile to combat ignorance :)

Especially on a forum such as this. Sure, the person you were replying to may not read this, but there's a chance somebody who may have been inclined to think along the lines of him/her will and they'll be given something to think about.

Great post as usual!

[SteveM]

237. About a year or so ago "military-style" was adopted by MSM as...

a modifier for the old, discredited "assault weapons" description. Like bigger fins on an old Chevy.

[Caliman73]

133. The difference in the firearm is FUNCTION.

the use of the word "style" is to try to help people differentiate between a selective fire firearm which fires multiple round bursts or fully automatic bursts, and a semi-automatic firearm that fires one round with each pull of the trigger.

I can paint my car, put a spoiler on it, racing tires, etc...but unless I change the engine, transmission, and other key components, it is still a passenger vehicle, and would not function as a racing vehicle. In the same vein of argument, I can follow the laws and drive my car safely or I can choose to break the law and endanger people. The use or misuse of the object should be regulated not the mere possession of the object.

[defendandprotect]

209. "Style" is being used as a marketing loophole . . .

And this is what one of you fellow NRA posters said about it --

Other than "looking mean" the semi-auto knockoffs of the AK-47 are just that.

"knockoff" . . . ??

"style" . . . ???

[Euromutt]

227. You're referring to something I said, aren't you?

Specifically, in this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=270522&mesg_id=270610

You've read it, but you haven't understood it. The term "military-style" is a concoction of the gun control lobby, intended to make people think that certain types of semi-automatic weapon--so-called "assault weapons"--are military-grade hardware, when in fact, they are not. There isn't an armed force in the world that would use a semi-auto-only AR-15 or Kalashnikov-pattern rifle, or a semi-auto-only Uzi. The rounds these weapons fire aren't especially capable of incapacitating an enemy individually (especially since armed forces of many countries are prohibited from using expanding bullets by the Declaration (IV,3) concerning Expanding Bullets appended to the Convention of The Hague of 1899 http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/170?OpenDocument ), so the original military weapons compensate for this by giving the firer the option of putting several bullets into the target in a very short space of time (less than a second) using automatic fire. Being hit by a single 9mm FMJ bullet from an Uzi or a 5.56mm FMJ bullet from an M16 might not put you out of the fight, but being hit by three or more probably will.

So-called "assault weapons" do not have this option of firing automatically, which makes them practically useless to armed forces. It certainly makes them utterly useless for military assaults, which tells you that the term "assault weapon," as applied to semi-auto-only small arms is also a concoction of the gun control lobby.

You may be familiar with phrase "style over substance." The gun control lobby's term "military-style" is exactly that: they focus on the style of the weapons, because they have nothing of substance to say.

[metalbot]

129. I can't tell if you don't really understand the issue or if you are being obtuse.

The reason that it's silly to pick on "military style" weapons is that they are functionally no different than "non-military style" weapons. The difference that make something "military-style" are purely cosmetic. Make the rifle black, put on a different stock, a more ergonomic grip, and suddenly you've got a "military style" firearm. It's no more or less lethal than if it looked cosmetically more like a hunting rifle. If anything, the more common "military style" rifles are considerably less lethal than most hunting rifles, because they (for the most part) fire much lighter bullets and have a more limited lethal range.

If you want to argue "people shouldn't have access to rifles", that's one thing (and it's an argument that I can understand, though not agree with). But if you're arguing that it's especially bad that people can buy "military-style" rifles, it doesn't really make sense, since there is no functional difference between "military style" and "not military style" rifles.

[defendandprotect]

211. Thanks for making clear that you've ...

wasted a lot of time with a game of semantics --

If you want to argue "people shouldn't have access to rifles", that's one thing (and it's an argument that I can understand, though not agree with). But if you're arguing that it's especially bad that people can buy "military-style" rifles, it doesn't really make sense, since there is no functional difference between "military style" and "not military style" rifles.

I believe everyone here who is arguing against guns, in general, has been perfectly clear.

And, let's end the game-playing --

[paulsby]

172. "style" came beforfe assault rifle

it was not an ASSAULT RIFLE of ANY style, i can guarantee you.

[lightningandsnow]

12. Sigh.

You do know that mentally ill people are 11 times more likely to be crime victims than the general population, right? http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/40/17/16.full

I have a mental illness. I never want to buy a gun, but I'm sick of this "OMG TEH CRAZEES WILL KILL US ALL!111!" crap.

[defendandprotect]

115. The mentally ill have NO more violent than any other part of our population . !!

but it's a good alibi for selling guns to those who fear their fellow citizens.

Personally, I'm more fearful of law enforcement and their violence -- especially

against vulnerable citizens!!

:)

[pipoman]

154. Holy shit

make up your mind already. Either you want a country which only the police have guns or not, which is it?

[defendandprotect]

159. Perhaps you noticed the conversation shifted to alleged

propaganda of violence among mentally ill people?

No one should have guns --

[pipoman]

175. Ohhhhh, you're one of THOSE people...Woulda, shoulda, coulda...

The moon should be made of cheese so we could solve world hunger when Jimmy Stewart lassos it and pulls it down for his beloved Mary.

When you've grown up someday and lost the rose colored glasses, come back and see us. It don't matter how hard you close your eyes and tap your heels together guns are never going to be uninvented or banished from the world. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Unrealistic, never, ever gonna happen scenarios or wishful thinking isn't helpful in any way to reducing violence. I would encourage you to rethink this issue. Since you obviously have a good imagination, imagine you know nothing about this issue, then spend several hours looking through threads here in the gungeon. Don't get bogged down in bickering or arguing simply read posts which state statistics on both sides and follow links to sources. I don't know how you would end up, only that maybe realism may induce something helpful in this ongoing debate.

[defendandprotect]

213. Try acknowledging the opening clause of the 2nd amendment . . .

then we'll discuss reality --

[X_Digger]

215. You've had it explained to you many times..

hell, many times _by me_, without a cogent response from you, so I'm left to assume you're being intentionally obtuse.

But just in case you forgot..

"well regulated" at the time, and in this context meant 'well functioning'-
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf

In Item 1, Anne Newport Royall commented in 1822 that Huntsville, Alabama was becoming quite civilized and prosperous, with a “fine fire engine” and a “well regulated company”. I suppose one could make the case that the firefighters were especially subject to rules and laws, but the passage is more coherent if read, “They have a very fine fire engine, and a properly operating company.”

William Thackary’s 1848 novel (item 4) uses the term “well-regulated person”. The story is that of Major Dobbin, who had been remiss in visiting his family. Thackary’s comment is to the effect that any well-regulated person would blame the major for this. Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”.

In 1861, author George Curtis (item 5), has one of his characters, apparently a moneyhungry person, praising his son for being sensible, and carefully considering money in making his marriage plans. He states that “every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.” Again, this cannot logically be interpreted as a person especially subject to government control. It can only be read as “properly operating”.

Edmund Yates certainly has to be accepted as an articulate and educated writer, quite capable of properly expressing his meaning. In 1884 (item 6), he references a person who was apparently not “strictly well-regulated”. The context makes any reading other that “properly operating” or “in his ideal state” impossible.

Secondly, let's look at the preamble to the Bill of Rights-

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

And finally, let's look at the second amendment itself-

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Grammatically this can be broken down into two clauses- a prefatory clause and an operative clause. Similar wording can be found in other writing of the time, though it's fallen out of favor these days. For comparison, see Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..". That construction- '{reason}, {statement}' exists today, but we usually swap the clauses- "I'm going to the supermarket, I'm completely out of soda." or we add in a 'because' or 'since'- "Since I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the supermarket." or "I'm going to the supermarket because I'm completely out of soda."

So with the point from the first section, the second section in mind, and rearranging the clauses per the third would yield a modern restatement of the second amendment as-

"Because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security, the government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed."

or

"The government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security."

Nothing in either of those statements says that arms are only for militia service, rather the ability to raise an effective militia is why protecting the right to be armed is protected. (Just like saying "Because I'm out of soda, I'm going to the store." doesn't mean you're only going to purchase soda, or that the store only sells soda.) Since we know from the preamble (and the 9th/10th amendment) that the bill of rights is not an exhaustive list of rights, we have to look outside the bill of rights itself to see if the founding fathers expected this right to extend beyond militia service.

State analogues of the second amendment that were adopted in the same timeframe give a clue-

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm (sections rearranged by me)

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution.<15> It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State..

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791.<32> Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state

Arizona and Washington: These states were among the last to be admitted to the Union.<55>* Their right to arms language is identical: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."<56>

Illinois: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."<89>**

So from analagous documents created by many of the same founding fathers or their peers, the individual right unconnected to militia service is fairly well laid out.

* Admittedly, not analogous in time to the others, but still demonstrates the point.
** same

[PavePusher]

216. O.K., I'll bite,

According to U.S. Code, I am in the Militia...

And therefore entitled to own full military issue arms.

How do you like them apples?

[pipoman]

220. The opening clause

doesn't effect the closing clause. So says SCOTUS unanimously.. The 2nd amendment is an individual right as it has always been, part of your understanding of this right should be reading the recent Heller vs. District of Columbia decision...this is the decision which SCOTUS unanimously agreed that the right to keep and bear arms is, in fact, an individual right in no way dependent on militia membership...unanimously.. time to quit wishing it says something it doesn't..

Reality is guns aren't EVER, NEVER EVER, going to..poof..disappear. I like how you haven't acknowledged that yet.

[aikoaiko]

23. Excellent fear mongering by the Brady Brunch

Seriously, whenever I feel guilty about the NRA's hyperbole, Paul Helmke says some stupid shit that makes the NRA seem more reasonable.

Unlicensed sellers must follow the rules of the state and not be a business. If they found people breaking the law, then they should report them.

If an unlicensed gun seller is in the "business" of selling guns, then they should report them to the ATF and they should be prosecuted.

There are already laws in place to deal with these situations.

[greennina]

32. What does that old TV show have to do with this?

Are you delusional?

[taurus145]

40. Get up to speed

Do your homework or get out of the discussion.

Ever hear of Sarah Brady? Ever hear of the Brady Center or the Brady Campaign?

Or are you being obtuse?

[greennina]

156. Of course I've hard of Sara Brady.

She does great work. I just couldn't imagine a sane person making fun of her like that. Also, why is that person on this site if they hate safety so much?

[taurus145]

162. Please. Go buy a clue.

[Euromutt]

46. It's a derisory term for the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence"

You'll find their website here: http://www.bradycampaign.org/
The organization's president, Paul Helmke, is the author of the HuffPo post quoted in the OP.

The term is motivated in no small part because the organization doesn't have members, only "supporters," and it counts everyone who writes, phones or e-mails as a "supporter." In practice, the Brady Campaign cannot be verified to represent the views of anyone except their own directors.

[SteveM]

193. You... you don't mean... the Brady bunch was... REPUBLICAN?! (nt)

[defendandprotect]

80. What's being made clear is that the "laws" aren't being inforced . . . that's the point -- !!

[oneshooter]

109. Do you have evidence of this?

If so it needs to go to the Federal BATFE. If you have this evidence and do not report it then you are as responsible as the criminal. If you have no evidence then SHUT UP.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[proteus_lives]

24. More brady bullshit.

[Missy Vixen]

25. The gun nuts will have this sent to the Gungeon in 3...2...1

Can't let the truth about gun shows and illegal sales of firearms get out, can they?

:sarcasm:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. According to the rules that's where the OP belongs.

[marmar]

28. I know......It's like a Glock-shaped Bat Signal

They come running and gunning. :)

[Merchant Marine]

34. Anti-Gun advocates

Are the ones who alert on these topics to keep them from sullying the purity of GD or Civil Rights.

[X_Digger]

36. It's the purity trolls who alert..

I'm happy to shine light on the hyperbolic nonsense anywhere it's posted- the bigger the audience the better.

[eqfan592]

38. Go back and look at who complains about posts being moved.

Oh, but then that's accepting reality, and your happy fantasy land where only the "gun nuts" do "bad things" is where you're much happier.

[GreenStormCloud]

68. Actually, we would love to be able to discuss guns in General Discussion.

But the mods always throw everything gun related to here. But they also do that with many other special topics too.

[SteveM]

238. Frankly, I'd love it if this post were "in the open," and not here...

I don't mind the exposition of the "truth" in the broadest context. But, dems is the rules. If you want to change the rules, you'll probably have more "allies" than you can stand.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[eqfan592]

39. Look at the comments section over at Huff.

It seems like for every Brady Campaign supporter there's at least 2 people pointing out the gaping holes in the logic they use. This is an encouraging sign to say the least.

[Euromutt]

47. That's why the Brady Campaign doesn't allow comments on its own site

Nor do the "Gun Guys" and various other anti-RKBA blogs. It's almost as if they're afraid of something...

[DonP]

139. I'm still looking for open comments on a website or gun control blog ... anywhere

I love how folks get on here and post about how gun control is the real (secret) demand of the majority, but I can't ever find a single Gun Control blog site - anywhere - out there.

With all the shooting sports web sites out there, you'd think that there would be at least one gun control site with comments open. After all, according to our gun control friends, there are so many of them out there.

You'd think they could keep at least one of them open for more than 15 minutes before closing it like the Brady Bunch has on both their web site and My Space page.

[krispos42]

41. "assault weapon": an arbitrary and perjorative term

Right up there with "death tax" and "partial-birth abortion". It's only purpose is to supress logic and reason with a surge of emotion and fear.


As to "military-styled"... what exactly is wrong with ergonomic features? Weather-proof furniture? Rustproof, non-glare finishes? Rugged reliability?

[taurus145]

42. Amen! n/t

[JoeyT]

43. Well...

Clearly it means we want to shoot a bunch of random people in the rain without getting carpal tunnel syndrome. Plus the random lightning flash won't glint off the barrel and uh...If we drop it in the mud it won't stop working! That's the ticket!

Even if we banned everything that was even remotely decent quality people would still make garage guns from scrap.
(Now watch the "OMFG ban teh bulletz!" crowd start to froth. As if you can't make balls and powder too.)

[defendandprotect]

82. Now the NRA propaganda is "pro-choice" and anti-elites?

I'm sure we're all repenting how unfair we've been to the GOPs/NRA . . .!!!

[krispos42]

132. Read "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff

Particularly the part about framing arguments.


The NRA, being about guns and gun ownership, does not have a position on abortion.

[derby378]

134. In fact, here's an article that builds on Lakoff's arguments...

http://a2dems.net/terms.htm

[defendandprotect]

160. I noticed your framing ..

Right up there with "death tax" and "partial-birth abortion". It's only purpose is to supress logic and reason with a surge of emotion and fear.

The linkage doesn't work --

[krispos42]

163. All three are emotional framing arguments

Two are right-wing, one is left-wing.

"Gay marriage" is another right-wing one, if you want more examples. "Death panel" is another.

I was not attempting to link them together except to note their usage as framing terms, designed to repress thought and enhance emotion.

[defendandprotect]

196. In the case of guns -- GOP/NRA -- the appeal to emotions is FEAR ......

An armed society is more of a threat to us than recognizing the "emotions" connected

to death by gun --

[eqfan592]

199. Oh really now?

I have no problem with the idea of my neighbor being armed, yet this is something you and the others like you fear greatly. it seems to me that it's YOUR side that appeals to the emotion of fear, not ours (though I am NOT on the GOP's side, nor am I automatically on the NRA side, nor are the two one in the same).

[defendandprotect]

214. The GOP/NRA have been built on FEAR. How else would you sell guns????

We're not talking about YOU personally --

We're talking about the good of society -- and it certainly isn't in having

everyone armed. We've been there. It doesn't work.

Unfortunately, the GOP and NRA are one and the same. The NRA is a tool of the GOP.

They have used it to create violence in America.

Think about it!!

Just as the GOP has used the "pro-life" movement --

Just as the GOP has used religious fanatics -- GOP gave start up funding to the

Christian Coalition -- other wealthy Republicans like Scaife financed Dobson organization

and Bauer's organization.

US/CIA created the Taliban/Al Qaeda in order to bait the Russians into Afghanistan in hopes

of giving them a "Vietnam type experience."

US/CIA also wrote, printed and shipped the VIOLENT Islamic text books which were used to

contaminate the Middle East with a violent fanatical version of Islam.

[PavePusher]

217. "Point" by point...

"We're not talking about YOU personally..."
The hell you're not.


"We're talking about the good of society -- and it certainly isn't in having
everyone armed. We've been there. It doesn't work."
Where? When? Everyone armed? How did I miss that. Oh, wait... you're lying again.


"Unfortunately, the GOP and NRA are one and the same. The NRA is a tool of the GOP."
I presume you have a breakdown of NRA membership by political party somewhere. Cite, please.


"They have used it to create violence in America."
Uh?! Again, cite, please.


"Think about it!!"
You first...


"US/CIA created the Taliban/Al Qaeda in order to bait the Russians into Afghanistan in hopes
of giving them a "Vietnam type experience."
US/CIA also wrote, printed and shipped the VIOLENT Islamic text books which were used to
contaminate the Middle East with a violent fanatical version of Islam."

:tinfoilhat:

[defendandprotect]

221. Point by point . . . you're underinformed . . .

The GOP gave start up funds for the Christian Coalition -
you're going to have to research this yourself --

Start here --

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Scaiife,+Mellon+and+the+right+wing+&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Right+wing+noise+machine&x=13&y=19

As for your tin foil problems . . .

"US/CIA created the Taliban/Al Qaeda in order to bait the Russians into Afghanistan in hopes
of giving them a "Vietnam type experience."
US/CIA also wrote, printed and shipped the VIOLENT Islamic text books which were used to
contaminate the Middle East with a violent fanatical version of Islam."
:tinfoilhat:


FIRST PART OF THIS DEALS WITH HOW US/CIA CREATED TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA . . .
TO BAIT RUSSIANS INTO AFGHANISTAN . . .!!!


SECOND PART DEALS WITH THE TEXTBOOKS --

----------------

REQUOTED FROM MY JOURNAL . . .

The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

Q: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Q: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

http://www.takeoverworld.info/brzezinski_i... ...


---------------------------------------------------

SECOND PART --


The US spent $100's of millions shooting down Soviet helicopters yet didn't spend a penny helping Afghanis rebuild their infrastructure and institutions.

They also spent millions producing jihad preaching, fundamentalist textbooks and shipping them off to Afghanistan. These were the same text books the Western media discussed in shocked tones and told their audiences were used by fundamentalist teachers to brainwash their charges and to inculcate in young Afghanis a jihad mindset, hatred of foreigners and non-Muslims etc.


Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped, and continues to ship, millions of Islamist textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd.

Washington Post investigators report that during the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (1)

According to the Post the U.S. is now "...wrestling with the unintended consequences of its successful strategy of stirring Islamic fervor to fight communism."

So the books made up the core curriculum in Afghan schools. And what were the unintended consequences? The Post reports that according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in violence."

How could this result have been unintended? Did they expect that giving fundamentalist schoolbooks to schoolchildren would make them moderate Muslims?

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without high officials in the US government approving those primers.

http://www.tenc.net/articles/jared/jihad.h...


Of course, we all know this is "conspiracy-free America" . . . !!

:eyes:



PS: If you worry about tin foil, try this ...



I used to have a much larger, more detailed photo of it -- but that's all for now.

[eqfan592]

234. Way to dodge the most important parts of the post you were replying to.

That's ok though, we all know why you did it. You know you were full of shit so there IS no evidence to support your assertions about the NRA and "everyone" being armed and how it "doesn't work."

[defendandprotect]

239. Could you be more desperate . . . ?

That's ok though, we all know why you did it. You know you were full of shit so there IS no evidence to support your assertions about the NRA and "everyone" being armed and how it "doesn't work."

Pitiful . . .

Where does that pass for debate?

You're on ignore --

[eqfan592]

240. lol, since when does avoiding the points entirely pass for debate?

You can't debate somebody if they are avoiding the points, and if they are avoiding the points, that's a sure sign they are full of shit. And instead of trying to prove me wrong, you put me on ignore. You just keep proving my point for me :P

[Euromutt]

235. Tinfoil-hatted history FAIL

US/CIA created the Taliban/Al Qaeda in order to bait the Russians into Afghanistan in hopes of giving them a "Vietnam type experience."

Not even close. For starters, when the Sovs invaded Afghanistan, neither the Taliban or al-Qaeda even existed, and wouldn't for another decade.

In April 1978, the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan seized power in a military coup. The dominant Khalq wing of the party imposed policies that were so anti-Islamic (e.g. requiring men to shave off their beards) that they triggered an insurgency, thereby starting the Afghan Civil War (which lasts to this day, though the parties involved have changed). The Khalq made themselves so unpopular that by late 1979, the PDPA government was on the brink of collapse.

At that time, Soviet foreign policy was guided by the "Brezhnev doctrine," which dictated that while the Soviet Union would not actively seek to bring communist governments to power in other countries, it would not allow an existing communist government (including ones that had come to power without Soviet assistance, such as the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the PDPA) to be overthrown. So the Sovs invaded in December 1979 to prop up the PDPA, though they did assassinate the leadership of the Khalq faction and replace them with the rival Parcham faction, in the hopes of making the PDPA less unpopular with the Afghan people.

The United States had not taken an interest in Afghanistan (ever) until the Soviets invaded, and it was only after the Sovs invaded that the CIA began funneling support to the Afghan mujehaddin. But because the US hadn't taken an interest in Afghanistan before, the CIA knew next to nothing about the place, and relied on the Pakistani secret service, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), to actually get the money and weapons to the mujehaddin. The problem is that Pakistan had, and still has, its own agenda with regard to Afghanistan, and this has greatly affected events in Afghanistan since 1979 (at hte very latest).

The border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is the "Durand Line," established in 1893 in a treaty between the British colonial government of India and Abdur Rahman Khan, then the Emir of Afghanistan. The border runs through the Pushtun tribal areas, and since the decolonization of the Indian subcontinent, Afghanistan has laid claim to the Pushtun tribal areas on the Pakistani side of the border. Pakistan, unwilling to give up this territory, has long pursued a policy of keeping Afghanistan destabilized, to prevent it from backing up its territorial claim.

Accordingly, the ISI funnelled the American-provided support (mostly Chinese-made copies of Soviet weapons) to those factions within the mujehaddin that were the most Islamist, Pushtun-centrist and uncompromisingly extremist, and thus the least likely to drive out the Sovs, topple the PDPA and successfully form a government of national unity. It's not a coincidence that, even after Soviet troops pulled out in 1989, the PDPA government (which renamed itself the "Homeland Party" and ditched much of its Marxist-Leninist ideology in June 1990) managed to hold on for another three years (admittedly still funded and armed by the USSR), ultimately outlasting the Soviet Union itself by four months.

With the PDPA out of the picture, the mujehaddin factions turned on each other, broadly divided into Pushtun siding with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-e Islami and Tajiks siding with Jamiat-e Islami, under the military leadership of Ahmad Shah Massoud. Initially, both sides were evenly matched, but in early 1994, Abdul Rashid Dostum switched sides, joining with Hekmatyar against Massoud*. Because Dostum had, at least on paper, quite a powerful force (4-5,000 fighters in the Kabul area, plus armored vehicles, artillery and even combat aircraft), this threatened to upset the balance of power in Hekmatyar's favor. It was probably at this time that the ISI started providing support to the Taliban.

The Taliban formed themselves out of hardline Islamist members of the Durrani tribe (Pushtun), and being from the predominantly Pushtun south, they were perfectly placed to form a dagger in Hekmatyar's back, and the ISI started to do so as soon as it looked like Hekmatyar might gain the upper hand against Massoud and force a conclusion to the civil war, potentially resulting in an Afghan government dominated by Pushtuns, who might seek reunification with the Pushtun on the other side of the Durand Line. With ISI support, the Taliban came practically out of nowhere to seize Kabul in 1996, but get bogged down in another five years of warfare against Massoud's Northern Alliance. The resurgence of the Taliban since 2004 also bears the fingerprints of the ISI at least in part, given how it's disrupted the stabilization process in Afghanistan.

Seriously, the cause of a large part of what has been wrong with Pakistan for at least 30 years can found in Islamabad.

US/CIA also wrote, printed and shipped the VIOLENT Islamic text books which were used to contaminate the Middle East with a violent fanatical version of Islam.

Are you referring to Wahhabism? The origins of that go back further than the United States; Muhammad ibn 'Abd Al-Wahhab lived from 1703-1792. His ideological descendants greatly influenced the formation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia--essentially, the Wahhabist clergy gave ideological backing to the House of Saud (and they take their name from Mohammed ibn Saud, who died in 1765) in exchange for which the Wahhabists would get to impose their extremist brand of Islam in territory conquered by the Saudis. Note, however, that this process occurred before oil was discovered in the Kingdom. Petrodollars have funded the spread of Wahhabism outside Saudi Arabia, but the initiative for this has come entirely from certain parties acting as private agents within Saudi Arabia.

Seriously, you need to lay off the tinfoil and read some books written by actual reputable historians.


* - Dostum is an Uzbek, and essentially a mercenary warlord; he started off on the communist side, leading his "militia" against the mujehaddin. When Moscow stopped paying him, he switched sides to Massoud's Jamiat in 1992, precipitating the fall of Kabul. He then crossed to Hekmatyar in 1994, then rejoined Massoud in the newly formed Northern Alliance against the Taliban in 1996. He fled Afghanistan a few times during the late 1990s, before returning in 2001 when Massoud ofered him enough money to resume fighting the Taliban. He then gained the support of the United States in late 2001--against the advice of the CIA, but this was while Rumsfeld was overruling the State Department at every turn--and became deputy minister of defense in the interim Karzai government. In 2003, he tried to carve out another personal fiefdom, the so-called Northern Zone, and repeatedly clashed with rival general, Ustad Atta Mohammed Noor, a Tajik and Jamiat veteran. He was pulled back into line, with Karzai appointing him "Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief of the Afghan Armed Forces" to sweeten the deal, though this position seems largely ceremonial.

[PavePusher]

270. Euro, thanks for the clueX4 assist.

I was going to illuminate the main points of D&P's retardery, but you've done that in much better language and detail than I could dream of. Re: the blog recommendation mentioned elsewhere; I concur, I think it would be fantastic. Even when I don't agree with you, I come away better informed and with some additional insights.

[paulsby]

173. i have a military styled laptop

it's ruggedized, and those were first used in, and are prominently used in, the military

ph33r my laptoP!!!!!!

[burrfoot]

277. ooooh...you just described my dream woman.... n/t

[slackmaster]

62. That's some slick propaganda the Brady people paid for

It's still bullshit.

[defendandprotect]

86. On the scene investigation . . . really unfair to GOP/NRA . . .!!!

[slackmaster]

99. He observed a few private sales that would have been legal anywhere in most states

So what?

Stop allowing those transactions at gun shows, and they will still happen; except scattered all over the place where it is not possible for law enforcement to attempt to monitor the activity for known prohibited individuals.

If you really want to fix the problem of unregulated private sales, the best solution IMO would be to make the federal background check system (NICS) available to private sellers with safeguards to prevent misuse of the system.

Very few people would knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited person. The real problem is that unlicensed people who have used guns to sell have no convenient, cost-effective means of checking the background of a buyer.

[defendandprotect]

116. The object of these sales is to sell guns . . . that will happen whether legal or not . . .

as is shown here --

[slackmaster]

121. Sorry, but there is no evidence here that any illegal sales took place

What are you referring to?

[defendandprotect]

122. Try watching the video -- multiple gun shows, multiple states ...

[slackmaster]

124. I saw no indication of unlawful transfers in any of the video

What are you referring to?

[defendandprotect]

144. Background check? Paperwork?

[eqfan592]

145. There is none required by law for a private transfer.

So unless the person buying the firearm stated clearly that he would NOT pass a background check, then no laws were broken.

Many of us 2a supporters here have argued that this system should be changed, but as of right now, private citizens cannot make use of the background check system (this is actually a somewhat complicated issue due to privacy concerns).

[defendandprotect]

149. No background check = no gun. That's where we should be --

[slackmaster]

181. Great - Make NICS available for use by unlicensed people who have used guns to sell

:hi:

[DonP]

184. They really don't want NICS available to us - it just makes them sound "sensible"

If they allowed us to access NICS the next demand would be to limit the number of uses a private individual had per year - or per month.

Then there would be a demand for a license or permit of some sort - after all you are selling "deadly weapons"!

It would be one more restriction or control after another.

It's just another gun control tactic that they think makes them seem reasonable and sensible to the less informed people that people like Brady and Sugarman count on for their ignorance of facts and law.

Their "problem" is more and more people are actually learning the real laws and facts and every one that does, undermines their philosophy.

The other thing is the facts all go against them. More guns than ever in the country and a lower crime rate year after year. No outbreaks of the promised CCW shootings over parking spaces or road rage incidents.

More $and down a rat hole by the Joyce Foundation. It's too bad because that money could do a lot for education or health care for the indigent in several large cities but they keep chasing the same old tired message. It remind me of back in the '70's when I drove past the WCTU (Women's Christian Temperance Union) headquarters building in Evanston. I just thought "well, there's an anachronism waiting for the wrecking ball". Brady HQ falls n the same file folder.

[slackmaster]

180. Not required on private-party transfers in most states

Again, WHAT are you referring to?

[X_Digger]

128. Still.. no illegal activity

You said-

" The object of these sales is to sell guns . . . that will happen whether legal or not . . .

as is shown here"

What law was being broken in the video? Absent reason to believe that a person is prohibited (under 21 for a handgun, under 18 for a long gun, a felon, dishonorably discharged from the military, subject to a restraining order, etc) then the sale is legal.

[defendandprotect]

143. Where was the background check?

[eqfan592]

146. See post 145. (nt)

[defendandprotect]

150. Law should be no background check, no gun --

[eqfan592]

152. I may agree with you.

But people can't be charged for crimes based on how the law "should" be, so the original point still stands that no laws would appear to be broken in this case. Though to be perfectly frank, there isn't a lot of evidence to show that background checks in general have had any sort of impact on crime. There are MUCH larger factors at work and we would be well served to concentrate on those factors (education, poverty, etc.).

[pipoman]

198. A breif explaination

the NICS system is the federal background check system. I must be used for the transfer of guns when a federally licensed gun dealer sells a gun. It is a condition of licensure imposed by the BATFE. A NICS check is required for private sales to residents of different states than the seller's because of federal authority over interstate commerce. The reason the misnamed 'gun show loophole' hasn't been legislated away is because, despite the desire by many in Washington, the Federal government has absolutely no authority to regulate intrastate sales of private property. Some states do in fact require background checks for intrastate private sales, most do not. A state requirement for a background check for intrastate private sales is almost universally recognized as Constitutional. Most states simply don't have the will, or the ability to enact such a law. This could be enabled if Washington would become proactive by enacting measures as described in posts 136 and 176.

[X_Digger]

155. No law broken, NOT illegal.

You might want it different, but only if and until the law changes, no laws appear to have been broken.

Again, you can't back up your claim of 'whether legal or not ... as is shown here' by citing an _existing_ law, a law _actually on the books, not in your head_.

[slackmaster]

182. It is NOT POSSIBLE for an unlicensed person to get the background of a potential buyer checked

THAT is the problem. Not only is a background check not required, it's not avaialable in most states!

[AtheistCrusader]

118. Nothing to do with either. Unfair to Gun Shows.

Open up your local newspaper and have a gander at the Classifieds.

I trust you'll be just as outraged.

[friendly_iconoclast]

141. Why don't you fill us in on the "GOP/NRA" plans you keep ranting about?

Without any evidence, it's just so much paranoia.

[JonQ]

79. Yellow journalism at it's finest.

"In fact, felons, gangsters, wife-beaters, and the dangerously mentally ill can buy as many military-style assault weapons, semi-automatic pistols and other firearms as they can carry, with no questions asked."

Fortunately those same people can buy knives, baseball bats and 600lbs of fertilizer without questions as well.

"Why do criminals and traffickers go to gun shows? As the bank robber Willie Sutton might have put it, "Because that's where the guns are."

Why do we fail to provide evidence of this trend among criminals and traffickers? Because that would hurt our argument.

"Our weak gun laws make it lethally simple for unlicensed gun vendors to sell as many firearms as they can to whomever they can, cash and carry."

Lethally simple. Yep, he really used that phrase.

What a joke, no wonder grabbers aren't taken seriously.

[defendandprotect]

87. Most of us understand why the word "lethal" is used re guns . . . and most of us weren't shot at!!

[JonQ]

90. Point is he was intentionally using emotionally laden adjectives

to form not a logical argument, but an emotional one.

I found his editorial to be genocidally offtrack.

[eqfan592]

96. Appeals to emotion work well for certain people, sadly. (nt)

[JonQ]

97. I am surprised though that he made no mention of

The Children (tm). It was implied, but not outright stated.

That's the bread and butter of the anti-2nd amendment movement.

[defendandprotect]

113. "Lethal" re guns is a TRUE argument . . . though you may find it emotional ... and of course,

we all find guns and their violence "emotional" . . .!!!

[JonQ]

114. He didn't describe guns as lethal

but rather the ease of legally purchasing them.

[defendandprotect]

120. The "ease of purchasing them" ends up being "lethal" for America . . .

As Colin is pointing out --

From Columbine to VA Tech -- to Ft. Hood --

[eqfan592]

125. Awww, nice appeal to emotion there.

Too bad the statistics don't back up your claim.

EDIT: Also way to point out 3 cases where "gun free zones" totally failed, and where a person legally carrying a concealed firearm could have put a much quicker end to the violence that would likely have happened anyway no matter what "laws" or "bans" were in place.

[defendandprotect]

157. Unfortunately, being shot seems to be an "emotional" experience ... !!!

Right . . . . let's demand that every teacher, principal and student carry guns!!!

[JonQ]

127. Only if you can find evidence that some substantial number of guns

used in massacres are purchased from gun shows, which you cannot do because it is untrue.

So no, doesn't really mean the same thing.

[defendandprotect]

158. Substantial numbers of guns are killing people every day -- how have you not noticed?

The answer is not to engage in a new armaments war -- the answer is to disarm.

Whether we're talking about nations or citizens --

Basically, you're arming yourself because you think some crackpot is going to

arm themselves!

Or, are you someone who really thinks that if the government is taking guns away --

a la Katrina -- that they'll let you keep yours?

[slackmaster]

185. No, you know very well that guns don't kill people

The answer is not to engage in a new armaments war -- the answer is to disarm.

Disarming everyone is neither possible nor desirable. The key is to disarm the people who need to be disarmed.

Basically, you're arming yourself because you think some crackpot is going to

arm themselves!

That's a very simplistic and incomplete assessment of why people own firearms.

[Xenotime]

105. If we can't shut down the gun shows...we need to have them regulated.

[oneshooter]

110. Regulated in what way?

Lets hear just what "regulation" you would require.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[defendandprotect]

119. No background check = no gun . . .

[slackmaster]

123. In other words...

Make NICS available for private-party transfers, which is exactly what I have been saying here for years.

[oneshooter]

229. Ya know that

defendandprotect, and sharesunited should get together and compare notes!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[spin]

136. Message to the anti-gun posters...

I believe most pro-gun Democrats and many Republicans would like to see the NICS background check opened up to private sellers. The NRA would probably disagree. (I have no idea, I don't pay a lot of attention to the NRA-ILA since they seem to be so anti-Obama.)

I refuse to sell a firearm to anyone (1) I don't personally know (2) who doesn't have a concealed carry permit.

It would be a lot easier if the buyer and I could show up at a gun store and run a background check for a reasonable fee of less than $30.

An NICS background check could be made a requirement for the sale of all firearms both dealer and private and it should help eliminate sales of firearms to criminals and reduced straw purchase of firearms.

Instead of constantly wanting to ban firearms or implement harebrained schemes like registration of all firearms or microstamping handgun ammo, if the anti-gun groups were to push to open the NICS background check to private owners, we might see a real reduction in firearm violence.

Honest gun owners want to see murders committed by firearms reduced significantly. We enjoy our hobby and misuse of firearms threaten it.

[burrfoot]

142. +1

Anti-gun folks often accuse pro-gun folks of being scared. Of seeing monsters/goblins/boogymen everywhere we turn.

But they demonize gun owners. They don't get the points you've made above, and end up thinking we're a bunch of evil creatures resembling some mishmash of their steroptypical "redneck" and miniature versions of the angry Hulk. Maybe a little of The Punisher thrown in, for the graphic novel savvy among them.

So they actually create monsters, where none exist. Seriously, that's gotta be at LEAST as "scared" as they claim we are. They make monsters out of molehills....

[pipoman]

176. Close..

I agree with most of this, just going to throw in my $.02.

An NICS background check could be made a requirement for the sale of all firearms both dealer and private and it should help eliminate sales of firearms to criminals and reduced straw purchase of firearms.

I agree NICS could be required, but only at the state level. If there were any way to require it at the federal level it would already be done. Since it will never be done all at one time by the states, this must start out as a heavily publicized voluntary program. The statutory fee (I like $20, but what ever) and requirement for FFLs to conduct the NICS checks could be imposed as a condition of the FFL. As a further enticement, I believe there should be immunity from criminal or civil actions against the seller for any future illegal use by the new owner if NICS is used for the transfer. Once in place, I believe that most states would adopt the requirement for all private transfers to be NICS approved. And the long lamented, improperly monikered, 'gun show loophole' would finally be behind us all. And I believe that the NRA would likely support such a voluntary program.

Instead of constantly wanting to ban firearms or implement harebrained schemes like registration of all firearms or microstamping handgun ammo, if the anti-gun groups were to push to open the NICS background check to private owners, we might see a real reduction in firearm violence.

This voluntary NICS proposal is so simple that I believe that it is the gun control side which opposes it. If it weren't for the 'gun show loophole', they wouldn't have anything to talk about. As it is, they may be able to push through one of these other pieces of legislation you mention using the 'gun show loophole' as a door opener.

The only other knit I have with your post is, "We enjoy our hobby and misuse of firearms threaten it.", this isn't a hobby to me, as my hobby isn't personal defense, it is a necessary right. If this were about a hobby, I would have found another, less controversial interest a long time ago. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy hunting and shooting, it just isn't the basis for opposition to most new gun control proposals.

I and others have suggested this type of system for achieving NICS on private sales for years around here, I don't recall a single one of our gun control advocate friends ever agreeing even with caveats of their own, not one...telling, huh?

[spin]

183. I would have no problem with the NICS background check...

being required at the state level. The voluntary state by state idea might be a good way to go, as it would not overwhelm the system. The details on how this system is opened up are irrelevant to me. We only have to be careful that gun registration or a record of who owns guns doesn't sneak in.

I probably mentioned "hobby" as in my case that what shooting was and still is. Self defense is a secondary but very important reason for my owning firearms. It do see your point, and it's a good one.

[onehandle]

147. McVeigh virtually lived at gun shows. nt

[JonQ]

151. And he was able to use his connections at gun shows

to purchase illegal, weapons grade explosives.

No wait, he bought run of the mill synthetic fertilizer that is perfectly legal and in no way regulated by gun laws, nor did the use of firearms factor in to his act of terrorism.

[krispos42]

164. False equivalency

[Euromutt]

177. And Nixon was a Quaker. What's your point?

I'm sure quite a few mass murderers throughout history spent a large part of their times in churches. Is that reason enough to abolish churches? (And lest you misunderstand where I'm coming from, I'm a hard-line atheists who would like nothing better than to see every church empty and fallen into disrepair, but I don't want to see it happen at gunpoint.)

[Euromutt]

178. Questions: what does this have to do with Cho, and what got edited out?

First item: Seung-hui Cho didn't buy his guns at a gun show. He bought them from an FFL, and underwent NICS checks for both purchases. Since he'd been adjudicated mentally incompetent to possess a firearm, NICS should have nixed the sales, but because the Commonwealth of Virginia was tardy submitting the relevant records to the FBI, the sales were approved. Gun shows did not allow the Virginia Tech shootings to happen.

Then there's this video of purchases at gun shows, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baPgr_tw79Q.

No, the private sellers aren't conducting background checks, because the law doesn't allow them to, though our buddy Colin makes out like the private sellers are choosing not to conduct NICS checks. Now, regarding the claim of "not requiring identification," let's run through the cases:

1) Dayton, OH
The seller asks for ID, but is told the buyer "left it in the car." The seller proceeds to make a good faith effort to ascertain that the buyer is not ineligible to purchase the weapon, and the only way the sale would have been illegal was if the buyer had lied. Not optimal, but then again, the buyer could have presented a forged ID with the same result. The point being, if the transfer had been illegal, it would have been entirely due to intent to willful deceit on the buyer's part.

2) Forest Lake, MN
We don't see the seller ask for ID, but notice that at 2:40, there's a break between shots in the footage. The bit edited out may have been the part where the seller did ask, and got shown, appropriate ID. I can't prove that it is, but I don't have the raw footage.

3) Richmond, VA
Again, we don't see the seller ask for ID, but again, at 3:30 there is a break between shots in the footage. See item 2). Moreover, we don't see the cash as Colin is handing it over, and the camera even veers away from the seller for a moment, making it entirely possible that Colin pre-empted the seller by handing over his driver's license with the cash, and took it back without the camera registering it.

4) San Antonio, TX
Again a break between shots, at 4:14. I think I'm starting to see a pattern in the editing.

So there we have it: four gun shows, one verifiable incident of a seller handing over the weapon without seeing any ID, and even he asked questions. Now go figure what Colin and the Bradies might have chosen not to show us: how many sellers did they approach before they found one at each show who didn't ask to see ID in a manner that could readily be edited out? How many gun shows did they visit where they got no footage that could be edited to give the impression the seller didn't insist upon ID?

We don't know, and we have no way to know what the Brady Campaign isn't showing us. We do know this video is based to some extent on dishonesty by omission. As I've already noted, Cho didn't buy his guns from a private seller; he bought them from an FFL, and passed two NICS checks, so exactly why Colin should be concerned about private party sales at gun shows is unclear. Seems to me the Bradies used him (and he allowed himself to be used) because they couldn't find a victim--or a close relative of a victim--of a mass shooting that was carried out with a firearm the shooter had personally bought at a gun show.

[eqfan592]

189. Great post, as usual! (nt)

[Euromutt]

200. Aw, shucks... (n/t)

[eqfan592]

201. Seriously man, you should have your own website or blog

You have a great ability to lay out counter arguments to the stuff we see here every day. I wish you had your own blog over at huff post just to counter some of the crazzies on there! :P

[burrfoot]

202. I agree, and I'd check for updates daily!

I can see it now....you could call it "Huffmutt Speaks"

:headbang: