Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Thread Manager, Apr 5, 2013.
Worst part is, as bad as it is, it's nowhere near as bad as it was in the 90's.
I remember reading about Times Square in NYC in the 80s/90s and that even some cops were afraid to go there.
It's not even just Indiana, the areas surrounding Chicago within Illinois aren't as stringent as Chicago tries to be. Chicago often tries to pass laws that are blatantly unconstitutional to begin with, but when no one else, even within your own state doesn't play along, the results are going to be absolutely disastrous.
Yea I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'll just leave this here for you then:
Oh boy, looks like I'm just spouting off typical liberal nonsense eh?
I have seen those videos before and they at least partially reinforce what I said.
In the first 2 videos, the buyers go to private sellers who are not legally required to do any form of background check. They are SUPPOSED to confirm that the buyer is a resident of the state, which they failed to do. However, it is my understanding that does not make the sale illegal. Irresponsible, definitely.
In the 2nd video, the buyer even said that he went straight past the FFL dealers to the private sellers where a background check was not required.
In the 3rd video, which was apparently done by investigators, the FFL dealer clearly commits a felony. I assume this was part of an investigation and would lead to criminal charges, as it should. Unfortunately, this happens with FFL dealers at their own stores as well. I was actually involved with the arrest of a local FFL dealer who was knowingly selling to convicted felons (happened earlier this year, actually). Not every FFL dealer is the smartest or straightest, and it is up to law enforcement to weed those individuals out, revoke their FFL and prosecute them.
Also, I have seen individuals walking around gun shows with rifles strapped to their backs and signs on them advertising that gun for sale. I am not saying it does not happen like that either. My point is, except during the panic which happened after Sandy Hook, it was very rare. I mentioned the outdoorstrader and armslist in my previous post that you quoted because those types of sales (private sales with no background checks or bill of sale) happen DAILY all over the country. So, my point was and is, that gun shows are demonized by the media often because of misnomers and misinformation.
If you are for universal background checks (EVERY sale, private or otherwise requires a background check), I have NO issue with that. If someone takes that position, they have a solid platform to argue their points.
Yes, you CAN get guns at gun shows without a background check (as long as it is from a private seller or some FFL dealer decides to go rogue with his paperwork). I never said that you could NOT do that. But those sales are the same as you can get daily through legal private firearms purchases which happen all the time (much more often than any gun show can compete with).
The other amazing thing to me (on a lighter note now) about those videos, which I was reminded of after watching them again this morning is the OUTRAGEOUS prices that were paid. Asking $1,200 for a used Bushmaster ar15? Laughable. $650 for a used Smith and Wesson M&P pistol? Wow.
Yes I am for universal background checks. I'm not some stupid hippie that thinks banning all guns is the answer. I was 13 when I went through my first gun safety course and got my FL hunters license (which is not required but should be). There are tons of private sales across the country be they at gun shows or not and we posses the technology to curb them and make sure responsible gun owners are the ones making the purchases. I have been to many gun shows here in FL and the amount of private sellers willing to sell anything to anyone willing to pay is what I have issue with
No problem. I can appreciate your opinion and stance on those issues.
I know this probably isn't feasible without the vocal group of gun nuts losing their minds but I would like to see all sales have to go through a dealer so the proper process is verified and followed as well as all guns registered to an owner so they can be traced. If a weapon you are responsible for is used in a crime you should be held somewhat responsible. I know that will never happen but I think that would go a long way in deterring the sale of guns willy nilly
Understood. I don't agree 100% but completely understand your stance and respect it.
Senate Approves Federal Welfare for Second Amendment Men
Down with big government! Unless they want to build gun ranges and allow us to pollute the Earth!
The NRA's Top Attorney Was Convicted of Murder in 1964
Seems kind of fitting that a murderer would hold high office with them
I love Bill Maher's commentary on "gun culture"...
The NRA Tried to Get Rid of This Video Advocating Guns for the Blind
This is probably one of the stupidest things the NRA has ever done or said
Apparently that video won't play unless its being viewed on youtube.
I would certainly agree that "open carry" is a bad idea and most gun owners I know HATE that these guys want to walk around wal-marts and restaurants with an Ar15 or Ak47 strapped on. Just a dumb plan.
Either way, this certainly does NOT reflect the vast majority of gun owners behavior, in fact, none that I personally know.
I found the reaction from the NRA very interesting.
At first like any sane person, they spoke out against this, then they did a total one eighty.
Though it may have just been one sane staff member overstepping.
I think the NRA should have stuck to their guns and called those nuts what they are. The fact that they are so scared to tell stupid people to stop being idiots with their firearms speaks volumes as to the kind of organization they intend on being now and in the future
I think a lot of people are looking at this all wrong. We keep trying to make new laws to restrict weapons and when criminals and the like find ways around those laws we want to make more laws...thereby giving government MORE power over us. I don't think gun laws are really the answer at all.
I really think that smart weaponry is the way to go...where every weapon has bio-recognition and can only be fired by one particular person. (the technology exists and in fact has been attempted to be pushed into legislation a number of times and rejected)
We've seen that a large number (i'd say the majority) of mass shootings are done by people who took a gun from someone else. Bio-recognition would make that impossible.
So, maybe the answer isn't so much gun regulation ownership but giving the actual owner of the weapon more power to ensure that their gun is not misused. Obviously this doesn't solve the issue of people who DO own their own gun and do kill someone(s) on their own. But it's a start and would for sure cut down on accidental death and mass shootings.
A federal judge in Maryland has issued an opinion on Ar15s, Ak47s, etc, typically erroneously referred to as "assault weapons."
Cut and paste from the article:
In what looks to be a terrible ruling for Maryland gun owners a federal judge has essentially ruled that guns that were regulated by the state of Maryland last year, including AR-15 and AK style rifles (as well as other magazine fed, semi-auto rifles with certain features), “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms,” according to a 47 page opinion by U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake.
The case in question is Kolbe et al v. O’Malley et al which named numerous plaintiffs including the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association, Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), among others which challenged the constitutionality of Maryland’s strict new gun laws.
Here are some of Blake’s other comments [emphasis mine],
Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.
First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. Even accepting that there are 8.2 million assault weapons in the civilian gun stock, as the plaintiffs claim, assault weapons represent no more than 3% of the current civilian gun stock, and ownership of those weapons is highly concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population.
The court is also not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ claims that assault weapons are used infrequently in mass shootings and murders of law enforcement officers. The available statistics indicate that assault weapons are used disproportionately to their ownership in the general public and, furthermore, cause more injuries and more fatalities when they are used.
As for their claims that assault weapons are well-suited for self-defense, the plaintiffs proffer no evidence beyond their desire to possess assault weapons for self-defense in the home that they are in fact commonly used, or possessed, for that purpose.
Finally, despite the plaintiffs’ claims that they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, assault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use, and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity as their fully automatic versions.
I completely agree with the fact that Smart guns should be the future but considering the gun nuts harassed and sent death threats to one of the owners of a gun shop offering that option as well as to the companies themselves, sadly, I don't think saner minds will prevail there.
I always found it funny the pro gun people seemed to hate smart guns. Shouldn't the goal of pro gun person be the right of choice of any gun a person wants. Something tells me if the federal government tried to ban smart guns, the pro gun crowd would be all pro smart guns claiming how the government is infringing on it's 2nd amendment rights
In theory should the people who are for States Rights 100% of the time claim victory for this one?
I don't know. It does tell me that this federal judge knows little about the 2nd amendment.
Actually going by the District of Columbia v Heller SCOTUS case, you just can't ban firearms completely (especially ones most commonly used for defense self family and property), but you can restrict what type of firearm one can own.
My point was this judge apparently stated that the core for the 2nd amendment was home defense.