Why would any one in their right mind be against strict gun control?

[rollingrock]

unless you are a criminal, why would you be opposed to strict, thorough background checks or why would you be bothered with say, having a 2 to 4 week waiting period? what is the rush? the purpose being of course, to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals as much as possible by making it virtually impossible for them to obtain firearms legally. in addition to closing the gun show loophole. that's what I don't get about the anti-gun control people. why would any law-biding citizen be against it unless they were criminally predisposed and/or mentally unbalanced that they would fail a thorough background check?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Because they're immature and like to pretend they're one of Clint Eastwood's movie characters nt

[eqfan592]

12. Or because we have basic intelegence and realize that this crap...

...doesn't do a god damned thing to prevent violence?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

41. The other day someone chased their wife out and shot her

Now, how successful would he have been if he'd chased her out to kill her with a blade?

Here's my respnose to those who say that killers are going to kill no matter what: Try a better argument. When you can prove to me that guns don't kill from far away, I'll believe it.

[eqfan592]

49. People are killed with knives all the time.

Sure, firearms are the weapon of choice here, but in nations with stricter gun control blades and blunt instruments become the weapon of choice (and firearms are still used due to the existance of a black market). Look at Russia or the UK for perfect examples of this.

Guns can indeed kill from far away, but they also allow somebody to protect themselves without needed to be within arms reach of an attacker.

I'm sorry, but your logic if simply flawed.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

51. From far away? Damn! What school teaches blade killing from far away? I'd like to go watch! lol

Wow, to what lengths will the gun-obsessed go to justify guns? Any lengths at all?

[eqfan592]

53. Welcome Mr. Strawman to the argument!

Exactly where did I say knives could kill from far away? (They can actually, but it's not really the norm).

To what lengths do the gun-control obsessed go to justify their willful ignorance on the subject?

Hell, even in your example, can you really prove that the guy wouldn't have been able to run her down and stab her or beat her with a baseball bat if need be? Is it a sure thing? No. But you can't just dismiss it out of hand.

EDIT: What this really comes down for you, I think, is that you are unwilling to even consider the fact that firearms are used far more often for defense than not. You are also willing to ignore the fact that, to date, there is not a single piece of statistical evidence that shows strict gun control having any significant impact on the violent crime rate. Note I said VIOLENT CRIME rate. Gun control groups like to point out examples where gun control lowers the gun crime rate, but this is a next to useless stat because gun control isn't sold as a simple reduction of the gun crime rate, but of the violent crime rate as a whole. If people just move from guns to something else, we're left with the same problem. Look again at the UK. Instead of dealing with the causes of crime, they just keep trying to ban items. They are now considering a ban on large kitchen knives. Exactly how far does this have to go until somebody wakes up and realizes the banning the implements criminals decide to use at any give time does NOT stop the criminal from being a criminal nor does it stop his/her creation in the first place? Factors such as poverty and education must be addressed, as does the farce of a war on drugs, to really strike a blow against crime.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

55. What I'm talking about is not made of straw. It's made of real flesh and bone nt

[eqfan592]

56. awww, how cute.

An appeal to emotion when logic fails you. So like a freeper. BTW, I updated my previous message for you. You should give it a read.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

57. It's too bad those who work so killing machines continue to be legal, don't find a better pastime nt

[eqfan592]

59. You know, the people who's lives are saved because of firearms...

...are made of flesh and blood as well. It's too bad you value their lives less than those who would likely have been killed using some other impliment anyway.

You humanize an inanimate object and call it "crime legislation." You are working to put the bullets in the bodies of the very people you claim to care about because of your willful ignorance, by attempting to make those people more defenseless than they may be and by drawing attention away from the real causes of crime.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

61. Oh yeah? 100% of those killed with firearms were saved by no one using firearms.

You people should find out why you're still hanging on to your childhood love for killing weapons. And did your parents buy murder toys for you on Xmas?

[eqfan592]

62. LOL!

100% of people saved with firearms would not be saved with firearms if they didn't have them.

See, I can come up with fun, totally useless stats as well. "Killing weapons" and "murder toys?" Grow. Up.

These are serious issues requiring serious people offering serious solutions. Right now you don't fall into any of these categories.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

63. If you found that amusing, you don't need to explain anything else about why you are obsessed with

guns. I think you've explained it all.

[eqfan592]

67. I don't find people being murdered amusing.

I find YOU amusing. There's a difference. ;)

And just because I don't share your shockingly ignorant view doesn't mean I'm "obsessed" with guns. In fact, you seem far more obsessed with them than I do. You have all sorts of pet names for them. You've even humanized them. Sounds a bit obsessive to me.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

69. If you didn't, then you wouldn't find guns amusing and fun -

You'd admit that being obsessed with contraptions whose purpose is to murder, is not an amusement or a fun activity.

[eqfan592]

77. People are amused with cars.

Yet they kill far more people every day than guns do. Do you give them the same BS as you're giving me right now? I think not.

A gun isn't designed to kill. It's designed to send a projectile (or several in the case of a shotgun) down a length of tube at high velocity to strike a target. That target can be anything from a paper target to a clay pigeon to a person, depending on where the SHOOTER decides to aim it.

If you were a rational person, you'd be willing to admit this. You'd also be willing to admit that the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding people who would never aim their gun at another person unless it was in self defense, and that they have NEVER murdered any one. You'd also admit that a guns purpose at any given time is decided by the person wielding it, not by the gun itself.

But no, you are not rational. You hate guns. You may even hate the people who don't agree with you. You've humanized them and given them character traits. Yet in all of this you claim it is I who am obsessed with them.

I'm thankful the majority of Americans are far more rational than you are. Your obsession with hating guns has marginalized you in the eyes of any rational thinking person.

[Euromutt]

160. I think you need to look up what "murder" means

Like quite a few people who resort to appeals to emotion when discussing firearm-related topics, you use the word "murder" as if it's interchangeable with "kill." It is not. All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders. Specifically, to murder means to kill someone deliberately and unlawfully. If you kill someone unlawfully, but without deliberate intent, it's manslaughter. When you kill someone deliberately but in circumstances in which the law permits it, it's justifiable homicide.

When a police officer shoots an armed bank robber, it's not murder.

When a woman shoots a guy who's trying to rape her at knife point, it's not murder.

When someone manages to scare away a mugger or burglar by pointing a handgun at him without firing a shit, it's not murder; it's not even homicide.

So please, cut out the "the purpose of gun is to murder" claptrap. The purpose of a gun is whatever its possessor decides to use it for. There are an estimated eighty million legal gun owners in this country, all but a few thousand of whom don't murder anyone with their guns every year. There are some 300 million guns in private hands, all but a few thousand of which aren't used to murder anyone, and all but a few hundred thousand (a fraction of a percent of the total) of which aren't used to commit a violent offense.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

122. Hell yes. I got a rifle for Christmas when I was ten. I've still got it.

[Katya Mullethov]

164. I think she means a gibbet or a garrotte chair

Kids .......... sniff .

[Callisto32]

174. The number one cause of death...

is being alive.

[Callisto32]

175. How about we start with the cops and the government goons.

They kill WAY more people with guns than the general non-state employed population.

[PavePusher]

182. My machines have never killed anyone.

Who's living in fear and projecting....?

[AtheistCrusader]

93. Tueller Drill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

Do you consider 21 feet 'far away'?

[taurus145]

162. Reading comprehension refresher, anyone?

Slow down, spit out the gum, and read carefully.

At no time was there any reference to knives killing from a distance.

[rrneck]

66. Far away?

When I had a CHL about a million years ago I did some research and found that 80% of firearms confrontations occur within 21 feet and 60% of those occur within five feet. Also, an attacker with a knife can close that 21 food distance in about two seconds.

The distance that concerns you actually is a huge tactical benefit for a defender.

[Euromutt]

32. Woo-hoo, Arnold's Law in the first response!

http://www.bullshido.org/Arnold%27s_Law

It's a new record!

[eqfan592]

50. LOL! Very nice! (nt)

[paulsby]

2. here;s one example

of why there should not be 2 to 4 week waiting periods. here's a hint. most criminals don't go through legal channels for their guns. but in regards to the wait. say you are a victim of domestic violence, and your husband has beaten you and threatened to kill you. the cops come to your house and arrest your husband. he bails out the next day. the courts issue an emergency protective order. would you say "what's the rush?" should the courts wait 2 to 4 weeks?

i'm a law abiding citizen. i happen to be a LEO. i used to be pro gun control. from a practical basis, my mind was changed based on my years as a firefighter/EMT and as a cop. from a constitutional basis, my mind was changed due to intelligent articles.

what kind of thorough background check do you propose? that would take 2 to 4 weeks?

i'm all for streamlining criminal and mental health databases. it's the 21st century.

[rollingrock]

5. I don't see any valid arguments there

just because criminals can obtain their weapons on the black market means we should make it even easier for them to get weapons by allowing them to purchase them legally? that makes no sense whatsoever. many criminals actually prefer to get their weapons by going into the store and buying it legally if they could because it is often times the most convenient method. just walk into the store, pay your money, and walk out. no having to track down any shady black market characters who might sell you unreliable weapon that may or may not work, etc.

your argument about being a victim of domestic violence who will die because she can't get her hands on a handgun within 24 hours is simply ridiculous fear-mongering.

[paulsby]

7. it is not easy

for criminals to buy their weapons legally. because most criminals are already legally prohibited from buying them - REGARDLESS of how long they have to wait.

we don't abridge law abiding people's rights in order to try to make things more inconvenient for criminals, especially considering very few criminals buy their guns through legal channels.

i never said the victim of domestic violence would die. that's YOUR strawman. what i am asking is WHY SHOULD SHE HAVE TO WAIT 2 to 4 WEEKS? why? all you are doing is making it far more difficult for law abiding people to exercise their rights and doing very little to criminals, since they usually don't get their guns through legal means. check the stats. i've interviewed enough criminals to confirm what the data shows.

[rollingrock]

9. Again, what is the big rush?

"all you are doing is making it far more difficult for law abiding people to exercise their rights and doing very little to criminals."

if you are a law-biding citizen, why does it bother you to wait 15-30 days for a background check? what's the big rush? is it a matter of life and death for you? this isn't buying a flat-screen television set we are talking about. it's a deadly firearm, and people should not be able to obtain them as easily as they can buy a TV or any other consumer item.

I don't think the current background checks go far enough, because they often fail to screen out people with a history of mental problems, for example. They need to be strengthened. i would also add that ALL first time handgun buyers should be required to be licensed and trained in proper gun safety and usage, not unlike how you're required to take a course in driver's education and take a DMV driver test before being given a license to operate a vehicle.

[paulsby]

13. for some people

it may be a matter of life or death. for others, it's just an inconvenience, and an arbitrary infringement on their rights

law abiding, qualified (no felony convictions, no ...) people SHOULD be able to buy a gun easily. why should it be difficult? it's their right to do so. why arbitrarily make it difficult or make it take a long time?

what is the justification for a 15-30 waiting period? you are the one who wants to infringe on the law abiding. it is up to you to justify it. not to say "why not?"

as for the mental health thing, we have this pesky thing called civil rights and privacy. ideas that go out the door when some liberals talk about guns. imo, every state should have a registry and qualified MHP's, through court process should be able to place people in these registries. and of course these entries should be appealable by people who are rejected. this is an area that does need improvement. no doubt whatsoever.

here's some interesting info...
"Beginning June 1, 2008, a new Illinois law requires all hospitals and mental health facilities to submit to the Illinois State Police all relevant mental health records of all patients who display “violent, suicidal, threatening or assaultive behavior” for the police to use when processing gun license applications. Under prior law, only private facilities had to provide the reports, and only on inpatients, not on outpatients. The new law also requires the State Police to forward records of people prohibited from acquiring or owning firearms under state or federal law to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database, which is essentially a national registry of people prohibited from buying or owning firearms that gun dealers must check before completing any firearm transaction.

Connecticut law contains a mechanism for the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to get information from the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) on the status of people who have been committed to psychiatric hospitals and who also have, or apply for, gun permits or certificates. The law also requires DPS, DMHAS, and the Judicial Department to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to provide mental health data to the NICS database, which the police must check when processing gun permit or certificate applications or authorizing firearm transfers. Another law allows the police to obtain a warrant to seize guns, following specified procedures and probable cause determination, from people they consider to be a danger to themselves or others.

In addition to Connecticut, California, Colorado, Utah, and Virginia, among others, require reporting of mental health data to a state database, the NICS database, or both.

A new federal law (Public Law 110-180) encourages states to report the necessary mental health data to the FBI by offering them more than $ 1 billion to improve reporting systems and address privacy concerns. (A copy and Congressional Research Service summary of the public law are attached. )

Since 1968, federal law has banned gun sales or transfers to, among others, anyone adjudicated as “a mental defective” or committed to a mental institution (18 USC § 922(d)(4) & 27 CFR § 478. 11). Since 1993, it has required (1) states to report people prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms to the NICS database and (2) federal firearm licensees (gun dealers), before completing firearm transfers, to check the database to determine if prospective purchasers are disqualified from receiving firearms under state or federal law. But a 1997 U. S. Supreme Court ruling effectively made state participation in NICS voluntary. In Printz v. U. S. (521 U. S. 898 (1997)), the court ruled as unconstitutional, under the 10th Amendment, federal attempts to compel states to contribute to a federal regulatory program, absent funding.

Citing mostly privacy concerns and, in some cases, state laws that prohibit sharing of mental health data, more than half the states have declined to provide, or provide only limited, mental health data to the NICS database, according to a 1997 FBI press release. California, Colorado, Utah, and Virginia are among the states that currently require the reporting of such data to a state database, the NICS database, or both. Illinois also will require the reports, beginning June 1, 2008. "

while your driver's analogy is interesting, driving isn't a civil right guaranteed by the constitution. keeping and bearing a gun is.

but at least that's a SENSIBLE requirement. i think it's a good idea, although my state doesn't have one and yet we still have very low unintentional shooting deaths. iow, while people aren't required by law to take gun courses, i see no evidence that harm is caused.

[rollingrock]

19. It doesn't infringe on anyone's rights

to require an adequate waiting period. 15-30 days is by no means unreasonable IMO. how long does it take to get a driver license? after going through all the training and testing, at least a couple of months. and there's a good reason for it. or would you prefer that we hand out driver licenses to any 16 year-old teenager who wants one, within 5 days of turning in the application?

though I'm glad to see we seem to agree on a training requirement for first handgun time buyers. if you agree with me on that, then it follows that there will be an additional waiting period because it takes time to go through the training period. so the extended background check waiting period can take place simultaneously with the training, so I would think it would no longer be an issue for you.

[eqfan592]

23. It doesn't take a month to train a person on how to use a handgun.

15-30 days IS unreasonable unless you can provide adequate evidence that doing so would have a very significant impact on the violent crime rate (I'll save you some time here, though - it won't). Restricting constitutional rights willy nilly just for the sake of doing so because it seems to "make sense" on the surface is a beyond pointless exercise. You simply wouldn't have the support of the general populace, for one thing, as the majority of them simply don't believe further restrictions is the answer to our crime problem. And that's for good reason. Violent crime has many causes. The availability of firearms is not one of them. You put a long waiting period on guns and it won't do anything because criminals will continue to purchase guns from the black market. If you ban them outright, they'll do the same thing, but it'll be even more lucrative and the drug lords will have a new item they can trade in. And even better for them, the general population will be virtually defenseless in front of them.

Here's what it comes down to; you either don't like guns or you simply are ignorant of the real issues at hand, or some mixture of the two. The reason why progressives who don't support the nonsense you're promoting is because you're making it that much more difficult for us to fight the real causes of crime (poverty, education, etc.) due to the loss of political credibility our movement experiences every time one of you get's an epiphany. I swear, a better tactic to torpedo the progressive movement could not be found even if you tried, and that's what you're a part of.

[rollingrock]

29. No

people don't go to classes for 15 days or 30 days straight. like any driver ed class for example, classes are usually held two or three times a week within a one month period, for example. and it takes time to schedule the classes. you sign up for the class and then it starts within some date in the future, usually in a couple weeks or so. that's how it works for any kind of training program, no matter what it may be.

the rest of your post I won't bother to respond to because its getting a little too kooky for me. see ya.

[eqfan592]

52. Maybe you should try taking a firearms usage class.

You totally missed the point. Most defensive firearm classes are only a couple of 5 hour classes. They are often held over a single weekend.

The rest of my post was not kooky, but I'm used to ignorant gun control freaks ignoring reality.

[paulsby]

25. of course it infringes

if you had to wait that amount of time to write a letter to the editor about something that happened today, would that infringe your right of free speech?

whether or not it is unreasonable infrigement is a different quesiton

but undeniably it is an infringement

i can go in, get an instant check and buy a gun
i can go in, get a check, but have to wait 15 days before i can buy it.

is the second case an infringement? of course. it's definitional.

again, with the driver's license analogy.

1) driver's license is not a constitutional right
2) you only need a driver's license to drive on publically owned roadways.
3) drivers, even with all the training and license requirements, kill FAR more people than shooters.

like i said, i think training programs are fine. especially if one can sign up, take the course and complete it the same day.

that is an infringement that is at least reasonable, whereas a waiting period is not, imo.

[Merchant Marine]

33. Your law would have killed my friend

A friend of mine grew up with an alcoholic father. The mother divorced and the dad got kicked out of the house by court order. On my friend's 18th birthday, the Dad came to the house drunk and screamed through the window that he was going to kill them both, smashed up some plants and left.

The next night the Dad came back with a baseball bat and smashed through the sliding glass door at the back of the house. He stopped at the stairs because he was staring up into the taclight and barrel of my friend's new shotgun. He ran and the police picked him up a day later.

Under your law my friend would've had nothing meaner than a blunt wooden sword to defend himself and his mother with. Oh, they had a restraining order on the dad too. Hand to hand with his drunk, enraged meathead father would've left my friend battered and bleeding at the top of the stairs. Instead the dad ran and nobody was hurt.

So yeah, that's the rush. Overt threats develop quickly and people realize "I need something to defend myself with". In these scenarios people's lives are at stake, something you should acknowledge if you really care about people's safety.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. I'm doubting old rollingrock has the guts to respond to your post.

[rollingrock]

106. Like I said

its just ridiculous fear mongering to me. some of these extreme incidents sound like something that happens in a Hollywood movie, not in real life.

[eqfan592]

110. So because it "sounds extreme" it can't be reality?

Not a very solid counter to his argument at all.

[rollingrock]

131. It's about as realistic as the ticking time bomb scenario

that Bush used to justify torture. it's not a good excuse for torture or a scenario that is ever likely to happen....I have never in my life heard of any story where someone died because of the waiting period to get their hands on a firearm. it might happen once in a hundred years but its not very likely. its paranoid thinking and absurd.

[eqfan592]

133. Wow....

...the sort of willful ignorance you just demonstrated just makes me shake my head. And I'm sure you call yourself a progressive, too. Very sad.

To make this a little more clear, the fact that you honestly think the idea of an abusive person attempting to do harm to somebody over the 2-4 week period you specified for your law is what I find to be willfully ignorant.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

142. Wow, you are very ignorant of the facts.

[pipoman]

157. Waiting periods have been imposed

show me one person who was saved by a waiting period in any of those jurisdictions.

OK, since you can't do that show me a case of a person going and buying a gun one day, then killing someone with it the next...

If you can't cite numerous examples of the latter you have no justification to infringe on constitutional rights..the burden to show that your infringement is justifiable is on you.

Further you have stated time and again so far in this thread that you 'think' this or that is reasonable, or it is 'imho'...what makes you think you should be the arbiter of reasonableness? It is reasonable to you because you CHOOSE not to exercise this right. If I said I thought it is reasonable for all emails to go through a .gov program which may take up to ...some arbitrary time..how about 15-30 days? naaa, you've already used that arbitrary time...how about 24 hours? I think it would be reasonable to hold up email for 24 hours and to run them through a reader program looking for words which may help us catch terrorists, or drug dealers, or mobsters, or who knows what? See what I've done there? I've decided that my sensibilities are prevailing and reasonable for you and your rights? how do you like that?

[Euromutt]

161. Argument from incredulity

"Well, I don't understand how it could be true, so it can't."

Creationists argue like this, you know.

[SteveM]

116. You should see what the CDC says about "waiting periods." (nt)

[Merchant Marine]

117. Callous, unempathetic and utterly naieve.

Good job confirming all 3 of my impressions about you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

119. So a woman who was raped shooting the rapist when he came back a 2nd time? Fiction to you, eh?

Your 2-4 week wait would have gotten her killed also.

[rollingrock]

137. How about the victims of the Virginia Tech shooting?

how much sympathy do you have for them? you know, the innocent young people who had their lives snuffed out because a madman was able to very easily and legally get his hands on a bunch of firearms? is that real or fiction? that is very real because it actually happened and is much more likely to happen again then your theoretical rape victim scenario.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

138. A fine example of EXISTING laws not being well enforced. How about we start there?

[eqfan592]

141. Bingo

He was able to get the firearms legally only because the State of Virginia screwed up the paperwork on him.

VT is also an example of the totally useless and borderline criminal "gun free zone" policy that exists at many schools. Cho didn't git a shit about the "gun free zone" sign posted, and because the people inside decided to obey the law, they were totally unable to defend themselves effectively.

It's time members of the progressive movement grow up and admit they are completely wrong on this issue, that there are no facts to support their arguments, and that we need to start working on the real causes of crime and leave this foolishness behind us.

[rollingrock]

143. I don't think so

after the shooting, the review panel found the existing laws in the state of Virginia to be inadequate, and the federal government later passed a law to improve the state reporting requirement to the NICS nationwide. though some would argue it didn't go far enough.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

145. Cho was ineligible to possess firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

This is the specific provision.

Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

146. Don't forget about the rape victim you referred to as theoretical.

[beevul]

154. Did the review panel mention...

The the VT massacre happened in a GUN FREE ZONE?

On edit:

Ya know, a place where that STRICT gun control you propose...was in effect.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

139. The victim in this case probably thinks you are despicable. Where is your sympathy for her?

Cape Girardeau woman shoots, kills would-be rapist at her home

A Cape Girardeau woman shot and fatally wounded Ronnie W. Preyer, 47, a registered sex offender who had broken into her home early this morning with the intention of raping her a second time, Cape Girardeau Prosecuting Attorney Morley Swingle said today.

Swingle said he will not be charging the victim, an older woman who positively identified Preyer this morning as the man who raped her on Saturday.


http://on-murders.blogspot.com/2008/10/mo-cape-girardeau-woman-shoots-kills.html

[AtheistCrusader]

144. Actually it wasn't legal. He lied on the form 4477. Perjury is illegal where I'm from.

How about you?

[rd_kent]

186. Hahaha! I love it when people use this as an example. Newsflash: VA TECH WAS A GUN FREE ZONE!!!!

As in, GUNS WERE BANNED THERE!


So, how well did THAT gun ban work out?

[viscrente]

171. wow

You are not in the real world if you believe this stuff happens in movies only.... WOW!

[Callisto32]

177. Sorry this will be a little harsh.

I LIVED it, asshole. Don't tell me what will and will not happen.

[HALO141]

82. It absolutely DOES infringe on my rights.

And stop trying to compare firearm ownership to driving a car. It is NOT a valid comparison. Simply put, there is no such thing as a RIGHT to drive.

[eqfan592]

140. Ignore, replied to the wrong post. (nt)

[PavePusher]

83. Then you should not mind...

a 15-30 day "waiting period" or "cooling-off period" before exercising any of your First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth or Tenth Amendment rights. Right?

Show me where in the Constitution the government is authorized to mandate a "waiting period".

[PavePusher]

84. Most states, it's possible to get a D.L. in a week.

Of course, it's not a Constitutionally Enumerated Right.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. I can get a drivers license the same day, and I don't need a new license every time I buy a car.

Your analogy is worse than a yugo.

[GreenStormCloud]

97. That waiting period can be VERY unreasonable.

Last year our 19yr old grandaughter became aware that a man was stalking her. (She is stunningly pretty, with a good figure.) She went to the police, but he kept finding ways to just happen to be around her. I taught her to shoot in one afternoon. (Started with a Walther .22, and worked up to a .38.) The gun is strictly for defense of herself in her apartment or car. She isn't old enough to get a CHL.

A waiting period to get a gun to her would have served no purpose but to continue to keep her as an easy target for a stalker.

BTW - The guy eventually gave it up.

[beevul]

153. Ever heard the phrase...

Ever heard the phrase "a right delayed, is a right denied"?


Somehow, I think you have.

[rd_kent]

185. What are you talking about? A 16 year old can get their license on their b-day.

No waiting period at all....

[taurus145]

35. Here's a can of worms

How about we institute a mandatory investigation and cooling down period for say, purchasing immediate use birth control such as condoms. Mandatory STD testing would be part of the program.

Let's make a similar waiting period for abortion. Makes as much sense as forcing a mandatory wait for a legal purchase of a firearm.

[Euromutt]

44. Let's turn the question around: what *need* is there for a 15-30 day waiting period?

See, that's one of the things about living in a notionally free society: in order to restrict citizens' freedoms to engage in certain activities when they feel like it, the state has to present a compelling reason why it would be detrimental to the common weal (the res publica, if you will) not to impose such restrictions.

Thus, the onus is not on RKBA supporters to demonstrate that a 15-30 day waiting period isn't necessary; it's upon you to demonstrate that it is.

[DonP]

132. Did you learn your civil rights under the Bush adminsitration?

That's the most bass-ackward thinking I've ever heard on DU!

You're using exactly the same logic they did.

After all ... if you have nothing to hide you won't mind having us listen in on your phone calls, read your e-mails, checking your library books etc.

What's the difference between that and "If you aren't a criminal you won't mind waiting an extra week or two"?

It was plain stupid under bush and it's stupid here and now.

[AtheistCrusader]

147. What's the big rush to have that abortion?

if you are a law-biding citizen, why does it bother you to wait 15-30 days for an abortion? what's the big rush? is it a matter of life and death for you? this isn't buying a flat-screen television set we are talking about. it's killing a child, and people should not be able to kill them as easily as they can buy a TV or any other consumer item.

I don't think the current background checks go far enough, because they often fail to screen out people with a history of mental problems, for example. They need to be strengthened. i would also add that ALL first time abortion patients should be required to be licensed and trained in proper fetus disposal, not unlike how you're required to take a course in driver's education and take a DMV driver test before being given a license to operate a vehicle.

Hey, look at that, I change the subject and you sound like a fucking Republican. :banghead:

[viscrente]

170. another question...

Would you like all of your medicines, and medical history in a national database for anyone to be able to see? That seems like an even larger abuse of power.

[Callisto32]

176. You don't have to deal with a lot of battered spouses, do you?

Sometimes, you need a weapon yesterday, man. If it saves one life, getting rid of waiting periods is worth it.

[HALO141]

78. WTF?

Who ever suggested that criminals be allowed to obtain firearms legally?!?!?

Criminals do not wait to buy a gun any more than anyone else does. In fact, they'll get one at the very first opportunity knowing that in their line of work it's more apt to be needed. It is more often the intended target who will need to buy one once the threat has been made obvious.

You haven't defended your position on a delay of several weeks. What do you have against the instant background check?

[AtheistCrusader]

94. What criminal is getting a firearm through the existing background checks?

Please cite one.

[viscrente]

169. No No No

Actually you already must endure an INSTANT background check through the FBI database... If anything a gun store is the first line of defense for those that try to unlawfully purchase a gun.

[tucsonlib]

3. WAIT! Let Me Get Some Popcorn First!

Okay. I'm ready now.
:popcorn:

Let the show begin.....
:applause:

Nothing decent on the tube tonight anyway.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. Because the myth of the gun is a seductive force...

But your title presuposes that to be against gun control means one is not in his right mind. I am a strong advocate of gun control. I've only needed a gun twice in my life; when my grandfather took me hunting at the age of 8, and when I hunted people in 'Nam. In both cases, I was out to kill something.

But there are peple who feel they simply must have a gun in their pocket or they attacked and murdered. They feel this way in spite of the evdence that well over 300 million Americans work every day of their lives and never need a gun for any reason.

[paulsby]

10. ah, the need canard

and it only took a few posts.

it is AMAZING the way the same false arguments get used over and over again


need canard
penis canard
etc.

for instance, i strongly support right to carry. i can legally carry concealed myself. i do, but i don't feel i must have a gun with me. i carry sometimes. sometimes i don't. i never "feel" that i "need" to do it. i CHOOSE to do it.

[Ozymanithrax]

17. Actually, it is not a canard.

In both those limited cases I needed a gun. I new no one except a cat that could catch those birds without bird shot. (I've never hunted since then.) The whole purpose of the exercise was for my grandfather to pass on his love of what he called sportsmanship. I did not care for it, myself. In 'Nam, the purpose of being there was to kill other human beings and the weapon was required for that purpose and survival. Those were, indeed, needs driven by limited circumstances.

As for the rest, I don't agree with any of your statements. I don't support the right or the necessity to conceal carry a weapon. I don't support people who openly carry a weapon. I don't now, and never have owned a gun, as they were owned by my grandfather and the U.S. Government. Because of the "well armed militia clause" I don't believe there is a constitutional right to own a gun. Until this decade, no Supreme Court had ever ruled that there was an individual Right. You might have picked up on my attitude if you read past the first paragraph of what I posted earlier.

[paulsby]

22. it is a canard

i explain it thusly.

anti-gunners will say "why do you NEED a gun", when in fact, i'm not (and most pro RKBA types) don't argue that we NEED it. it's a choice. i don't NEED fire insurance (at least not on the house i had paid off). i CHOOSE to carry it.

as for your well armed militia thang, the 2nd amendment makes it clear. it says the right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the militia. in every other place the constitution refers to THE PEOPLE, it refers to an individual right. the 2nd is no different. it merely uses a prefatory clause, which is not unusual for the time. i can cite other examples, if you would like of prefatory clauses used similarly.

[Ozymanithrax]

30. And you are still incorrect.

Need is driven by circumstance. If if do not have food, I need food. If, there is food available, I can choose to be picky.

[Merchant Marine]

36. Hilarious

Need has and never will be a criteria for restricting rights.

[eqfan592]

24. *In yoda voice* That is why you fail......(nt)

[HALO141]

90. You're wrong on SO many levels.

First... What is the "well armed militia" clause? There is no such phrase in the Constitution.

Second, the Court has never ruled one way or another on whether or not the 2nd Amendment referenced an individual right or a collective right until this decade. Until recently, there was no need. The concept of a collective right is an invention of the past several decades. Before then it was understood that there is no such thin as a "collective right." Governments have authority over and responsibilities to the governed but the do not have rights. Individuals DO have rights and it is unfortunately the tendency of government to eventually start usurping those rights in its inherent hunger for power.

[beevul]

156. Just a friendly suggestion...

If you are going to engage in discussion, aquaint yourself intimately with the subject matter.

"the "well armed militia clause"

That bit of text is called a declaratory clause. It actually reads "a well regulated militia being necessary to a secure state".

The part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", thats a restrictive clause.

The preamble to the bill of rights refers to both types of clauses, and makes plain what they're for:

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

http://billofrights.org/


They're for making sure that government does not misconstrue or abuse the powers it has been granted by we the people.


Therefore, any reading of the amendments that does not read them as a restriction placed squarely and directly upon government, is an incorrect reading - according to the document itself.

"Congress shall make no law"...amendment 1 - target being government.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." amendment 4


To whom do the restrictions of amendment 4 apply? Government.

When someone envokes the 5th amendment, so as not to be a witness against themself, whom does that protect them from? Government.


As has been said here so many times, the bill of rights is not a "people can" document, its a "government shall not" document.

[rollingrock]

21. It takes time to do a thorough background check

how long does it take to get a driver license? at least a couple of months. and there's a good reason for it. people need a license to operate a vehicle because it can be a potentially deadly weapon in the wrong hands. five days is not enough time to screen out the wrong people. automobiles are deadly weapons in the wrong hands and so are firearms.

[Merchant Marine]

26. NICS is not a "background check" per se.

It checks for felony convictions and a few other red flags that preclude gun ownership, like mental health records. There is no need to investigate further, because the information would be irrelevant.

A real background check, like the FBI one I submitted to for my TWIC card takes time because the agents investigate past places you've lived, jobs you've held and people you've known. The purpose of a TWIC card is to prove you have been vetted by the government when you enter sensitive ares like ports and refineries. Information dug up by a background check is actually relevant to this, as it is basically a civilian security clearance.

The DMV takes months because its a bureaucratic hellhole staffed by the lazy and incompetent. There is no background check done for a driver's license.

[paulsby]

28. no, it doesn't

it's really quite simple.

1) NCIC check
2) mental health registry check

the problem with (2) is that some state privacy statutes severely limit or prohibit same, but no extra amount of time is going to help that. there's this pesky thing called dr-patient privilege. how exactly are you going to do a background check, beyond what psychiatrists etc. are already authorized to release?

show me examples . CITE THEM. where people were screened out due to longer waiting periods. i've never seen ONE.

i can do an NCIC check in minutes, on my computer. it's not friggin' rocket science. unless a person meets VERY specific criteria, mental-health wise, it's irrelevant. and if they do meet those criteria, then those are reported to the state registry in those states that have such a registry and that allow under the law such reporting.

show me evidence that longer waiting periods are used to screen out people that would have been missed.

most advocates for longer waiting periods use the "cool down" argument, because even they know that the longer periods don't result in more thorough checks.

[rollingrock]

70. If the current background check system is so great

then how was the Virginia Tech shooter, a person with a known history of mental illness, able to pass a background check and acquire all of his firearms legally from a licensed gun shop??

and what about the gun show loophole, which requires no background check at all? don't you think that needs to be closed as well?

[X_Digger]

75. FFL = background check. regardless of location

There is nothing special about gun shows. There is no 'exception' or 'loophole' for gun shows in federal law.

If you purchase a firearm from a FFL, you will have an NICS check performed, or an analogous background check like the presentation of a CHL/CCW permit which demonstrates a background check of a more invasive and thorough nature.)

Private sellers however, do not have access to NICS, and in 31 states, have no means nor need to perform a background check when selling a firearm to another resident of the same state, absent reason to believe they are a prohibited person per USC 18 922. Could be at a gun show, at a flea market, at their kitchen table, in a parking lot.

Virginia was lax in reporting Cho's involuntary committment to NICS. They've since tightened their reporting requirements, and funded it sufficiently to accommodate the mandate.

[rollingrock]

81. The private party loophole is a huge one

that needs to be closed. a felon shouldn't be able to purchase a used gun from a private owner, no questions asked. to close that loophole, all private owners should not be allowed to sell their second hand weapons unless they are a licensed dealer or they are selling to a dealer. so if you as a private owner are selling your used gun to a licensed pawn shop, you don't need a license to sell it. but if selling to a private individual, you do.

that is just an insane legal loophole that ought to be closed IMO.

[PavePusher]

86. Private Property is a loophole now?!

Seriously?

FAIL.

[X_Digger]

88. *sigh* that's _not_ a loophole.

1) it has nothing to do with 'gun shows' -- good, you seem to recognize this.

2) a loophole would be an exception to an existing rule. A means to get around a restriction.

You _wish_ that private sales required a background check. That isn't the case in 31 states. Therefore no 'loophole'.


Aha, noticed another nugget of wisdom- "you don't need a license to sell it. but if selling to a private individual, you do. "

Now you want not only to require a background check between private sellers, you want to require some kind of license for private sales? Sounds like you're trying to ban private sales altogether.

[rollingrock]

98. Obviously

there should be no private used gun sales without a license. that's just common sense to me. but of course, common sense seems to be a rare commodity these days, so I may be asking for a bit too much.

[AtheistCrusader]

101. It's illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to a felon.

Now, that doesn't mean a felon can't conceal his or her history from you.

Most of us require a buyer to show us some form of ID that cannot be obtained by a felon, such as a concealed pistol license, or no sale. We are DENIED any tool to check the buyer's background. You know that right? It's not a matter of not having a method. There is a method, and we are NOT ALLOWED TO USE IT.

[X_Digger]

105. There are no licenses to own guns in 40'ish states.

Those that do are a distinct minority.

You need to start talking to those 40'ish states first about establishing some kind of license. Come back and tell us how that went.

btw..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/In-U.S.-Record-Low-Support-Stricter-Gun-Laws.aspx

[eqfan592]

111. I love that graph right there.

And something to keep in mind as well is that of the 44% of people that stated "more strict" we don't really know exactly HOW strict they think they should go. Some may just think opening up the background check system to private sellers would be enough, or some other minor changes. I wish the questioners had gone further with those stating "more strict" so we could have a better idea of this, but my guess would be that it's a minority of the minority that wants outright bans or ridiculous wait times.

[X_Digger]

115. Not to mention..

We don't know how much the 'more strict' actually know about existing laws. If you explained the laws as they are, they might change to 'as it is', or even 'less'. Maybe what they really want is enforcement of existing laws.

[eqfan592]

123. Exactly

With the huge amount of misinformation floating around out there thanks to organizations like the VPC and the Brady Campaign I doubt most of those people even understand fully how many laws and restrictions are already in place. Public education is the key when it comes to this issue.

[Callisto32]

179. All sales of guns are "private" unless they are to the state.

The state that uses those guns for evil WAY more than the general citizenry.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. I knew it, You don't know what the 'gun show loophole' is.

You are a sucker for cheap news/media propaganda.

If you and I meet, through any means, and I agree to sell you a firearm, that's the 'gun show loophole' in a nutshell. There is no background check required between private parties. Individuals. NON-GUN DEALERS. A gun dealer at the shows is required to follow the same rules and perform the same checks at the show, as they are at their brick and mortar shop. Private parties can meet and sell ANYWHERE, a the watercooler at work, a cork board, a garage sale, an ad in the newspaper classified section, etc.

But let's get back to your other question. The reason the Virginia Tech shooter was able to buy that gun is, the State of Virginia didn't report medical history to the federal NICS repository. Most states do. I believe Virginia does now, as well.

[Merchant Marine]

135. And California has required background checks for several years now.

No effect on the crime rate. Then last year they tried to shut down gun shows at the Cow Palace in San Fran, because it was supposedly supplying criminals despite no evidence and rigorous BATFE and SFPD presence. Just proves if you give a banner a ban...

[Callisto32]

178. The gunshow loophole?

I have to go through a NICS check at a gun show just the same as if I went to a storefront. If I buy from a private seller, I do not (and in fact CANNOT because only FFL's have access, but that is another ridiculous bit of red-tapeiness) need a NICS check. There is a no gun show loophole it is just that the same laws that apply everywhere else apply to gun shows.

[GreenStormCloud]

42. You are missing a few facts in your analogy.

Gun ownership and licensing is already like a driver's license.

Fact: As long as the motor vehicle stays on private property, you can drive it without a license. The vehicle does not have to be registered or safety inspected. Often a ranch or farm will have a work truck that stays on the property.

Fact: You need a diver's license if you want to drive on PUBLIC roads.

Same with guns. If the gun stays on private property, no license is needed. Going hunting - you need a hunting license. Going to carry concealed - you need a CCW. To get a CCW, one has to take classes, pass a shooting test, and a genuine FBI background, and wait a couple of months for all of that to be done.

[slackmaster]

48. It usually takes less than three minutes

Either you are a known prohibited person or you are not. Most NICS checks are completed within a few minutes.

The PROBLEM is that NICS is only available to gun dealers, not to unlicensed people who have used guns to sell.

[Gumbo]

60. What state

Do you live in where it takes a couple of months to get a driver's license? In Louisiana, assuming you have the correct documentation, you walk in and walk out 3 hours later with a driver's license.

[metalbot]

71. Huh? You can get drivers license in a day

Maybe your state is different, but at least in Texas, any adult can walk into any drivers license facility, take the test, and walk out with a license.

Why is 5 days not enough time to screen out the wrong people? It takes a 30 second phone call from the dealer to NICS to screen for criminal history, and this is required by federal law. If NICS is down for some reason, you won't be buying a firearm (though in Texas a NICS check is not required for CHL holders, since they have already gone through a background check).

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

Your ignorance is stunning.

[AtheistCrusader]

96. What state do you live in that takes MONTHS to get a DL?

Hell, I got the appointment for the driving test Next Day, and walked out of there with the license, in my hand.

Also, you are only making a case for a waiting period to buy the FIRST firearm.

[oneshooter]

163. This statement

"how long does it take to get a driver license? at least a couple of months" tell me that you have no idea what you are talking about. Get an education on the subject BEFORE posting on it.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[GreenStormCloud]

43. My wife is alive today because she was carrying a gun a few years ago.

She would have died in the mugging, except that having a gun prevented her from being mugged.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

6. You must be bored tonight. I'm just gonna go pop some corn.

Be right back

[rollingrock]

8. I may be a little bored

but its still a legitimate question. I'm not trying to start any drama here.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

11. Oh really? Been to the guns forum much lately?

[rollingrock]

20. Not lately nt

[eqfan592]

14. You have your head thoroughly up your ass.

Now prove me wrong. Provide evidence that shows that extremely long wait times for legal firearm purchases will somehow have a dramatic impact on the violent crime rate, or even any impact at all. Also, describe in detail what the gun show loophole is, and if it even in fact exists how it can be closed.

If you can do these two things, or even if you can make a solid effort, I'll accept that you've proven me wrong. If you can't then my comment stands and your little more than the typical drooling mouth that laps up everything the Brady Campaign sends their way.

[katandmoon]

15. Gun worshippers are nuts. Plain and simple.

[eqfan592]

16. Yup, when you can't counter their argumens and evidence, call them nuts.

That's the progressive way!



:sarcasm:

[katandmoon]

64. They worship death instruments over life. That's nuts.;

[AtheistCrusader]

102. Your inability to see any purpose for firearms beyond 'killing' is nuts.

[jefflrrp]

18. Heres the thing . . .

Rather than sit there and say that those who oppose arbitrary and needless regulation on a constitutionally protected right are nuts, why don't you provide evidence to support your 'nutty' fearful gun-banning opinions? Because all I see here every time you post is opinionated fear-mongering crap that doesn't show the least intelligence.

Im sorry, but I was educated to debate people over issues. I see the pro-RKBA crowd doing just that, and in largely a respectful manner. Why don't you do the same.

Put up or shup up.

Health Care Reform worshippers are nuts.

Pro-choice advocates are nuts.

Plain and simple.

Two can play at this game.

[katandmoon]

65. Lke I said. You worship a machine that kills people. That's nuts.

[Remmah2]

68. The same could be said about archery.

Yet it's an Olympic sport, same as a biathelon.

A fine engraved firearm with a hand carved stock can be a priceless work of art. The same for cars. Yet both are inert unless put into motion by the hands of man.

A man's hands can cuddle his child or strangle his neighbor.


It's the person who misuses the machine that is the problem.

[DonP]

148. Nuts - This from a poster with the leading number of phallic related gun posts

The irony is fascinating and the pattern could provide fodder for a Psych textbook.

All you seem to think about is "Nuts" and "Penis" related metaphors.

You really need to get into therapy - soon.

[taurus145]

34. I own them

I do not worship them. Well, maybe the shotgun my granddad gave me. <---HUMOR!

[HALO141]

99. I'll go further and say

that WORSHIPERS (in general) are nuts. But I get the feeling your statement is simply meant to condemn everyone who doesn't agree with you. Is that the case?

[krispos42]

27. Why not 2 to four months?

Why not a year?


At what point does it stop being about public safey and start being about anti-gun people (mostly urban and suburban liberals) simply trying to make life hards for pro-gun people (mostly suburban and rural conservatives)?

At what point is it liberals being so disguested with the Republican base that supports anti-choice, anti-intellectual, anti-education, pro-corporate, anti-environment, pro-fundamentalist-evangelican Christianity, pro-hatred, gas-guzzler-driving, racist, sexist, xenophobic, bad-government politicians that it is simply lashing out at something guaranteed to piss off that base?


And there is no gun show loophole. It's another framing phrase used by the anti-gun people.

[notesdev]

31. I dunno, you tell me

[cowcommander]

37. Here's another one

[eqfan592]

54. And another one.

[Xenotime]

120. Free men don't NEED guns.

[Merchant Marine]

129. Free men have the ability to excersize their rights

Self defense is a right.

[eqfan592]

136. Bingo.

A free man isn't free at all if he his denied the right to effective self defense of his person and his home.

A free man may not NEED a gun, but he must have the right to own one should he wish to do so.

[Callisto32]

180. All I NEED is air, water, food and heat.

What is your point?

[Euromutt]

38. Almost nobody is against gun control

That is, not entirely. Most people think it's a reasonable idea that convicted felons don't get to keep and bear arms while incarcerated. Most people think it's a reasonable idea that violent offenders don't get to possess firearms after they've been released. Most people think it's a reasonable idea that minors not be allowed to be in possession of a firearm unless supervised by a responsible adult. Most people think it's a reasonable idea to criminalize brandishing and discharging a firearm where doing say will likely result in harm to others, unless there is a very pressing reason to do so.

All those are examples of gun control measures, and because they're the sort that actually are reasonable and common-sense, which is why they're already law. When you speak of people being "against gun control," you're talking about people who are opposed to more gun control than there already is.

And I'm not opposed to background checks, but why would there be a need for a 15-30 day waiting period before taking delivery of a firearm? The best available data from the ATF indcates that the "time to crime" (i.e the time between a firearm being transferred from an FFL to a private buyer, and when it is used in a crime) is on average about a year for the most commonly used models of crime gun, and longer for everything else. A NICS check (to ascertain that the prospective buyer has no felony convictions, outstanding warrants, has been adjudicated mentally incompetent to posses a firearm, etc.) can be be done on the spot, and there really is no compelling reason why it should take longer.

Speaking for myself, I have a state-issued Concealed Pistol License, which I had to undergo a full FBI background check to acquire, and this allows me to bypass the state-level 5-day waiting period for delivery of a firearm, because the state already has my background check on file. I think that's pretty nifty, and nothing would be achieved by forcing me to wait five days and have to drive to the gun shop again to pick up the gun.

And as others have already pointed out, there is no "gun show loophole"; there is nothing that is legal at a gun show that is illegal everywhere else. If you want impose certain requirements and/or restrictions on sales between private citizens, then call it that.

[benEzra]

39. Because there is a powerful, well funded lobby that wants to sharply reduce gun ownership in the USA

and would like to make the process as intrusive, humiliating, and expensive as possible to weed out middle-class peons like my wife and I.

What you describe is already present in New York City, where Charles Schumer and Donald Trump can easily get licenses to own and carry a handgun, but where it is practically impossible for a middle-class person to do so regardless of how clean their record is or how well trained they are. It is also the means by which gun owners had almost everything that matters taken away in the UK and Australia.

A 2 to 4 week waiting period merely to purchase a gun is also asinine; we have a system in this country in which your criminal background can be checked in minutes, not weeks, and anything beyond that is simply harassment of purchasers with clean records.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Exactly what is a waiting period supposed to accomplish?

In real life, it accomplishes nothing.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

45. Each one of these concepts is utter failure.

It's already virtually impossible for criminals to legally obtain firearms. The extended waiting period would not apply to them because it would not affect black market supply of guns. Therefore the only person extendended waiting periods would effect is persons lawfully buying firearms. Typically, to say the least, the lawful gun purchaser is not a large concern when it comes to gun crime. Why do you support concepts that are targeted at people who are, nearly by definitin, nto the problem? Why would you curtail only thier freedoms and enumerated rights based on the unscrupulous actions of others? Why do you hate freedom?

Gun-show loophole. Hint: It's not a "loophole"... not even a little bit. A loophole is an extenuating set of circumstances that acts as a legal workaround to a barrier already in place. For example, magazines that hold 31+ rounds in ohio are illegal to use but a loophole exists that if the weapon is Title II registered, the magazine law does not apply. Concerning the sale of guns, in the eyes of the law there are private citizens and FFL dealers... that's it. FFL dealers retail supply from gun manufacturers and MUST do background checks and paperwork for every sale... even at gunshows, no exception. There is not any federal level laws that prohibit a private citizen selling his gun (his private property) to another private citizen. There is nothing magical about gun shows - the transaction can take place ANYWHERE. People just like to wheel and deal at gun shows, classified ads, and flea markets because there's potential buyers there. Hell, I once sold a .50 caliber in the parking lot of a Subway resaraunt for cash and also purchased a shotgun in the parking lot of McDonalds. Like I said, there is noting special about gunshows and there are no otherwise prohibitive laws in place that gunshows are designed to work around... it ain't a loophole.

Each one of these concepts is utter failure.
Why would you think espousing them in aggregate would make the arguments any more valid?
The personal ownership of defense means is a progressive concept, FYI.

[slackmaster]

46. I'm in favor of background checks, waiting periods do no good, there is no gun show loophole

...why would you be bothered with say, having a 2 to 4 week waiting period?

I am not aware of any scientific research that shows that a waiting period has any benefit, therefore they are bad. A right delayed is a right denied.

...closing the gun show loophole...

There is no gun show loophole.

The problem of criminals being able to avoid background checks by buying used guns from private individuals could be reduced by making the National Instant Check System (NICS) available to anyone who wishes to sell a used gun. Safeguards would be needed to prevent misuse of the system. But I believe that would help a lot.

Very few gun owners would knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person. The problem is they have no way to check the background of a buyer they don't know personally.

[rollingrock]

72. No gun show loophole?

you must have missed this thread:

'Virginia Tech Survivor With Hidden Camera Films Dangerous Gun Sales at Gun Shows'
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x270522



edit: I like your idea of making the NCIS check available to private citizens who want to sell their weapons...BUT I would prefer to see a law that prohibits any private sale of second hand firearms UNLESS you have a license to deal in firearms AND you have access to NCIS...OR, you are selling your used guns to a licensed gun shop or licensed pawn shop, in which case you don't need a dealer license.

so that's another legal loophole that needs to be closed, like the gun show loophole.

[LAGC]

74. So really you aren't talking about a gun-show loophole, but a private-party loophole.

After all, that's all that's going on at gun shows that seems to be irking the gun controllers' eye, is private parties selling their guns without a license.

But the vast majority of sales at gun shows, by dealers, are still licensed. So the term "gun-show loophole" is a red herring of sorts.

[rollingrock]

76. Yes.

the gun show/private party loophole is a huge one.

the majority of dealers at gun shows may be licensed, but the problem is the buyers at the gun shows aren't required by law to go through the usual screening process. which allows any felon to easily and legally acquire their firearms, no questions asked.

[LAGC]

79. I don't understand what the big fear of felons acquriing firearms is.

After all, if someone has served their time and is deemed safe enough to be released from prison, shouldn't they have all their civil rights restored, including right to keep and bear arms? If they aren't safe, why are they being released from prison? Naturally, if they are still on parole they can face additional restrictions on their civil rights (such as NOT being free from unreasonable search and seizure by parole officers, etc.) but shouldn't that kind of compliance be something that the parole officer enforces, not the gun sellers? I just question trying to turn your everyday Joe gun-seller into a de facto arm of the police state.

[rollingrock]

89. Maybe certain non-violent felons could be exempted

in some cases. but certainly not in the case of violent felons or someone who has done time for burglary, for example. I believe those kind of felons should be barred from possessing firearms for the rest of their lives.

[LAGC]

107. I happen to be a convicted Burglar, so I take offense to your suggestion.

I was barely 18 at the time, got caught up with the wrong "friends" and made a terrible mistake. We broke into a computer store at night and stole some computers. I paid for that mistake with 6 months prison time and over $19,000 in back restitution (which I have since paid in full), and 10 years probation. Haven't stolen anything in the 13 years since. But according to state law, I have to wait 5 years after the termination of my sentence before I can even able to apply to get my gun rights back. I think this is unfair, as I have already served my time but I am still being punished for a mistake I made as a teenager. Yet you are saying that I should be barred from gun ownership for life? Why? I have turned my life around, I don't do the things I used to do, I have learned from my mistakes. People can and do change. I think the law should take that into consideration.

[Katya Mullethov]

151. If you can be trusted enough to walk amongst us

Then you can be trusted with a weapon of your very own .

[LAGC]

159. Thanks.

I'm not proud of what I did, but I felt I had to speak up after that broad generalization by the above poster.

As it stands I can apply to get my gun rights back in a few years, according to my state's law. I might try for a full pardon before then, since I've managed to stay out of trouble and have been productively employed in the meantime.

[Callisto32]

181. +1

I have never understood how we can say "okay, you can be out and mingle, but you can't own a gun, or vote, or go near a school or ......" If any of that is true, you should still be locked away where you can't hurt people. To be perfectly clear, victimless crimes should not be crimes.

[eqfan592]

80. You totally missed the point.

If a dealer has an FFL that allows him to commercially sell firearms, then they MUST perform background checks on their buyers, no matter if they are selling at a gun show or at their store. There is NOTHING special about gun shows that allows for any sort of loophole.

Now if you want to start talking about a Private Party loophole, then you may have a point.

But this is all academic when it comes down to it, as criminals are still going to get their guns no matter what laws we pass. We should be expending our energies trying to solve the real issues of crime and not the symptoms.

[rollingrock]

85. Yes but

private sellers who have no FFL are also showing up at the gun shows, not just the licensed dealers. and of course, there's no background check involved when buying from them.

[X_Digger]

104. And they represent what percentage of guns used in crime?

Oh right, 0.7%

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

"According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

* a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%"

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

"Source of gun 1997 1991
Total 100.0% 100.0%
Purchased from -- 13.9 20.8
Retail store 8.3 14.7
Pawnshop 3.8 4.2
Flea market 1.0 1.3
Gun show 0.7 0.6
Friends or family 39.6 33.8
Street/illegal source 39.2 40.8"

[eqfan592]

108. Yes, I understand this.

That's because there is no law baring private sellers from selling at any venue they chose to. There is nothing special about "gun shows," its the laws that govern private sales/transfers of firearms that seems to be your main concern.

One way of getting around this would be to open up the background check system to private sellers, but you'd also have to find a way to protect the personal privacy of the people that background checks are being done on, which is the real lynch pin.

[PavePusher]

92. What, are you speaking in toungues or something?

Define this "loop-hole" you keep whining about.

[AtheistCrusader]

103. You know you can't spit at a gun show without hitting at least 3 police officers right?

At the WA shows, about half the sellers are off-duty or retired police or military. Police patrol the aisles. Many of the buyers are off-duty law enforcement.

Trust me, the place isn't crawling with felons.

Now, what we DO have, quite possibly, is non-felon straw purchasers walking in, buying guns legally, and flipping them to criminals. But nothing you've proposed here would do a damn thing about it.

[slackmaster]

113. I see no indication of any loophole in the law - Here's a link to federal gun law

Please point out where it makes any kind of exception for gun show transactions:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_44.html

The video depicts private-party transfers, which are legal whether they occur at a gun show or in a church parking lot or someone's living room.

[one-eyed fat man]

165. ATF has a website, you can read the law instead of making it up!

hey, before you go spouting unsubstantiated drivel, why not go to ATF.gov? They have an FAQ and a nifty website we pay for.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faqindex.h...

(C10) May a person obtain a dealer's license to engage in business only at gun shows?

No. A license may only be issued for a permanent premises at which the license applicant intends to do business. A person having such license may conduct business at gun shows located in the State in which the licensed premises is located and sell and deliver curio or relic firearms to other licensees at any location.

<18 U.S.C. 923(a) and (j)>


B. UNLICENSED PERSONS

(B1) To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

<18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30>

(B2) From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

<18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30>

(B3) May an unlicensed person obtain a firearm from an out-of-State source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed dealer in the purchaser’s own State?

A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser's State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.

<18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3)>

The law requires anyone who sells guns as a business or in interstate commerce to have a license. The murkiness in the regulation is the definition of "in the business."

A good example is selling a car. If you sell your car you are not a dealer and your state does not require you to collect sales tax. Many states set a limit on how many times a person can sell his car an not pay sales taxes. The "magic" number in my state is 6. If you sell 6 cars in a year, you are a "de facto dealer" be cause the Revenue Cabinet says so and they want their 6%.

There is no similar hard and fast rule for guns and the FFL requirement. If you are in the business of selling guns you need a license. If you make an occasional sale of a personally owned gun, you don't. Does a guy who buys a gun, keeps it for a while and sells it or trades for a different or nicer one a dealer? Or is he improving his collection?

If "in fact" he is doing it in furtherance of a business he is a dealer and requires a license. The problem may be in that a jury has to determine that to be fact.

If you inherit a closet full of old guns you know nothing about and have no interest in and you peddle them in a yard sale are you a dealer? If you rent a table at a gun show instead, on the assumption there will be more potential buyers, does that make you a dealer? Can you take that closet full of guns across the state line and sell them? (Only if you sell them to a licensee, aka FFL.)

The ATF talks in terms of licensees and non-licensees for a reason. Those terms are defined. "Unlicensed dealer" is not. Now as for opening up NICs to everyone. Suppose you were wondering about that dude your daughter is dating, call NICS and see if you can sell him a gun? What about calling in your boss before you next go asking for a raise?

[X_Digger]

47. Let's see..

-attempt to paint those who disagree with you as mentally unstable? Check.
-propose arbitrary restrictions on a constitutionally protected right with no track record of crime reduction? Check.*
-throw in gun control memes in an attempt to add legitimacy to your proposal? Check.**
-end with another ad hominem phrased as a question? Check.

*When the original brady bill passed, there was a waiting period, until the NICS could be brought online. The DOJ could find no evidence that the waiting period had any effect on guns used in crime.

**There is no law that is circumvented at a 'gun show'. There is nothing in USC Title 18 Sec. 922 (or any other section of federal law) that prohibits private sales in any particular venue. Sales between state residents of guns are regulated (or not) by the states. In 31 states, no background check is required.

[Remmah2]

58. Stricter enforcement of existing would be fine.

"Mandatory" enforcement of full term sentences would be the only way to keep criminals from obtaining firearms. Unfortunatly gun charges are usually the first charges plea bargained away.

[LAGC]

73. No, parole boards should have discretion.

That's the whole point of mixed sentencing in the first place (so many years FIXED, so many years INDETERMINATE or optional, based on offender's behavior while in prison) -- during supervised release on parole, naturally offenders can be restricted from owning guns, but it should be up to the parole officers to enforce compliance, not gun-sellers.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. Hey, why not.

opposed to strict, thorough background checks
I don't think anyone here IS opposed to background checks. What some people might be opposed to, depending on the TYPE of background check, is unreasonable delays 'processing the request', excessive fees, etc. But overall, nobody is complaining about background checks.

why would you be bothered with say, having a 2 to 4 week waiting period? what is the rush?
I might be replacing a damaged weapon for a competitive shooting appointment. I might be buying a gun for a birthday present. Etc. Can you cite ANY evidence a 2-4 week waiting period has ever saved a life? I'm pretty sure someone here is going to be able to cite, at least some individuals who lost their lives to people they had a restraining order against, while waiting on a firearm purchase.

in addition to closing the gun show loophole.
You probably don't even know what the 'gun show loophole' is, but regardless, most of us support 'closing' the 'loophole' by allowing NICS access to everyone. That would 'close' the 'loophole' for gun shows, newspaper classified ads, friend of a friend, and private transfers of all sorts.

that's what I don't get about the anti-gun control people. why would any law-biding citizen be against it unless they were criminally predisposed and/or mentally unbalanced that they would fail a thorough background check?
Most, to all of us, want to see gun control measures that actually TARGET CRIME. We do not need any more laws that amount to nothing more than a pain in the ass for law-abiding citizens, and do nothing to even slow down the criminally minded.

[spin]

109. BEST REPLY!!! (n/t)

[eqfan592]

112. HERE HERE!! (nt)

[onehandle]

114. When I'm really, really, really mad, I don't want anything to slow my gun buying ability.

I'm just sayin'...

[Merchant Marine]

118. You shouls see a psychologist

to deal with that projection problem

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

121. When a woman is really, really in danger from a hell bent ex, I don't want anything to slow hers!

[onehandle]

124. LOL!

And they're automatically 'Dirty Harriet.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=270845&mesg_id=270846

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

125. So they shouldn't have the option to defend themselves? Sounds like misogyny to me.

[eqfan592]

127. lol, I love how you link to a post...

...where a person making the same idiotic argument you are get's totally pwned in the process. Very nice, onehandle. :P

[rollingrock]

128. lol

just like in the movies!



"do ya feel lucky punk?"

[eqfan592]

130. I like this picture better.

Attempting to belittle those who defend themselves with a firearm is a stupid and idiotic exercise.

[Euromutt]

155. Wow, three instances of Arnold's Law in a single thread!

Replies #1, 124 and 128. That, too, is a new record.

http://www.bullshido.org/Arnold%27s_Law

[one-eyed fat man]

167. another believer in 'paper armour'?

There is no guaranty that even having a weapon and training will always be sufficient to protect against an abusive ex who is intent on mayhem, but the choice is not YOURS to mandate!

If you have always led a sheltered and protected existence, let me assure you of one absolute, when faced with death and a choice between chances of slim and none, a rational person will pick slim EVERY time!

http://www.corneredcat.com/mindset/paper.aspx

[slackmaster]

126. If you ever get mad enough to commit a violent crime, you definitely should not own a gun

If you have an urge to buy a gun, don't do it. For the Children.

[Euromutt]

158. You're "just sayin'"? What are you "just sayin'"?

God, that has to be one of the most chickenshit expressions in modern American English! What the fuck does it even mean, other than "I'm making some insinuation, but if anyone calls me on it, I'll refuse to take responsibility for it"?

You know, if you're "really, really, really mad," I'm sure there are plenty of lethal implements you can lay your hands on in much less time than it takes to drive to a gun shop, fill out an ATF form 4473, undergo a NICS check and drive back to do whatever it is you have in mind. I'm sure your kitchen contains any number of large knives that will perform any violent activities you desire, or possibly a baseball bat or hockey stick, various metal wrenches, perhaps a TV tray table.

[gorfle]

134. A question for you:

why would you be opposed to strict, thorough background checks or why would you be bothered with say, having a 2 to 4 week waiting period?

If I can pass a thorough background check in 30 seconds, why should I wait 2 to 4 weeks?

Because we already have NICS for all FFL firearm sales.

in addition to closing the gun show loophole.

Many, if not most pro-firearm folks have no problem with requiring background checks for private firearm sales so long as anonymous firearm ownership is preserved.

[jody]

149. You use 119 words to display an abysmal lack of knowledge of RKBA. IMO you will not read posts to

your OP or understand the PRO RKBA facts they contain.

Have a blissful day, :hi:

[Ready4Change]

150. Because we already have 'strict' gun laws.

Most firearm related crimes that are committed use guns that were obtained in ways that violate those laws. So, our existing 'strict' laws aren't being properly enforced.

So, you want to define 'stricter' laws, with the idea that will make us safer. But, since those won't be any better enforced than our current laws, the situation won't change, except that those of us who obey laws will be even more endangered by those who don't.

What then? I suspect a new slew of 'wonderfully strict laws.' Which won't be enforced properly either, and around it goes.

So, I'm against 'stricter' gun laws because I don't feel they will help. In fact, I think they will make law abiding citizens LESS safe.

[virginia mountainman]

152. A basic knowledge of history....

Proves that Strict gun control, has the strong potental to lead to genocide.

[spin]

168. Gun control is always about keeping "those people" from owing firearms...

genocide is not as much fun or as easy when the ethnic, racial, religious, or national group can shoot back.

[Taitertots]

166. Why not let the police search you any time they want?

If you are not a criminal you have nothing to hide.

[Glassunion]

172. Yeah...

Any maybe we can all line up for our citizen chips to be implanted by the "department of freedom and commerce"

[Katya Mullethov]

173. Is that Interstate Commerce ?

Gotta have precedent .

[PavePusher]

183. You first...

[spin]

187. Great idea ...

maybe we can make certain minorities wear clothing that has an emblem that identifies them.



Or we can just racially profile people and pull over and search those people if they are in the wrong area of town or are driving an expensive car.

We can simply overturn that useless Forth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Or maybe we can just change it to read:

The right of the rich and influential people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

After all our country has evolved to the point that it is run by the rich and influential. It's of the big corporations, by the big corporations and for the big corporations.


Just look at the heathcare bill.

[GreenStormCloud]

184. Tell a badly battered woman who has left the abuser that she has to wait...

without the ability to protect herself, for your four weeks.

What purpose does a wait serve? The NICS check is able to be done in minutes.