The Gunshow 'Loophole'

[philnotfil]

There is no gunshow loophole.

Gunsellers who sell guns as a business have to comply with all of the same regulations that they do when selling guns at their stores. Private sellers who do not sell guns as a business (within their state) have to comply with all of the same regulations that they do when selling a gun privately from their home.

It doesn't matter if they are at a gunshow or not.

[PIMking]

but to the anti's this is a loophole....

[gator996]

Whether or not there's a "loophole" is irrelevant.

Gun control activists want background checks performed on all gun sales.
They also want all sales, transfers, guns lost, guns destroyed to be recorded.

[PIMking]

yeah registration leads to them taking them and some anti posting up all the addy's on the web for the world to see.

[gator996]

PIM, that may well be the case but the fact of whether or not there's a loophole doesn't really matter does it?

[philnotfil]

Whether or not there's a "loophole" is irrelevant.

Gun control activists want background checks performed on all gun sales.
They also want all sales, transfers, guns lost, guns destroyed to be recorded.

I agree, it just bugs me when I see or here people complain about a loophole that doesn't exist.

[jimgata]

If it is legal, how can it be a loophole? There is no such thing as a loophole, it is either legal or it is unlawful. Laws are laws and not loopholes.

[VAg8r1]

I agree, it just bugs me when I see or here people complain about a loophole that doesn't exist.
Are individuals who purchase firearms at gun shows (or through various forms of private sales) subject to background background checks? The term "gun show loophole refers to the absence of mandated background checks. According to the link below, there is, in fact, such a loophole.
To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented nearly 1.8 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place.

Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.

Though commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywherelink (http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole)

[The_Ultimate_Gator]

Are individuals who purchase firearms at gun shows (or through various forms of private sales) subject to background background checks? The term "gun show loophole refers to the absence of mandated background checks. According to the link below, there is, in fact, such a loophole.
link (http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole)

Yes, they are required if they buy from a dealer. If they buy from an individual, then no.

Regardless, guns purchased at gun shows are used in less than 2% of all gun crimes. (source (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ondcp/homicide_trends.pdf) - page 99)

[Matthanuf06]

Are individuals who purchase firearms at gun shows (or through various forms of private sales) subject to background background checks? The term "gun show loophole refers to the absence of mandated background checks. According to the link below, there is, in fact, such a loophole.
link (http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole)

Omitting private sales from the law isn't a loophole though. It was very intentional.

And besides the private sales we should worry about aren't at gun shows but rather in the streets of the worst areas of our cities.

[gatorman_07732]

Whether or not there's a "loophole" is irrelevant.

Gun control activists want background checks performed on all gun sales.
They also want all sales, transfers, guns lost, guns destroyed to be recorded.

Most gun control activists are completely ignorant of firearms and current laws regarding firearms.

[PIMking]

So since it's legal to privately purchase a firearm it's a loophole?

[Lawdog88]

Whether or not there's a "loophole" is irrelevant.

Gun control activists want background checks performed on all gun sales.
They also want all sales, transfers, guns lost, guns destroyed to be recorded.


Ultimately, confiscation, we get it.

But back to hypothetical reality for a moment, how is a private person going to perform a background check prior to selling his neighbor - or anyone else - his granddad's .38 ?

Are private citizens going to granted access to the privileged information in government databases that gun dealers have access to ? Is the neighbor going to have to fill out a government-issued, pre-purchase check list sheet (under penalty of perjury) and undergo a background check, giving up SSN, DOB, DL#, etc. ?

Or is this just an unwieldy ruse that has the ultimate aim of actually stopping the transfer of firearms between private individuals, and making any such transfer a crime ?

Huuuuummmmm. I wonder.

[gatorman_07732]

nm

[gator996]

Ultimately, confiscation, we get it.

But back to hypothetical reality for a moment, how is a private person going to perform a background check prior to selling his neighbor - or anyone else - his granddad's .38 ?

Are private citizens going to granted access to the privileged information in government databases that gun dealers have access to ? Is the neighbor going to have to fill out a government-issued, pre-purchase check list sheet (under penalty of perjury) and undergo a background check, giving up SSN, DOB, DL#, etc. ?

Or is this just an unwieldy ruse that has the ultimate aim of actually stopping the transfer of firearms between private individuals, and making any such transfer a crime ?

Huuuuummmmm. I wonder.


That private person would have to go to their local police dept and have a background check performed prior to selling the gun or the buyer would have to have a background check performed prior to buying the gun and present the document to the seller who would be required to turn that report in after the sale.

If private gun transactions are generally between 2 law abiding citizens what would be the problem?

[Matthanuf06]

Ultimately, confiscation, we get it.

But back to hypothetical reality for a moment, how is a private person going to perform a background check prior to selling his neighbor - or anyone else - his granddad's .38 ?

Are private citizens going to granted access to the privileged information in government databases that gun dealers have access to ? Is the neighbor going to have to fill out a government-issued, pre-purchase check list sheet (under penalty of perjury) and undergo a background check, giving up SSN, DOB, DL#, etc. ?

Or is this just an unwieldy ruse that has the ultimate aim of actually stopping the transfer of firearms between private individuals, and making any such transfer a crime ?

Huuuuummmmm. I wonder.

My guess is you would have to do the background check at a dealer for a fee.

[gatorman_07732]

That private person would have to go to their local police dept and have a background check performed prior to selling the gun or the buyer would have to have a background check performed prior to buying the gun and present the document to the seller who would be required to turn that report in after the sale.

If private gun transactions are generally between 2 law abiding citizens what would be the problem?

And it they're not law abidding, they won't give a flip anyway.

[PIMking]

Ultimately, confiscation, we get it.

But back to hypothetical reality for a moment, how is a private person going to perform a background check prior to selling his neighbor - or anyone else - his granddad's .38 ?

Are private citizens going to granted access to the privileged information in government databases that gun dealers have access to ? Is the neighbor going to have to fill out a government-issued, pre-purchase check list sheet (under penalty of perjury) and undergo a background check, giving up SSN, DOB, DL#, etc. ?

Or is this just an unwieldy ruse that has the ultimate aim of actually stopping the transfer of firearms between private individuals, and making any such transfer a crime ?

Huuuuummmmm. I wonder.

the gun dealers don't have access to the actual information, they're just told proceed, hold or denied by the nics

[brainstorm]

When the gun control folks march into the inner cities and get their gun problems under control then they can come and talk to the rest of us who abide by the law.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Yes, they are required if they buy from a dealer. If they buy from an individual, then no.

This is true under ALL circumstances. I am not a gun dealer, and I can sell you a gun without requiring a background check.

[wgbgator]

I think the problem is that private sales are barely regulated, if at all. Also an indirect reason why your insurance limits the $ payable on theft claims on firearms (among certain other types of personal property).

[PIMking]

I think the problem is that private sales are barely regulated, if at all. Also an indirect reason why your insurance limits the $ payable on theft claims on firearms (among certain other types of personal property).

That's why I have a contract written up for both the buyer and seller if I sell my firearms privately

[gatorman_07732]

I think the problem is that private sales are barely regulated, if at all. Also an indirect reason why your insurance limits the $ payable on theft claims on firearms (among certain other types of personal property).

What you're saying is not accurate, because it depends on the state

[wgbgator]

What you're saying is not accurate, because it depends on the state

Ok, fair enough. Let's just say there isnt much in the way of a national standard.

[gatorman_07732]

Ok, fair enough. Let's just say there isnt much in the way of a national standard.

I don't believe it should be for the federal government to decide what the best for all states. One size fits all gun legislation leads is quite scary. Leads not forget what lead us to this gun legislation and that states particularly rigid gun control laws. This is all a statist solution that is just designed to take more rights away from the citizens of this country at large. If you don't like the gun laws in your state then move to one that has more strict legislation, but don't try to conform the laws of the entire country as you want.

[wgbgator]

I don't believe it should be for the federal government to decide what the best for all states. One size fits all gun legislation leads is quite scary. Leads not forget what lead us to this gun legislation and that states particularly rigid gun control laws. This is all a statist solution that is just designed to take more rights away from the citizens of this country at large. If you don't like the gun laws in your state then move to one that has more strict legislation, but don't try to conform the laws of the entire country as you want.

^^ Yet another in a long line of arguments against federalism - setting some minimum guidelines on private sales at a national level is met with this reasoning, and apparently "scary."

[philnotfil]

Are individuals who purchase firearms at gun shows (or through various forms of private sales) subject to background background checks? The term "gun show loophole refers to the absence of mandated background checks. According to the link below, there is, in fact, such a loophole.
link (http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole)

If they buy from a licensed dealer they are subject to a background check, whether or not the licensed dealer is at a gunshow. If they buy from a private individual, they are not subject to a background check, whether or not the private individual is at a gunshow. Whether or not the purchase takes place at a gunshow is irrelevant.

[squigator]

Whether or not there's a "loophole" is irrelevant.

Gun control activists want background checks performed on all gun sales.
They also want all sales, transfers, guns lost, guns destroyed to be recorded.

And they want all the members of the bureaucracy that would administer the recording process to be unionized workers contributing money to the democratic party.

[gatorman_07732]

^^ Yet another in a long line of arguments against federalism - setting some minimum guidelines on private sales at a national level is met with this reasoning, and apparently "scary."

No the scary part is your one size fits all approach and desire to levy what you deem is reasonable and fair.

[wgbgator]

No the scary part is your one size fits all approach and desire to levy what you deem is reasonable and fair.

It's not that at all. If I set a base floor of standards, states still have plenty of latitude to pass further laws or experiment how they wish, as long as they meet basic guidelines. Its the same reasoning in which "waivers" are granted on things like welfare or other federal laws. As long as you meet a basic threshold, you're golden and not necessarily bound to the letter of the law as the federal gov't writes it. I know, I know, that sounds like horrible, unimaginable tyranny.

[gator996]

That private person would have to go to their local police dept and have a background check performed prior to selling the gun or the buyer would have to have a background check performed prior to buying the gun and present the document to the seller who would be required to turn that report in after the sale.

If private gun transactions are generally between 2 law abiding citizens what would be the problem?

And it they're not law abidding, they won't give a flip anyway.


That's fine...add a gun charge to the buyer & seller if the gun is used to commit a crime

[gatorman_07732]

It's not that at all. If I set a base floor of standards, states still have plenty of latitude to pass further laws or experiment how they wish, as long as they meet basic guidelines. Its the same reasoning in which "waivers" are granted on things like welfare or other federal laws. As long as you meet a basic threshold, you're golden and not necessarily bound to the letter of the law as the federal gov't writes it. I know, I know, that sounds like horrible, unimaginable tyranny.

Sorry but he already have base floor of standards. What you want to do restrict freedoms of law abiding citizens. Again, I would suggest moving to a state the best fits the laws you desire.

[wgbgator]

Sorry but he already have base floor of standards. What you want to do restrict freedoms of law abiding citizens. Again, I would suggest moving to a state the best fits the laws you desire.

You said that we didn't.

[108]

i see no problem with imposing that private sales of guns must have a background check

seems like common sense

[gatorman_07732]

You said that we didn't.

I said no such thing...We have some restrictions for heavy artillery and class 3 weapons, not being able to carry on gov property, felons not being able to possess/buy a firearm, etc.... Your idea of gun control gets into a violation of rights. Again, you can move to a state with more rigid control laws so why don't you do it?

[gatorman_07732]

[QUOTE=gatorman_07732;6296769]


That's fine...add a gun charge to the buyer & seller if the gun is used to commit a crime

So if the gun is stolen from a persons house and used in a crime, then he should go to jail? You want to transform otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. Pure genius

[wgbgator]

I said no such thing...We have some restrictions for heavy artillery and class 3 weapons, not being able to carry on gov property, felons not being able to possess/buy a firearm, etc.... Your idea of gun control gets into a violation of rights. Again, you can move to a state with more rigid control laws so why don't you do it?

If regulating private sales of property is a violation of rights, then state and federal gov't are seriously violating some rights with or without including guns.

[gatorman_07732]

i see no problem with imposing that private sales of guns must have a background check

seems like common sense

If you would do your research, you would see that is the law where you reside. I think people in Wyoming would take issue with what you think is best for them.

[108]

If you would do your research, you would see that is the law where you reside. I think people in Wyoming would take issue with what you think is best for them.

do you have a list of states besides Wyoming that don't impose a background check for private gun sales?

and can a person purchase between state lines?

[gatorman_07732]

If regulating private sales of property is a violation of rights, then state and federal gov't are seriously violating some rights with or without including guns.

Except there is a constitutional amendment that protects those rights. I'm going to ask one more time, WHY DON"T YOU MOVE TO A STATE THAT BEST FITS THE LAWS YOU WANT. That is the third time I asked this question. As I told 108 above, someone in Wyoming would take issue with what you want to impose on them. I find this completely arrogant

[gatorman_07732]

do you have a list of states besides Wyoming that don't impose a background check for private gun sales?

and can a person purchase between state lines?

I think you fail to lack the concept between law abiding citizens and those who have no regard for the law.

[gator996]

[QUOTE=gator996;6297297]

So if the gun is stolen from a persons house and used in a crime, then he should go to jail? You want to transform otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. Pure genius

Proposed legislation wants all sales, tranfers, loss, theft of guns be reported.

[gatorman_07732]

[QUOTE=gatorman_07732;6297394]

Proposed legislation wants all sales, tranfers, loss, theft of guns be reported.

And the proposed legislation can burn in hell because it's not going to do a damn thing to prevent what has happened. This is what gets me from the left on this issue, because its always knee jerk reaction. What does any of this have to do with what happened in CT?

[gator996]

Except there is a constitutional amendment that protects those rights. I'm going to ask one more time, WHY DON"T YOU MOVE TO A STATE THAT BEST FITS THE LAWS YOU WANT. That is the third time I asked this question. As I told 108 above, someone in Wyoming would take issue with what you want to impose on them. I find this completely arrogant

If there was a federal law regulating guns (which the government has the right to do) then federal law would trump state law.

Happens all of the time...marijuana laws anyone?


Anyway, what's the aversion to national registration and tracking?

Govt tracks ownership interest in homes, cars, etc.
Why not guns?

[gator996]

[QUOTE=gator996;6297443]

And the proposed legislation can burn in hell because it's not going to do a damn thing to prevent what has happened. This is what gets me from the left on this issue, because its always knee jerk reaction. What does any of this have to do with what happened in CT?

Why are you only looking to fix what happened in CT?

Gun related deaths are too frequent in everyday life.

[gatorman_07732]

If there was a federal law regulating guns (which the government has the right to do) then federal law would trump state law.

Happens all of the time...marijuana laws anyone?


Anyway, what's the aversion to national registration and tracking?

Govt tracks ownership interest in homes, cars, etc.
Why not guns?

Uh, second amendment. I understand you like a big powerful almighty central government, but they were never intended to be the fedzilla you desire. Remember the federal government as enumerated powers and thats the way it was intended to stay. If you don't like the gun laws where you are then move somewhere else.

[gatorman_07732]

[QUOTE=gatorman_07732;6297452]

Why are you only looking to fix what happened in CT?

Gun related deaths are too frequent in everyday life.

We wouldn't even be having the proposed legislation right now if it wasn't for CT so don't fool yourself

[gregthegator]

If there was a federal law regulating guns (which the government has the right to do) then federal law would trump state law.

Happens all of the time...marijuana laws anyone?


Anyway, what's the aversion to national registration and tracking?

Govt tracks ownership interest in homes, cars, etc.
Why not guns?

So you AGREE w/this guy 'eh....

“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” - Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

Good luck w/that...ain't happening w/me

[wargunfan]

That private person would have to go to their local police dept and have a background check performed prior to selling the gun or the buyer would have to have a background check performed prior to buying the gun and present the document to the seller who would be required to turn that report in after the sale.

If private gun transactions are generally between 2 law abiding citizens what would be the problem?

Eventual confiscation is the problem.

[wargunfan]

I think the problem is that private sales are barely regulated, if at all. Also an indirect reason why your insurance limits the $ payable on theft claims on firearms (among certain other types of personal property).

Claims for firearms are limited as unscheduled personal property due to the fact that some firearms (fine shotguns for example) can cost $25,000. The rates for Home Owners insurance are not designed to cover that size risk. Firearms can be appraised and scheduled on the policy for a separate premium.

[wgbgator]

Claims for firearms are limited as unscheduled personal property due to the fact that some firearms (fine shotguns for example) can cost $25,000. The rates for Home Owners insurance are not designed to cover that size risk. Firearms can be appraised and scheduled on the policy for a separate premium.

Guns are covered to full value for other perils (up to personal property limits), like fire. The limits are $2500 for theft, because along with jewelry, guns are commonly stolen in thefts and easily and quickly converted to cash after.

[wargunfan]

Our friends on the left don't like states having the right to set standards on gun sales which differ from their agenda which would severely limit gun ownership. The founding fathers foresaw the danger of intrusive government and thoughtfully added the Second Amendment to the constitution. In 1776 these folks on the left would have been Tories believing that King George should be able to regulate the lives of his subjects in the colonies in any way he chose. To date onerous over regulation of gun ownership has been shot down by the SCOTUS. The proponents of the all seeing, all knowing mother state will never stop trying to regulate guns out of private ownership. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

[wargunfan]

Guns are covered to full value for other perils (up to personal property limits), like fire. The limits are $2500 for theft, because along with jewelry, guns are commonly stolen in thefts and easily and quickly converted to cash after.

Yes indeed, we were discussing theft. :yes:

[gator996]

[QUOTE=gator996;6297484]

We wouldn't even be having the proposed legislation right now if it wasn't for CT so don't fool yourself


So what?

Proposed legislation can only address the issue of Sandy Hook?

Personally, focusing on school shooting is foolish.
Far more people are killed outside of school than children in it.

Since Sandy Hook on Dec. 14th to Friday, Jan. 4th...

588 dead from gun deaths...7 were children.



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_new town_sandy_hook_shooting.html

How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?

Slate partners with @GunDeaths for an interactive, crowdsourced tally of the toll firearms have taken since Dec. 14.

By Chris Kirk and Dan Kois
Posted Friday, Jan. 4, 2013, at 7:00 AM ET

The answer to the simple question in that headline is surprisingly hard to come by. So Slate and the Twitter feed @GunDeaths are collecting data for our crowdsourced interactive. This data is necessarily incomplete. But the more people who are paying attention, the better the data will be.

You can help us draw a more complete picture of gun violence in America. If you know about a gun death in your community that isn’t represented here, please tweet @GunDeaths with a citation.

(If you’re not on Twitter, you can email slatedata@gmail.com.) And if you’d like to use this data yourself for your own projects, it’s open. You can download it here.

[gatorman_07732]

[QUOTE=gatorman_07732;6297609]


So what?

Proposed legislation can only address the issue of Sandy Hook?

Personally, focusing on school shooting is foolish.
Far more people are killed outside of school than children in it.

Since Sandy Hook on Dec. 14th to Friday, Jan. 4th...

588 dead from gun deaths...7 were children.



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_new town_sandy_hook_shooting.html

How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?

Slate partners with @GunDeaths for an interactive, crowdsourced tally of the toll firearms have taken since Dec. 14.

By Chris Kirk and Dan Kois
Posted Friday, Jan. 4, 2013, at 7:00 AM ET

The answer to the simple question in that headline is surprisingly hard to come by. So Slate and the Twitter feed @GunDeaths are collecting data for our crowdsourced interactive. This data is necessarily incomplete. But the more people who are paying attention, the better the data will be.

You can help us draw a more complete picture of gun violence in America. If you know about a gun death in your community that isn’t represented here, please tweet @GunDeaths with a citation.

(If you’re not on Twitter, you can email slatedata@gmail.com.) And if you’d like to use this data yourself for your own projects, it’s open. You can download it here.

Bottom line is you guys are not to be trusted in any way when it comes to gun control. Registration of all weapons is one step to your ultimate goal which is confiscation :yes:
That is the dirty little secret, you know it and I know it :yes: Anyone that believes or trusts the leftists on this issue is off their rocker. You won your battles with healthcare and taxation, but you shall be beat back like dogs on this issue.

[wgbgator]

Yup, registration means inevitable confiscation. Its only a matter of time before the government seizes my land and car, merely because its registered with the state. They might seize your wife too, because your marraige is registered with the state too.

[gator996]

Do you hear the black helicopters coming?
:laugh:

I have no "agenda" in the gun debate...I'm not a gun owner...don't intend to be one

But gun deaths are an issue, and like let's say drunk driving I have an opinion about public safety laws.

Here, I don't want to confiscate your gun...I could care less about you owning a gun
But I do want safe ownership of guns...

Gun advocates constantly come back to responsible gun ownership...

The mother in the Sandy Hook case was a gun advocate, taught her kids how to shoot, up until that day a responsible owner....and she was the first killed.

If we track ownership of homes, cars, boats, etc. why not guns?

Is confiscation the goal of any registration?

[gatorman_07732]

Yup, registration means inevitable confiscation. Its only a matter of time before the government seizes my land and car, merely because its registered with the state. They might seize your wife too, because your marraige is registered with the state too.

The gov has no business knowing exactly what kind of guns in your house. That is a police state and the ATF has been pushing for this for a long time. Liberals simply have no credibility on this issue and yes I believe most want confiscation regardless of how many times you say no.

[wgbgator]

The gov has no business knowing exactly what kind of guns in your house. That is a police state and the ATF has been pushing for this for a long time. Liberals simply have no credibility on this issue and yes I believe most want confiscation regardless of how many times you say no.

So, basically you think that I and every liberal saying they favor gun ownership rights but reasonable controls are not only lacking in credibility, but flat-out lying to you.

[gatorman_07732]

So, basically you think that I and every liberal saying they favor gun ownership rights but reasonable controls are not only lacking in credibility, but flat-out lying to you.

Pretty much because all the legislation you proposed and if passed will to squat and will never be good enough. The ultimate outcome will be confiscation.

[wgbgator]

Pretty much because all the legislation you proposed and if passed will to squat and will never be good enough. The ultimate outcome will be confiscation.

Sorry, but that isnt a reasonable belief at all.

[gatorman_07732]

Sorry, but that isnt a reasonable belief at all.

Right, followed by you having nothing to say. Liberal will never stop with more more control legislation ever. It will just keep going and going until the ultimate goal is reached. You know it and thats why your stumped for words. Lets just call it like it is and be honest with ourselves.

[wgbgator]

Right, followed by you having nothing to say. Liberal will never stop with more more control legislation ever. It will just keep going and going until the ultimate goal is reached. You know it and thats why your stumped for words. Lets just call it like it is and be honest with ourselves.

Either you are ruled by your irrational fears, or you're engaging in some serious projection. That's no way to live, man.

[gatorman_07732]

Either you are ruled by your irrational fears, or you're engaging in some serious projection. That's no way to live, man.

Call it what you will, I call it reality. Give me one reason why the liberal in the house and senate should be trused on this issue. It's not like they are even educated on the subject.

[wgbgator]

Call it what you will, I call it reality. Give me one reason why the liberal in the house and senate should be trused on this issue. It's not like they are even educated on the subject.

Why bother? I lack credibility and I'm a liar according to you (and so are they), so I doubt even the most well reasoned and carefully crafted argument would change anything for you.

[Gatoragman]

Of those more than 500 deaths by guns since Sandy Hook, how many could have been prevented with the proposed legislation?
How many were comitted by legally obtained guns and how many of those shootings would not have happen with the proposed laws?
1%, maybe, I don't know but to me that is where these laws need to be considered. If they will not or barely at all effect gun deaths then why do we want more inadequate laws? This is why those of us who oppose this kind of legislation know that confiscation is where it will end because the laws will not stop the shooting.

[gatorman_07732]

Why bother? I lack credibility and I'm a liar according to you (and so are they), so I doubt even the most well reasoned and carefully crafted argument would change anything for you.

Why bother? Because you can't layout logical argument.

[wgbgator]

Why bother? Because you can't layout logical argument.

There's no logical argument to be made with a person who thinks any measure is a march toward confiscation of weapons. That's a sign of someone who would be incapable of seeing reason, and who is probably irrationally reactionary.

[Matthanuf06]

Do you hear the black helicopters coming?
:laugh:

I have no "agenda" in the gun debate...I'm not a gun owner...don't intend to be one

But gun deaths are an issue, and like let's say drunk driving I have an opinion about public safety laws.

Here, I don't want to confiscate your gun...I could care less about you owning a gun
But I do want safe ownership of guns...

Gun advocates constantly come back to responsible gun ownership...

The mother in the Sandy Hook case was a gun advocate, taught her kids how to shoot, up until that day a responsible owner....and she was the first killed.

If we track ownership of homes, cars, boats, etc. why not guns?

Is confiscation the goal of any registration?

No, not all registration. In this case guns are different.

A primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the citizens to protect itself from the state. While none of us ever want it to happen, it cannot be guaranteed that the government won't overstep it's bounds, which may require a response from our citizens. Odds are remote, but it's there so we have a fighting chance against Big Brother. Registration/tracking would give the government a massive advantage in such a scenario.

In that sense I've always been surprised the 2nd amendment hasn't been utilized more in privacy battles. The more the govt knows about us the less effective any militia will be.

Disclosure with my position: all gun sales should be held to the same standard. It shouldn't matter if its public/private. Denying sales to the mentally ill and felons is a reasonable restriction.

[gatorman_07732]

There's no logical argument to be made with a person who thinks any measure is a march toward confiscation of weapons. That's a sign of someone who would be incapable of seeing reason, and who is probably irrationally reactionary.

No, you just know its true and can't counter it so you start using the person can't be reasoned with excuse. This is exactly how Obama and all the the legislators that would vote for this need to be dealt with in order to expose them. National registration of all firearms is unreasonable and scary but I'm sure that will make you sleep nice tucked in at night.

[wgbgator]

No, you just know its true and can't counter it so you start using the person can't be reasoned with excuse. This is exactly how Obama and all the the legislators that would vote for this need to be dealt with in order to expose them. National registration of all firearms is unreasonable and scary but I'm sure that will make you sleep nice tucked in at night.

:Sigh: As I mentioned before, I've registered other property with the state and those things remain firmly in my possesion. Not only that, but gun ownership is protected by the Constitution, something my car doesnt even have the explicit priviledge of. Given that confiscating your guns would be explicitly unconstitutional, then either your fears are irrational, or you don't put much stock in the Constitution. Either way, your silly potion is easily refuted, but I'm sure you will not buy it.

[rivergator]

Call it what you will, I call it reality. Give me one reason why the liberal in the house and senate should be trused on this issue. It's not like they are even educated on the subject.

Well, if they're elected, they get to decide. Assuming it constitutional. That's how this country works.

[wygator]

This is true under ALL circumstances. I am not a gun dealer, and I can sell you a gun without requiring a background check.

You can? What do you have to offer?

By the way, internet gun sales are now being demonized.

To buy a gun from the internet, you must coordinate with a local dealer who receives the gun, runs the usual background check and then transfers the gun to you from your internet source. Seems reasonable to me.

[Matthanuf06]

:Sigh: As I mentioned before, I've registered other property with the state and those things remain firmly in my possesion. Not only that, but gun ownership is protected by the Constitution, something my car doesnt even have the explicit priviledge of. Given that confiscating your guns would be explicitly unconstitutional, then either your fears are irrational, or you don't put much stock in the Constitution. Either way, your silly potion is easily refuted, but I'm sure you will not buy it.

What would the purpose be for registration? What's the goal? What benefit does the govt get by knowing where every gun is?

[wgbgator]

What would the purpose be for registration? What's the goal? What benefit does the govt get by knowing where every gun is?

The same purpose as registering your car? Or recording sales of real property? Do those things seriously inconvenience law abiding people? Or do those things ensure that there is less deed/title fraud, black market activity, thefts are easier to track, etc? Do those things serve only to let the gov't know what you are doing? No. I mean, why is it only guns that you think the government is coming for, despite their explicit protections?

[Matthanuf06]

The same purpose as registering your car? Or recording sales of real property? Do those things seriously inconvenience law abiding people? Or do those things ensure that there is less deed/title fraud, black market activity, thefts are easier to track, etc? Do those things serve only to let the gov't know what you are doing? No. I mean, why is it only guns that you think the government is coming for, despite their explicit protections?

Then why don't we register everything? Why guns and not computers?

[wgbgator]

Then why don't we register everything? Why guns and not computers?

Are stolen or black market computers used to commit violent crimes? If so, maybe they should be.

[gator996]

Then why don't we register everything? Why guns and not computers?


Oh, they track you pretty good there already...

:laugh:

[gator996]

Call it what you will, I call it reality. Give me one reason why the liberal in the house and senate should be trused on this issue. It's not like they are even educated on the subject.


:whoa::crazy::laugh:

[gatorman_07732]

:whoa::crazy::laugh:

Didn't think you could provide one. Just more knee jerk reaction to the ultimate goal of disarming the citizenry

[Matthanuf06]

Are stolen or black market computers used to commit violent crimes? If so, maybe they should be.

So wouldn't background checks solve the same problem without the added intrusion?

Also I didn't realize homes and cars were sold on the black market to commit violent crimes

[wgbgator]

So wouldn't background checks solve the same problem without the added intrusion?

I'm not sure how that's less intrusive in a private sale, person to person. But realistically, tracking sales of guns is much more effective tool for policing crime than pre-screening potential owners. But registration and databases are anathema to paranoid types. Nevermind that they have a very useful function that doesnt include seizing guns.

[wgbgator]

So wouldn't background checks solve the same problem without the added intrusion?

Also I didn't realize homes and cars were sold on the black market to commit violent crimes

But there are other serious crimes commited. Deed/Title fraud with homes (and cars too), liability to others and theft with vehicles. Registration and tracking sales makes these easier to police, and strengthens property rights.

[gator996]

Didn't think you could provide one. Just more knee jerk reaction to the ultimate goal of disarming the citizenry


I didn't think you were asking a serious question
I thought you were making a thinly veiled partisan statement born of paranoia

...my bad :laugh:

[PIMking]

Right, followed by you having nothing to say. Liberal will never stop with more more control legislation ever. It will just keep going and going until the ultimate goal is reached. You know it and thats why your stumped for words. Lets just call it like it is and be honest with ourselves.

Then they will bitch and moan until they have another one of our freedoms taken away from us.

[PIMking]

Just a curiosity, how many kids were killed this year by Planned Parenthood? I think our priorities are in the wrong place

[wgbgator]

Just a curiosity, how many kids were killed this year by Planned Parenthood? I think our priorities are in the wrong place

Well, we know at least one thing conservatives want to ban or heavily restrict!

[gator996]

Should we register births?

Will the state then "confiscate" you?

[Matthanuf06]

Should we register births?

Will the state then "confiscate" you?

Actually we shouldn't do that either.

[Matthanuf06]

But there are other serious crimes commited. Deed/Title fraud with homes (and cars too), liability to others and theft with vehicles. Registration and tracking sales makes these easier to police, and strengthens property rights.

Again, no different than any other item. Why does registering a car deter theft of a car but not for computers? Or iPads? Or whatever else.

[gator996]

Actually we shouldn't do that either.


But then how would we know if Obama was born in the USA or not?

:laugh:

[wgbgator]

Again, no different than any other item. Why does registering a car deter theft of a car but not for computers? Or iPads? Or whatever else.

Well plenty of people do register those types of property too to protect against theft. Perhaps not with governments, but with the seller, service provider or insurance company that is accepting limited or contractual liability, warranty or indemnity. Given that guns have the sole pupose of killing or injuring others, and that many crimes are commited with illegal/stolen weapons, you can see how there might be some special interest in guns that doesnt exist for computers or Playstations.

[Matthanuf06]

Well plenty of people do register those types of property too to protect against theft. Perhaps not with governments, but with the seller, service provider or insurance company that is accepting limited or contractual liability, warranty or indemnity. Given that guns have the sole pupose of killing or injuring others, and that many crimes are commited with illegal/stolen weapons, you can see how there might be some special interest in guns that doesnt exist for computers or Playstations.

And registering privately is a choice. I have nothing against that.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Given that guns have the sole pupose of killing or injuring others, and that many crimes are commited with illegal/stolen weapons, you can see how there might be some special interest in guns that doesnt exist for computers or Playstations.

Well, not entirely. A lot of us like to shoot skeet, target practice at the range and hunt. Not many of us use our weapons to kill or injure other people. Most of us hope that if we ever have to pull our weapon in self defense, the mere presence of the gun will discourage the criminal with the bad intent.

And if a gun is bought new, it is registered with the BATF with the name and address of the buyer. In any case, most of us keep up with serial numbers when we buy a gun, new or used. So if it is stolen, then we can turn over that number to the authorities.

So, set up another straw man, please.

[gator996]

So you agree with the principle already huh?
It shouldn't be a choice...

Registration, being able to track ownership, and the life of a gun should be law.

[wgbgator]

Well, not entirely. A lot of us like to shoot skeet, target practice at the range and hunt. Not many of us use our weapons to kill or injure other people. Most of us hope that if we ever have to pull our weapon in self defense, the mere presence of the gun will discourage the criminal with the bad intent.

And if a gun is bought new, it is registered with the BATF with the name and address of the buyer. In any case, most of us keep up with serial numbers when we buy a gun, new or used. So if it is stolen, then we can turn over that number to the authorities.

So, set up another straw man, please.

Maybe I should have said "things" instead of others (which I assume you only interpreted as being people).

[gatorman_07732]

I didn't think you were asking a serious question
I thought you were making a thinly veiled partisan statement born of paranoia

...my bad :laugh:

You call it paranoia (which is code for you're figured out), I call it putting people like you in check with reality.

[gator996]

You call it paranoia (which is code for you're figured out), I call it putting people like you in check with reality.


You mean to tell me there's some reality in your confiscation fantasy?

:laugh:

[gatorman_07732]

You mean to tell me there's some reality in your confiscation fantasy?

:laugh:

Yes, its called not being fooled by you control folks who are actually the least educated on the topic. I loved your post with the silencers. That was classic
By the way, your mandatory registration thing isn't happening because people won't do it. Whats next, kicking down doors?

[gator996]

Yes, its called not being fooled by you control folks who are actually the least educated on the topic. I loved your post with the silencers. That was classic
By the way, your mandatory registration thing isn't happening because people won't do it. Whats next, kicking down doors?


No, but if you don't register your gun by a certain date you'll be hit with a gun charge after that date if you can't produce a registration for the gun if you come in contact with a police officer.

If your gun is "stolen" and you haven't registered it and it ends up being used in a crime then you'll be charged with gun negligence...put a nice stiff penalty for that.

You can either register the gun or become another non-law abiding gun owner.

[Lawdog88]

What guns. Nobody I know around here has any guns.

And more and more people are going to be owning fewer and fewer.

[gator996]

Just hope the gun doesn't get stolen and you haven't registered it.

I would call that person an accessory to the crime because you're making it harder for law enforcement to solve crimes.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Maybe I should have said "things" instead of others (which I assume you only interpreted as being people).

You think hunting is a bad thing?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Just hope the gun doesn't get stolen and you haven't registered it.


Let's repeat this again, please.

A new gun is registered with the BATF, with the name and address of the original buyer.

If that gun is used in a crime, the authorities will try and track down that original owner.

If the original owner sold the weapon, hopefully he or she were smart enough to keep paperwork on it. If the gun was stolen, hopefully the original owner alerted the authorities.

If the original owner of a gun that was used in a crime was not smart enough to do all this, then he has some 'splaining to do.

Again, this whole "registering a firearm" is just a straw man. It is very hard to make a case that gun registration in excess of what happens now will prevent one single crime.

[gatorman_07732]

No, but if you don't register your gun by a certain date you'll be hit with a gun charge after that date if you can't produce a registration for the gun if you come in contact with a police officer.

If your gun is "stolen" and you haven't registered it and it ends up being used in a crime then you'll be charged with gun negligence...put a nice stiff penalty for that.

You can either register the gun or become another non-law abiding gun owner.

Here you have it, we are going to make criminals of what used to be law abiding citizens. Good job, this is going to be awesome for society

[gatorman_07732]

Let's repeat this again, please.

A new gun is registered with the BATF, with the name and address of the original buyer.

If that gun is used in a crime, the authorities will try and track down that original owner.

If the original owner sold the weapon, hopefully he or she were smart enough to keep paperwork on it. If the gun was stolen, hopefully the original owner alerted the authorities.

If the original owner of a gun that was used in a crime was not smart enough to do all this, then he has some 'splaining to do.

Again, this whole "registering a firearm" is just a straw man. It is very hard to make a case that gun registration in excess of what happens now will prevent one single crime.

Lets be clear on what 996 and his peeps want into law shall we, We're not talking about new guns being purchased, but rather retroactive to any firearm you may possess. This is his Amerika

[gator996]

Let's repeat this again, please.

A new gun is registered with the BATF, with the name and address of the original buyer.

If that gun is used in a crime, the authorities will try and track down that original owner.

If the original owner sold the weapon, hopefully he or she were smart enough to keep paperwork on it. If the gun was stolen, hopefully the original owner alerted the authorities.

If the original owner of a gun that was used in a crime was not smart enough to do all this, then he has some 'splaining to do.

Again, this whole "registering a firearm" is just a straw man. It is very hard to make a case that gun registration in excess of what happens now will prevent one single crime.



This won't be a choice...it will be law.

And you won't have some splaining to do...you'll be guilty of aiding and abetting the subsequent criminal act.

If it doesn't deter one gun crime its still worth doing if it helps police resolve gun crimes faster.

[gatorman_07732]

This won't be a choice...it will be law.

And you won't have some splaining to do...you'll be guilty of aiding and abetting the subsequent criminal act.

If it doesn't deter one gun crime its still worth doing if it helps police resolve gun crimes faster.

You're in for such a surprise

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

This won't be a choice...it will be law.

And you won't have some splaining to do...you'll be guilty of aiding and abetting the subsequent criminal act.

If it doesn't deter one gun crime its still worth doing if it helps police resolve gun crimes faster.

No, it won't ever be law. Like 7732 said, you are proposing to make law abiding citizens into criminals.

And 'splain how it will "help police resolve gun crimes faster."

[gatorman_07732]

No, it won't ever be law. Like 7732, you are proposing to make law abiding citizens into criminals.

And 'splain how it will "help police resolve gun crimes faster."

It just leads to the ultimate goal of confiscation. There is just know other reason for this, and to think he would want this knowing its going to lead to unrest and making criminals out of law abiding citizens should tell you something about his dangerous philosophy.

996 has exposed himself badly

[Gatoragman]

You libs think that as a law abiding citizen that you h ave nothing to worry about, are you the same folks that were claiming Arizona's immigration laws were intrusive on minorities, the law stated that you couldn't be stopped unless you were committing a crime, so now when I pass a cop on the road he can run my plates and determine if I own a gun then stop me to make sure it is legal, this is the same argument you libs made about the Arizona laws that you couldn't trust the police that they would violate personal rights. I guess that doesn't matter now.
And just how many of those more than 500 gun deaths would have been stopped by this legislation you want?

[DaveFla]

Either you are ruled by your irrational fears, or you're engaging in some serious projection. That's no way to live, man.

There is precedence... Obama told us that if we like our current healthcare insurance, then we can keep it. That was a lie, and he knew it when he said it.

Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me TWICE....

The distrust for this administration comes naturally... They have lied to the American people nearly every day.

[gator996]

No, it won't ever be law. Like 7732 said, you are proposing to make law abiding citizens into criminals.

And 'splain how it will "help police resolve gun crimes faster."


Are you kidding???

In a gun related crime, knowing who owns the gun involved immediately give the police a lead...1st Question "How did your gun end up involved in a crime?"

If you are required to register new gun purchases and report lost or stolen guns then "straw" purchases almost go to zero immediately.

Most guns involved in crime are bought through "straw" purchases and sold in the secondary, private sale market which require no background checks.

If one person buys 100 guns and those guns end up in a whole bunch of crimes then you have much quicker access to the non-responsible gun buyer who's selling guns to criminals.

Isn't that the guys you are worried about?
Protecting yourself against criminals, right?

Wouldn't you want to cut out "straw" purchases if you're a good gun owner?

That won't help law enforcement?

[Gatoragman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson
No, it won't ever be law. Like 7732 said, you are proposing to make law abiding citizens into criminals.

And 'splain how it will "help police resolve gun crimes faster."

Are you kidding???

In a gun related crime, knowing who owns the gun involved immediately give the police a lead...1st Question "How did your gun end up involved in a crime?"

If you are required to register new gun purchases and report lost or stolen guns then "straw" purchases almost go to zero immediately.

Most guns involved in crime are bought through "straw" purchases and sold in the secondary, private sale market which require no background checks.

If one person buys 100 guns and those guns end up in a whole bunch of crimes then you have much quicker access to the non-responsible gun buyer who's selling guns to criminals.

Isn't that the guys you are worried about?
Protecting yourself against criminals, right?

Wouldn't you want to cut out "straw" purchases if you're a good gun owner?

That won't help law enforcement?

Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?t=253568&page=6#ixzz2HTqpsZO4

Think fast and furious, we still don't know what happen there and they were all registered and the government all in the middle of it

[gator996]

Think fast and furious, we still don't know what happen there and they were all registered and the government all in the middle of it


Yeah, there were sold in straw purchases and tracked and law enforcement was using it to identify drug gang logistics and membership.

Requiring tracking as a standard means law enforcement won't have to do something as unethical as to release guns to criminals themselves but simply go after those who are already selling guns to criminals.

If your name keeps ending up as owner on guns that are involved in crimes and your not recording transfers, sales, lost/stolen ....you go to jail.

[helix139]

Most guns involved in crime are bought through "straw" purchases and sold in the secondary, private sale market which require no background checks.

Straw purchases are already illegal. What you're referring to as a straw purchase is simply a private sale.

[gatorman_07732]

Straw purchases are already illegal. What you're referring to as a straw purchase is simply a private sale.

For who you are replying has no knowlege or experience for which he speaks. He's at the point of completely making chit up.

[gator996]

Straw purchases are already illegal. What you're referring to as a straw purchase is simply a private sale.



yes, they're already illegal...
...but not trackable...
... right now, unless you catch the purchaser distributing them or sting them the purchases occur...

How many straw purchases occur when the initial buyer has to give id & submit to a background check and they're required to report all sales, transfers, lost/stolen???

Don't report the "loss" of "theft" of the guns and they end up being used in a crime...

You are an accessory to that crime...and the police know exactly where to go to find out how the gun ended up being used in a crime.

[gatorman_07732]

Here it comes................

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/09/iowa-lawmaker-calls-for-retroactive-gun-bans-confiscations-of-semi-automatic-weapons/

Iowa lawmaker calls for retroactive gun ban, confiscation of semi-automatic weapons

http://schol.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/stalin_hitler_photomontage.png

[PIMking]

simple matter of fact that if you ban guns this wont stop, criminals don't care about laws and 'no gun zones' and the liberals don't understand that. they live in this utopia that everyone will just get along after they ban guns and no one would dare break a law like murder or get a gun underground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXtfR0_roE&feature=share&list=PLC4B53E6700D79133

Watch

[Matthanuf06]

To the left on this thread:


It seems the goal for full registration would be to reduce black market sales, solve crimes, etc. All legitimate goals.

Why not implant audio and gps tracking devices into all citizens? Wouldn't that achieve all your goals by a large order of magnitude?

[wgbgator]

To the left on this thread:


It seems the goal for full registration would be to reduce black market sales, solve crimes, etc. All legitimate goals.

Why not implant audio and gps tracking devices into all citizens? Wouldn't that achieve all your goals by a large order of magnitude?

:huh: Well, registering a gun with the state seems less of a violation of personal liberty than implanting GPS devices into people, but that's just me.

[Matthanuf06]

:huh: Well, registering a gun with the state seems less of a violation of personal liberty than implanting GPS devices into people, but that's just me.

So you are in favor of violating some personal liberty, where directly impact you, for a small reduction of crime rather than a huge violation of personal liberty, applicable to all, that would statistically eliminate crime?

What is the magic personal liberty to crime reduction? Or do you just like it when it doesn't impact you?

[wgbgator]

So you are in favor of violating some personal liberty, where directly impact you, for a small reduction of crime rather than a huge violation of personal liberty, applicable to all, that would statistically eliminate crime?

What is the magic personal liberty to crime reduction? Or do you just like it when it doesn't impact you?

If you think of liberty / security as a sliding scale (and eliminate the idea that there can be absolute liberty or security), wouldnt you rather be closer to the liberty side of the scale? I support some gun control, that doesnt mean I think gun crime can be eliminated. I'd prefer to live in a society that can accomodate reasonable gun ownership, and I can live with the idea that some crime will be unavoidable. I don't need 100% safety, because its not worth the tradeoff in personal liberty.

[gatorman_07732]

Yes the gov knowing every gun you own = police state = liberty :huh:

[wgbgator]

Yes the gov knowing every gun you own = police state = liberty :huh:

I've got news for you: the government already knows where you live and is friendly with corporations that know more about you than you do. But registering your gun is going to make this a "police state." This whole notion is beyond stupid. If the government really wanted your guns, it could already take them. Its just laws against registration holding them back? LOL. You just figure they want to do it efficiently, rather than kicking down doors of people that *might* own guns, but they arent completely sure about.

[gatorman_07732]

I've got news for you: the government already knows where you live and is friendly with corporations that know more about you than you do. But registering your gun is going to make this a "police state." This whole notion is beyond stupid. If the government really wanted your guns, it could already take them. Its just laws against registration holding them back? LOL. You just figure they want to do it efficiently, rather than kicking down doors of people that *might* own guns, but they arent completely sure about.

Nice justification :crazy: It's beyond stupid alright because its a one way ticket to manufacturing criminals. Your post is beyond weird......... but corporations

[wgbgator]

I'm just saying that if I were a gov't mastermind bent on taking away people's guns I'd probably try to gather data from easily available information (voter registration, mailing lists, subscriptions & memberships, consumer habits), develop an algorithm to make fairly sophisticated predictions about who owns a gun. I mean, its probably more effective than just hoping they give it to you eventually.

[gatorman_07732]

I'm just saying that if I were a gov't mastermind bent on taking away people's guns I'd probably try to gather data from easily available information (voter registration, mailing lists, subscriptions & memberships, consumer habits), develop an algorithm to make fairly sophisticated predictions about who owns a gun. I mean, its probably more effective than just hoping they give it to you eventually.

The gov has no business knowing what firearms are in someones house unless the person is a class 3 weapons holder. If you want to talk beyond crazy, that is it. States can do what they want based on there constituency but for the federal government to take this kind of action is scary. [B]If you are uncomfortable where you live then move, but don't think gun owners are going to sit by and let some elitists take away their privacy.[B]

[wgbgator]

The gov has no business knowing what firearms are in someones house unless the person is a class 3 weapons holder. If you want to talk beyond crazy, that is it. States can do what they want based on there constituency but for the federal government to take this kind of action is scary. [B]If you are uncomfortable where you live then move, but don't think gun owners are going to sit by and let some elitists take away their privacy.[B]

As I said before, if you don't think the Constitution guarantees your right to keep your weapon, I'm not sure why you guys worship it so much. It would appear that you put little faith in its guarantees.

[gatorman_07732]

As I said before, if you don't think the Constitution guarantees your right to keep your weapon, I'm not sure why you guys worship it so much. It would appear that you put little faith in its guarantees.

Wow really, and your really think Obama and many in congress really care about the constitution? For many of them is something pesky document they need to get around. If Obama attemps an executive order here he's going to have a problem. He better be prepared for the fight of his life.
Do you know how man times the constitution has been violated in the last 12 years alone? Open your eyes

[wgbgator]

Wow really, and your really think Obama and many in congress really care about the constitution? For many of them is something pesky document they need to get around. If Obama attemps an executive order here he's going to have a problem. He better be prepared for the fight of his life.

Based on our conversation, this appears to be a projection of your fears onto others.

[gatorman_07732]

Based on our conversation, this appears to be a projection of your fears onto others.

Good try in trying to diffuse the conversation, typical liberal move. So you never answered my question that if you are uncomfortable with the gun laws where you're at, then why don't you move?

[wgbgator]

Not at all. So you never answered my question that if you are uncomfortable with the gun laws where you're at, then why don't you move?

I didnt realize that was a serious quesiton. But its probably the same reason why you don't move if you're uncomfortable with people advocating & passing gun control laws democratically.

[gatorman_07732]

I didnt realize that was a serious quesiton. But its probably the same reason why you don't move if you're uncomfortable with people advocating & passing gun control laws democratically.

They can't pass it and that is why Obama is talking about invoking an executive order.
Good try though
I would submit that it is you that does not have much use for the constitution.

[wgbgator]

They can't pass it and that is why Obama is talking about invoking an executive order.
Good try though

You should probably move then if executive power allows someone to do this.

[gatorman_07732]

You should probably move then if executive power allows someone to do this.

No, we will stand and fight for the lack of regard of the constitution. Don't think this is not a fight, a fight like this president never had in his life.

[wgbgator]

No, we will stand and fight for the lack of regard of the constitution. Don't think this is not a fight, a fight like this president never had in his life.

I hope you guys employ some of these same paranoid arguments in public forums too.

[gatorman_07732]

I hope you guys employ some of these same paranoid arguments in public forums too.

There is the buzz word again...paranoid

It all boils down to the gov has the right to know. How sad

[philnotfil]

No, we will stand and fight for the lack of regard of the constitution. Don't think this is not a fight, a fight like this president never had in his life.

But you want people on the other side of the argument to move to another country?

[gatorman_07732]

But you want people on the other side of the argument to move to another country?

Easy there, I never said that. They can move to a state that has strict gun control laws

[wgbgator]

There is the buzz word again...paranoid

It all boils down to the gov has the right to know. How sad


The paranoid spokesman, sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization... he does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated — if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.[1]

- Richard Hofstadter

Seem familiar?;)

[philnotfil]

Easy there, I never said that. They can move to a state that has strict gun control laws

OK, sorry. You want to fight for what you believe in, but you want the people on the other side of the argument to move somewhere else to get what they believe in. Is that more accurate?

[gatorman_07732]

- Richard Hofstadter

Seem familiar?

uh, no.....This is all you can do is try to diffuse an argument by calling people paranoid, crazy, etc.... Its sad how you have no issues giving the gov more and more power. It is that mind set that is a danger to this country because one step at a time you're so willing to give more power and take away more rights

[gatorman_07732]

OK, sorry. You want to fight for what you believe in, but you want the people on the other side of the argument to move somewhere else to get what they believe in. Is that more accurate?

Phil, the great thing about this country is the diversity and to that we should agree. Why the effort to take away from people instead of living somewhere that best fits what you want in state and local government. If someone doesn't like the gun laws in Florida then get out. Go live in the mid-Atlantic or northeast. That is a completely fair argument.

[wgbgator]

uh, no.....This is all you can do is try to diffuse an argument by calling people paranoid, crazy, etc.... Its sad how you have no issues giving the gov more and more power. It is that mind set that is a danger to this country because one step at a time you're so willing to give more power and take away more rights

Oh, I just figured it might trigger some self-awareness in light of previous posts you've made.

[gatorman_07732]

Oh, I just figured it might trigger some self-awareness in light of previous posts you've made.

No it triggered my awareness that you have nothing useful to ad to this topic except you desire to take away from people and give to the government. That is not paranoia but assessment of the facts.

[wgbgator]

No it triggered my awareness that you have nothing useful to ad to this topic except you desire to take away from people and give to the government. That is not paranoia but assessment of the facts.

Indeed, its almost like I'm absolute evil and you're absolute good. Now, where have I read that before? :joecool:

[philnotfil]

Phil, the great thing about this country is the diversity and to that we should agree. Why the effort to take away from people instead of living somewhere that best fits what you want in state and local government. If someone doesn't like the gun laws in Florida then get out. Go live in the mid-Atlantic or northeast. That is a completely fair argument.

Why should they have to get out to have what they believe is right, but you get to stay and fight for what you believe is right?

[gatorman_07732]

Why should they have to get out to have what they believe is right, but you get to stay and fight for what you believe is right?

Why should they drag everybody else in the country with them?

[gatorman_07732]

Indeed, its almost like I'm absolute evil and you're absolute good. Now, where have I read that before? :joecool:

Congrats you finally lost it

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Are you kidding???

In a gun related crime, knowing who owns the gun involved immediately give the police a lead...1st Question "How did your gun end up involved in a crime?"

No, are YOU kidding?

You assume that in all, or even most crimes committed with a gun, that gun will be registered.

How many guns and bought and sold illegally today? Tens of millions. What will gun registration do to that? Absolutely nothing.

The only guns that will be registered are the same ones that are registered today; the ones owed and operated by law abiding citizens.

My goodness.

[philnotfil]

Phil, the great thing about this country is the diversity and to that we should agree. Why the effort to take away from people instead of living somewhere that best fits what you want in state and local government. If someone doesn't like the gun laws in Florida then get out. Go live in the mid-Atlantic or northeast. That is a completely fair argument.

You changing the subject is taken as an acknowledgement that the summary of your position was accurate.

Why should someone have to move instead of fighting for what they believe to be correct?

[gatorman_07732]

You changing the subject is taken as an acknowledgement that the summary of your position was accurate.

Why should someone have to move instead of fighting for what they believe to be correct?

I never changed the subject. The fact is if they want to change the law through the central government, then none of us have a choice. Most gun control laws are through state and local governments. Why drag everybody down with you? Perhaps you can't answer this and thus, accuse me of changing the subject.

[philnotfil]

I never changed the subject. The fact is if they want to change the law through the central government, then none of us have a choice. Most gun control laws are through state and local governments. Why drag everybody down with you? Perhaps you can't answer this and thus, accuse me of changing the subject.

I asked if my summary of your position was accurate and you asked a different question. Most people would call that changing the subject. We could call it ducking the question if that makes you feel better.

I haven't participated on this thread for two reasons, first gun control isn't a subject that much interests, second, the thread is full of ad hominem attacks and straw men. There is no honest dialogue happening here.

[gatorman_07732]

I asked if my summary of your position was accurate and you asked a different question. Most people would call that changing the subject. We could call it ducking the question if that makes you feel better.

I haven't participated on this thread for two reasons, first gun control isn't a subject that much interests, second, the thread is full of ad hominem attacks and straw men. There is no honest dialogue happening here.

Then leave, I understand its tough when you get in over your head. I changed nothing, but rather its your inability and lack of knowledge to deal with the subject on hand.

[philnotfil]

Then leave, I understand its tough when you get in over your head. I changed nothing, but rather its your inability and lack of knowledge to deal with the subject on hand.

As I said :(

[gatorman_07732]

As I said :(

Sorry to beat you up, but you challenged me
In hindsight, perhaps you started a thread on a subject you don't know much about

[Matthanuf06]

If you think of liberty / security as a sliding scale (and eliminate the idea that there can be absolute liberty or security), wouldnt you rather be closer to the liberty side of the scale? I support some gun control, that doesnt mean I think gun crime can be eliminated. I'd prefer to live in a society that can accomodate reasonable gun ownership, and I can live with the idea that some crime will be unavoidable. I don't need 100% safety, because its not worth the tradeoff in personal liberty.

Honestly you would have fooled me. With the rhetoric from the left on this board I assumed you wanted a police state.

I actually almost always fall on the side of more liberty. The sliding scale as you put it certainly exists, and forced registration and tracking is giving up far too much liberty for the benefit of the state.

[The_Graygator]

but to the anti's this is a loophole....


Agreed, but to most of the anti's, they don't even know the different between an "assault rifle" and an SA, or a double-action or a single-action, what "gas operated" means, the difference between 115 grain and 230 grain, the difference between full metal jacket and jacketed hollow point, or what a "cartridge" is.

Heck, go into a gun shop and ask to see their "assault weapons" and any reputable dealer with his or her salt will tell you they don't sell them. :roll:

Easily 90% of the people who want guns banned know nothing about them or ever even fired one their entire lives.

[philnotfil]

Sorry to beat you up, but you challenged me
In hindsight, perhaps you started a thread on a subject you don't know much about

Beating me up, is that what you call running away from a question in your world?

What have I posted on this thread that shows a lack of understanding of the topic of this thread?

[PIMking]

Good try in trying to diffuse the conversation, typical liberal move. So you never answered my question that if you are uncomfortable with the gun laws where you're at, then why don't you move?

because the state that sandy hook was in has pretty strict laws and that didn't stop a criminal from doing criminal things and kill people like criminals do

[wargunfan]

Let's repeat this again, please.

A new gun is registered with the BATF, with the name and address of the original buyer.

If that gun is used in a crime, the authorities will try and track down that original owner.

If the original owner sold the weapon, hopefully he or she were smart enough to keep paperwork on it. If the gun was stolen, hopefully the original owner alerted the authorities.

If the original owner of a gun that was used in a crime was not smart enough to do all this, then he has some 'splaining to do.

Again, this whole "registering a firearm" is just a straw man. It is very hard to make a case that gun registration in excess of what happens now will prevent one single crime.

If a firearm is stolen it should be reported to the police along with the serial number. The firearm then goes into a national database and may be recovered at some future time. I had a pistol stolen from my home while I was away and filed a police report. The pistol was recovered during an arrest in another state and I was able to recover it because of filing the original report. However, I am solidly against any form of forced registration.

[wargunfan]

Are you kidding???

In a gun related crime, knowing who owns the gun involved immediately give the police a lead...1st Question "How did your gun end up involved in a crime?"

If you are required to register new gun purchases and report lost or stolen guns then "straw" purchases almost go to zero immediately.

Most guns involved in crime are bought through "straw" purchases and sold in the secondary, private sale market which require no background checks.

If one person buys 100 guns and those guns end up in a whole bunch of crimes then you have much quicker access to the non-responsible gun buyer who's selling guns to criminals.

Isn't that the guys you are worried about?
Protecting yourself against criminals, right?

Wouldn't you want to cut out "straw" purchases if you're a good gun owner?

That won't help law enforcement?

You mean like Fast and Furious? We don't trust this administration full of leftists at all. And you want them toying with gun control??? Not gonna happen.

[wargunfan]

How about we concentrate on forcing the Obama administration to be "law abiding" before we demonize any law abiding citizens. Do you people have a clue what we think of the current crook sitting in the Attorney Generals's office. Do you think for one moment we want this thug turned loose on legal gun owners. Get ready for the fight of your lives.

[Gatoragman]

still want one of you gun control advocates to tell me how many of those over 500 gun deaths since Sandy Hook would have been stopped by the laws you propose.