Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jocal505

Guns Must Microstamp in CA

Recommended Posts

Guest Dabnis

 

Not too sure about that Crabs----I've gone thru & passed maybe 20-25 Feddy bg checks in the past four years, and as far as I know the results of all of them are destroyed within 2 weeks.....

I just can't see the Feds dumping that information.

 

 

Agree, although somewhere in the link, I think it says the information is not to be used for a national

registry, or words to that effect.

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2013-operations-report

 

Oh yea, if someone believes that, I have a bridge in the middle of the desert I would like to sell them. :D

 

Dabs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No link but I'm sure there's one in Miami. In the NE section, like in the garment district. A big machine shop. The NSA knows the address.

There's a remarkable factory in the Kyber Pass that manufactures copies of firearms with a big team of mostly little kids. They have to buy springs, but any part they can make a crude cast of and pour from a melted down railroad or whatever can be "machined" to precise tolerances by kids with files, lapping compound, and butt-loads of elbow grease.

 

Oldie but a goodie...

 

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I thought you favored street justice.

 

 

 

No. I don't have any idea how you came to that conclusion. Feel free to cite anything I've said to that effect. I'll still be here when you get back......

 

Ferguson.

 

 

What about ferguson?

 

You said justice was served on the streets of Ferguson when the unarmed black kid got shot in the top of his head.

 

 

Nothing about that implies that I "favor" street justice. Just stating that it happened. And OBTW - he was shot by an officer of the law who is legally entitled to enforce justice on the street in extreme circumstance. And said officer of the law was found to have done nothing wrong and was acquitted of all wrong doing. No.... Street justice is when an armed mob or armed civilian takes the law into his/her own hands in an offensive way (as opposed to defensive). "Street justice" is also when the mob loots, burn buildings and shoot cops in response to a perceived injustice. I certainly don't favor any of that. Wanna try again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I go back to the concept that it is the human and not the gun that needs regulating. If I were king for a day - I would use executive (monarch) order to decree that the background check system is to be changed in the following way (my 12 point plan):

 

  1. All prospective gun buyers would submit to a thorough background check that is tied to national and state databases
  2. Prospective gun buyer would receive a picture ID gov't issued "buyer's card" with a unique number that is stored in a database.
  3. Gun buyer shows card during ALL gun purchases - whether through a dealer or private sale.
  4. Seller calls up automated 800-number or goes on line to a NICS/ATF website and enters buyers unique number. The service is free.
  5. System either returns a GREEN - Cleared to buy, YELLOW - flagged, call an ATF rep to clarify or provide further info before the sale, or RED - NO SALE.
  6. No gun information is identified during this process but Seller must maintain records for a certain number of years in the event trace data is required.
  7. Any criminal or reportable mental health information will be added to the database as it becomes available. So even if a buyer has a card issued a year ago, by virtue of the seller checking the current information through the automated system, any disqualifying information will appear and flag the sale.
  8. ALL LOST or STOLEN guns must be reported to the Police immediately upon discovery.
  9. Gun owners will be held legally and criminally liable if their gun is unsecured and used in an accidental shooting or in a crime. The method of securing the weapon is up to the gun owner - but they take the risk that if a gun is stolen from their home that is left under the mattress unsecured and is used to commit a crime they are on the hook for some responsibility. If the gun safe is broken into and the gun stolen, that is a different story and the owner is off the hook. The same applies if a kid gets their hands on a gun and shoots themselves or a neighbor kid. If the gun was unsecured - you're fucked. But figure it out.... Its not that hard or expensive to secure your guns.
  10. The thorough background check would be renewed every 3-5 years to re-issue the card.
  11. The buyers card enables me to buy ANY currently available firearm including ATF items like Automatic weapons, suppressors, SBRs, etc. By virtue of having and maintaining a CLEAN record, I would not be restricted in what I could possess.
  12. There will be severe punishments and strict enforcement of anyone caught selling without going through the check process, straw purchasing, securing guns, etc.

 

The bottom line for me is the person, and not the gun should be "registered" and "regulated". I have no issue with that. But regulating the gun is a losing game. I reward people who follow the rules and punish those who don't rather than punish ALL for the sins of a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gun buyer card says Visa on it.

 

Your system as proposed seems likely to generate a lot of "I only loaned it out" excuses because you don't define what is a transfer and which are exempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No link but I'm sure there's one in Miami. In the NE section, like in the garment district. A big machine shop. The NSA knows the address.

There's a remarkable factory in the Kyber Pass that manufactures copies of firearms with a big team of mostly little kids. They have to buy springs, but any part they can make a crude cast of and pour from a melted down railroad or whatever can be "machined" to precise tolerances by kids with files, lapping compound, and butt-loads of elbow grease.

 

Oldie but a goodie...

 

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning!

 

 

 

Pretty cool. Legendary status due to utility notwithstanding, it's a stamped-metal POS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gun buyer card says Visa on it.

 

Your system as proposed seems likely to generate a lot of "I only loaned it out" excuses because you don't define what is a transfer and which are exempt.

 

Why would I care if you loaned it out? Loan it out all you want, but if the gun is used in a crime or in an accident - YOU are on the hook for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My gun buyer card says Visa on it.

 

Your system as proposed seems likely to generate a lot of "I only loaned it out" excuses because you don't define what is a transfer and which are exempt.

Why would I care if you loaned it out? Loan it out all you want, but if the gun is used in a crime or in an accident - YOU are on the hook for it.

Now thats what I call personal responsibility!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

JokeAwf will completely ignore any and all gun stats that are supplied from any government entity. He only likes the ones that are compiled by gun hating private parties such as Mother Fuking Jones......

 

Your statement lacks veracity. So do you.

 

 

 

You have consistently poo-poo'd every stat from America's law enforcement agencies here since Day 1.....while expousing the accuracy, relevance and 'facts' submitted by all the anti-gun nut organizations.

 

And you know that I'm right on this one....

 

 

Rick, I don't know where you get this stuff. I have quoted Law Enforcement as well. Here's from this month:

 

LE for AW ban renewal,2004

August 9, 2004—States United to Prevent Gun Violence gathers a list of over 1,900 police chiefs, sheriffs, and county prosecutors who support "renewing and strengthening" the federal Assault Weapons Ban. Some of the names on the list include

Chief John Wilson of Montgomery, Alabama; Chief Randy Henderlite of the Glendale, Arizona Police Department; the Greenwood, Arkansas Police Department; Cam Sanchez, president of the California Police Chiefs Association; the Daytona Beach, Florida Police Department; the Cicero, Illinois Police Department; Baltimore City, Maryland Police Commissioner Kevin Clark; Colonel Tadarial Sturdivant of the Michigan State Police; the East Rutherford, New Jersey Police Department; the Nassau County, New York Police Department; the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Police Department; and San Antonio, Texas Police Department Chief Albert Ortiz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is similar to: background checks are gun registration,

 

 

How can anyone seriously argue against that comment?

 

Hi Blue Crab. You drank the cool-aid, and breathed the pixie dust, too.

Because background checks and gun registration are separate battles, which will be both lost and won, in separate time frames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is JJustin and how old is he, jocal? Those things seem to matter. I really don't see how taking an interest in individual rights at the age of 23 is bad. Possibly because I took such an interest at that age and younger and turned out so bad.

 

JJustin in a progressive constitutional wonk who did a cameo on Dkos. He is ancient, like me. He pointed out the entirety of the GOA/SAF/post-77 NRA Big Lie to me. A light went on in me, I owe him.

You don't want any, Tom, you aren't grounded enough on the documents to converse with JJustin.

You're just a boy, mate. You can't present your own historian, from the Heller majority, and his credentials. That is quite flakey, IMO, considering your status as the most informed SA Gun Club authority.

 

As for my own historical authority, I'll go with Saul Cornell, History of Second Amendment (Gun-Rights Advocates Should Fear It) not JJustin. The latter has too narrow a bandwidth.

Bud Badgeless Boy, if you want JJustin, I think I can get him to come here. You don't want any.

 

 

 

But let our discussion continue. Gun confiscation existed in 1777. Gun control laws existed in all three cities, and Rhode Island, by 1786.

The Founding Fathers had gun control, including gun confiscation. They had unloaded weapons in their cities. Why can't we have similar laws today?

Your historical claims of unfettered guns is weak, and is not sourceable.

 

Conclusion: the SAF resistance to similar laws today is an historical fraud, underwritten by Ashcroft and Scalia's lying-ass history twister...

David Hardy.hardys%20michael%20moore%20book_zpslr8fb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My gun buyer card says Visa on it.

 

Your system as proposed seems likely to generate a lot of "I only loaned it out" excuses because you don't define what is a transfer and which are exempt.

 

Why would I care if you loaned it out? Loan it out all you want, but if the gun is used in a crime or in an accident - YOU are on the hook for it.

 

 

 

3. Gun buyer shows card during ALL gun purchases - whether through a dealer or private sale.

 

What if I violate that rule because I already have a gun buyer card and don't want another one? I get caught and say, "I didn't buy/sell any gun, just borrowed/loaned it! There was no private sale at all!"

 

I doubt your proposal would work any better than any previous gun control effort. By now, I would have passed at least a few dozen of your background checks and absolutely nothing else would change. That's because such laws slightly affect the behavior of people inclined to obey them. You're dreaming if you think your system will reach the few people who cause most of the problems. It doesn't work in Chicago and they even thought to cover that clever "loan" defense.

 

You're also dreaming if you think giving up some freedom and enduring more idiotic regulations can be traded for suppressors or full auto's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really mind 1777 style confiscation jocal. Next time we're in a civil war, both sides will likely try to disarm the other once again. They were quite polite about it, insisting on receipts and on returning the confiscated guns to their owners in some situations. In other situations, they were intent on getting those military-style guns into the hands of ordinary citizens.

 

Between civil wars, I don't wish to see any confiscation, even this friendly kind where they pay the owners and return the guns. But I'm OK with confiscated weapons being returned to the citizenry. I think that should happen at gun buybacks instead of destroying the guns. Glad to see you on board with getting military weapons into private hands! That's a main purpose of the second amendment.

 

And yeah, bring on JJustin. I'm just terrified. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where is your honor, mate? Before you breezily change the subject, I would like you to explain your third documented introduction of violent crime stats to a gun supply discussion.

I have some question whether you are worth conversing with.

 

The discussion was gun supply to the black market. And you .link to THIS unrelated stuff? WTF?

 

 

Tom's MO Violent Crime/gun murder comps, March 2015.

His link: Missouri Crime Rates 1960 - 2013

Missouri Population and Number of Crimes 1960 - 2013

Violent Crime Property Crime Forcible Murder Rape Aggravated Assault Larceny Burglary Vehicle Theft Theft

Pasted from <http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/mocrimn.htm>

 

I object to the dishonesty in play. Disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My gun buyer card says Visa on it.

 

Your system as proposed seems likely to generate a lot of "I only loaned it out" excuses because you don't define what is a transfer and which are exempt.

 

Why would I care if you loaned it out? Loan it out all you want, but if the gun is used in a crime or in an accident - YOU are on the hook for it.

I like your proposal, very close to mine. Except your wont work without registration. Work on #6 and get back to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bud Badgeless Boy, if you want JJustin, I think I can get him to come here. You don't want any.

 

 

You are right, we don't want any more gun grabby fucking mental fuckwits like you. One is enough.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My gun buyer card says Visa on it.

 

Your system as proposed seems likely to generate a lot of "I only loaned it out" excuses because you don't define what is a transfer and which are exempt.

 

Why would I care if you loaned it out? Loan it out all you want, but if the gun is used in a crime or in an accident - YOU are on the hook for it.

 

 

 

3. Gun buyer shows card during ALL gun purchases - whether through a dealer or private sale.

 

What if I violate that rule because I already have a gun buyer card and don't want another one? I get caught and say, "I didn't buy/sell any gun, just borrowed/loaned it! There was no private sale at all!"

 

I doubt your proposal would work any better than any previous gun control effort. By now, I would have passed at least a few dozen of your background checks and absolutely nothing else would change. That's because such laws slightly affect the behavior of people inclined to obey them. You're dreaming if you think your system will reach the few people who cause most of the problems. It doesn't work in Chicago and they even thought to cover that clever "loan" defense.

 

You're also dreaming if you think giving up some freedom and enduring more idiotic regulations can be traded for suppressors or full auto's.

 

 

I think of #3 being as much about protecting the seller as screening the buyer. As a private seller, I have NEVER sold a gun to someone I didn't know personally. I don't like the idea of some stranger buying a gun from me and then going out and whacking someone with it. I don't need that kind of drama.

 

Furthermore, I agree with you that criminals will still bypass those rules if they really want a gun. But what increased regulations am I asking for? I'm actually actually simplifying an already existing system and making it easier to use and free. I also keep you from having to go through a BGC each and everytime you want to buy a gun and having to wait the couple of hours it sometimes takes and the $25 a pop for the NICS. You are not going through another BGC during the seller verification. All the seller is doing is seeing if any additional info has been added to your profile that might DSQ you. If nothing has changed, in secs the query comes back empty and the transaction goes through. It takes less time than it took me to type this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My gun buyer card says Visa on it.

 

Your system as proposed seems likely to generate a lot of "I only loaned it out" excuses because you don't define what is a transfer and which are exempt.

Why would I care if you loaned it out? Loan it out all you want, but if the gun is used in a crime or in an accident - YOU are on the hook for it.

I like your proposal, very close to mine. Except your wont work without registration. Work on #6 and get back to me.

 

 

It's supposed to be my job to point out that BG checks lead to registration, which in turn leads to banning and confiscation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

My gun buyer card says Visa on it.

 

Your system as proposed seems likely to generate a lot of "I only loaned it out" excuses because you don't define what is a transfer and which are exempt.

 

Why would I care if you loaned it out? Loan it out all you want, but if the gun is used in a crime or in an accident - YOU are on the hook for it.

 

 

 

3. Gun buyer shows card during ALL gun purchases - whether through a dealer or private sale.

 

What if I violate that rule because I already have a gun buyer card and don't want another one? I get caught and say, "I didn't buy/sell any gun, just borrowed/loaned it! There was no private sale at all!"

 

I doubt your proposal would work any better than any previous gun control effort. By now, I would have passed at least a few dozen of your background checks and absolutely nothing else would change. That's because such laws slightly affect the behavior of people inclined to obey them. You're dreaming if you think your system will reach the few people who cause most of the problems. It doesn't work in Chicago and they even thought to cover that clever "loan" defense.

 

You're also dreaming if you think giving up some freedom and enduring more idiotic regulations can be traded for suppressors or full auto's.

 

 

I think of #3 being as much about protecting the seller as screening the buyer. As a private seller, I have NEVER sold a gun to someone I didn't know personally. I don't like the idea of some stranger buying a gun from me and then going out and whacking someone with it. I don't need that kind of drama.

 

Furthermore, I agree with you that criminals will still bypass those rules if they really want a gun. But what increased regulations am I asking for? I'm actually actually simplifying an already existing system and making it easier to use and free. I also keep you from having to go through a BGC each and everytime you want to buy a gun and having to wait the couple of hours it sometimes takes and the $25 a pop for the NICS. You are not going through another BGC during the seller verification. All the seller is doing is seeing if any additional info has been added to your profile that might DSQ you. If nothing has changed, in secs the query comes back empty and the transaction goes through. It takes less time than it took me to type this post.

 

 

You're asking for increased regulation on private transfers. You didn't notice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

another didge from Tom

 

Where is your honor, mate? Before you breezily change the subject, I would like you to explain your third documented introduction of violent crime stats to a gun homicide discussion.

I have some question whether you are worth conversing with.

 

The discussion was gun supply to the black market. And you .link to THIS unrelated stuff? WTF?

 

 

 

Why do you constantly try to introduce suicide stats into homicide discussions. Pot.... you are indeed racist for disparaging Mr Kettle.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the we have made great progress. Convincing a rabid gun nuttter that background checks are a really good idea is promising. We have already convinced the vast majority of Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My gun buyer card says Visa on it.

 

Your system as proposed seems likely to generate a lot of "I only loaned it out" excuses because you don't define what is a transfer and which are exempt.

Why would I care if you loaned it out? Loan it out all you want, but if the gun is used in a crime or in an accident - YOU are on the hook for it.

I like your proposal, very close to mine. Except your wont work without registration. Work on #6 and get back to me.

 

 

Explain to me, succinctly and without trolling what YOU see as the primary purpose of registration? Is it crime solving after the fact? Honest question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

another didge from Tom

 

Where is your honor, mate? Before you breezily change the subject, I would like you to explain your third documented introduction of violent crime stats to a gun homicide discussion.

I have some question whether you are worth conversing with.

 

The discussion was gun supply to the black market. And you .link to THIS unrelated stuff? WTF?

 

 

 

Why do you constantly try to introduce suicide stats into homicide discussions. Pot.... you are indeed racist for disparaging Mr Kettle.....

 

 

Leave him alone, JBSF. He's trying to explain why murders are unrelated to guns. Should get entertaining before long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

My gun buyer card says Visa on it.

 

Your system as proposed seems likely to generate a lot of "I only loaned it out" excuses because you don't define what is a transfer and which are exempt.

 

Why would I care if you loaned it out? Loan it out all you want, but if the gun is used in a crime or in an accident - YOU are on the hook for it.

I like your proposal, very close to mine. Except your wont work without registration. Work on #6 and get back to me.

Explain to me, succinctly and without trolling what YOU see as the primary purpose of registration? Is it crime solving after the fact? Honest question.

I've discussed this with you numerous times. i understand you don't read what I write and make up your own opinions of what you think I say. So reposting my position is futile. Use the search feature if you are truly interested. Otherwise, just make up what you think I think, like you normally do.

 

BTW, crime solving always happens after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

My gun buyer card says Visa on it.

 

Your system as proposed seems likely to generate a lot of "I only loaned it out" excuses because you don't define what is a transfer and which are exempt.

Why would I care if you loaned it out? Loan it out all you want, but if the gun is used in a crime or in an accident - YOU are on the hook for it.

I like your proposal, very close to mine. Except your wont work without registration. Work on #6 and get back to me.

 

 

It's supposed to be my job to point out that BG checks lead to registration, which in turn leads to banning and confiscation.

 

 

 

The triple wet dream. It sells guns, plus it gives dimwits something to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

My gun buyer card says Visa on it.

 

Your system as proposed seems likely to generate a lot of "I only loaned it out" excuses because you don't define what is a transfer and which are exempt.

 

Why would I care if you loaned it out? Loan it out all you want, but if the gun is used in a crime or in an accident - YOU are on the hook for it.

 

 

 

3. Gun buyer shows card during ALL gun purchases - whether through a dealer or private sale.

 

What if I violate that rule because I already have a gun buyer card and don't want another one? I get caught and say, "I didn't buy/sell any gun, just borrowed/loaned it! There was no private sale at all!"

 

I doubt your proposal would work any better than any previous gun control effort. By now, I would have passed at least a few dozen of your background checks and absolutely nothing else would change. That's because such laws slightly affect the behavior of people inclined to obey them. You're dreaming if you think your system will reach the few people who cause most of the problems. It doesn't work in Chicago and they even thought to cover that clever "loan" defense.

 

You're also dreaming if you think giving up some freedom and enduring more idiotic regulations can be traded for suppressors or full auto's.

 

 

I think of #3 being as much about protecting the seller as screening the buyer. As a private seller, I have NEVER sold a gun to someone I didn't know personally. I don't like the idea of some stranger buying a gun from me and then going out and whacking someone with it. I don't need that kind of drama.

 

Furthermore, I agree with you that criminals will still bypass those rules if they really want a gun. But what increased regulations am I asking for? I'm actually actually simplifying an already existing system and making it easier to use and free. I also keep you from having to go through a BGC each and everytime you want to buy a gun and having to wait the couple of hours it sometimes takes and the $25 a pop for the NICS. You are not going through another BGC during the seller verification. All the seller is doing is seeing if any additional info has been added to your profile that might DSQ you. If nothing has changed, in secs the query comes back empty and the transaction goes through. It takes less time than it took me to type this post.

 

 

You're asking for increased regulation on private transfers. You didn't notice?

 

 

Well, yes that's true. But I've advocated for that from the beginning. I think it is the one area that some inconvenience on the part of the seller and buyer is worth the tradeoffs. I believe that there are some people (in fact I know of some) who are happy to look the other way at the point of sale and would sell to some potentially shady charactors as long as it wasn't shoved in their face. As long as they had some plausible deniability that they didn't know the person was legal to purchase, they would sell. Simply asking "are you legal to buy this gun" and the buyer answering in the affirmative, even though he may be lying through his teeth is not good enough for me.

 

So I think that a law that requires even private sellers to verify the legal status of a buyer would be a huge deterrent to a significant portion of the private sellers out there who have no desire to run afoul of the law. But they either are too lazy, ambivalent, or able to have at least some deniability now so they go through with a sale even though their gut may tell them this is not a good idea. So a think a private, simple, FREE system where a seller could run a buyer's number through a check system would even further narrow the supply of guns to criminals or miscreants. Then someone with a red flag and unable to buy would then have to purchase from someone who would have to knowingly sell the gun illegally with potential huge penalties if caught. AS it is now, there is simply no mechanism to punish people who sell to bad guys because there is no way for the seller to know for sure.

 

As we constantly say, there is a balance between liberty and responsibility and I think this is one of the easy tradeoffs of a bit of inconvenience that would actually make a real difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the we have made great progress. Convincing a rabid gun nuttter that background checks are a really good idea is promising. We have already convinced the vast majority of Americans.

 

You haven't convinced me of fuck-all, fucko. I have been an avid supporter of BCGs since they were introduced - as long as they were not overly onerous and used as an excuse to register or confiscate guns - I think they are a good thing.

 

What I object to is that the gun information is being registered with the Feds, and that is a defacto registration of the gun. A BCG should be on the person, not the gun. And I should be able to buy a gun each day of the week if I want to without having to go through another BCG and pay $25 each time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Registration is inevitable and completes the loop. Once we can trace the chain of custody of weapons used in crimes, the supply chain of those weapons will dry up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

You're asking for increased regulation on private transfers. ...

 

 

Well, yes that's true. But I've advocated for that from the beginning. I think it is the one area that some inconvenience on the part of the seller and buyer is worth the tradeoffs. I believe that there are some people (in fact I know of some) who are happy to look the other way at the point of sale and would sell to some potentially shady charactors as long as it wasn't shoved in their face. As long as they had some plausible deniability that they didn't know the person was legal to purchase, they would sell. Simply asking "are you legal to buy this gun" and the buyer answering in the affirmative, even though he may be lying through his teeth is not good enough for me.

 

So I think that a law that requires even private sellers to verify the legal status of a buyer would be a huge deterrent to a significant portion of the private sellers out there who have no desire to run afoul of the law. But they either are too lazy, ambivalent, or able to have at least some deniability now so they go through with a sale even though their gut may tell them this is not a good idea. So a think a private, simple, FREE system where a seller could run a buyer's number through a check system would even further narrow the supply of guns to criminals or miscreants. Then someone with a red flag and unable to buy would then have to purchase from someone who would have to knowingly sell the gun illegally with potential huge penalties if caught. AS it is now, there is simply no mechanism to punish people who sell to bad guys because there is no way for the seller to know for sure.

 

As we constantly say, there is a balance between liberty and responsibility and I think this is one of the easy tradeoffs of a bit of inconvenience that would actually make a real difference.

 

 

I'm not aware that gun culture is rife with people selling guns to people who give them a bad gut feeling. That would have to happen between strangers. Very few criminals get their guns from strangers at places like gun shows. Far more borrow them, but if your system only governs sales, I guess those transfers are not of any concern.

 

crime-gun-sources.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Registration is inevitable and completes the loop. Once we can trace the chain of custody of weapons used in crimes, the supply chain of those weapons will dry up.

 

No, acting on registration information completes the loop. Shall I link once again to the fact that Washington DC's gun registry was never used to solve a crime? Not even once in the many decades it has been around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

My gun buyer card says Visa on it.

 

Your system as proposed seems likely to generate a lot of "I only loaned it out" excuses because you don't define what is a transfer and which are exempt.

Why would I care if you loaned it out? Loan it out all you want, but if the gun is used in a crime or in an accident - YOU are on the hook for it.

I like your proposal, very close to mine. Except your wont work without registration. Work on #6 and get back to me.

Explain to me, succinctly and without trolling what YOU see as the primary purpose of registration? Is it crime solving after the fact? Honest question.

I've discussed this with you numerous times. i understand you don't read what I write and make up your own opinions of what you think I say. So reposting my position is futile. Use the search feature if you are truly interested. Otherwise, just make up what you think I think, like you normally do.

 

BTW, crime solving always happens after the fact.

 

 

I often don't read what you write because you are a constantly trolling shitbag who throws shit out just to be incendiary and outrageous. You destroyed your credibility here, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

another didge from Tom

 

Where is your honor, mate? Before you breezily change the subject, I would like you to explain your third documented introduction of violent crime stats to a gun homicide discussion.

I have some question whether you are worth conversing with.

 

The discussion was gun supply to the black market. And you .link to THIS unrelated stuff? WTF?

 

Why do you constantly try to introduce suicide stats into homicide discussions. Pot.... you are indeed racist for disparaging Mr Kettle.....

 

 

(Good job on the race-baiting/ad hominem combo. But this is not about me, or race.)

 

Hi Jeff. I DON"T bring suicides into homicide discussions, I introduce them as a glaring problem within our overall gun fatalities.

I do so because deaths are deaths. And many pre-mature suicide deaths are influenced by gun presence.

 

Hi my name is Jeffie and my friends and I don't give a hoot about those who die early deaths, as long as they murderer themselves. Not even if gets to 15,000/yr., just by gunfire.

I understand that our suicide rate is average, but the U.S. gun suicide rate is about 8x other leading nations, because concerned friends have explained this repeatedly.

I once hosted "The Official Gun Suicide Thread" where I denied all known social scientific input, while featuring my un-sourced, pro-gun beliefs.

 

 

I am a model gunowner.EMHubrisMachine_zps8598ec6e.jpg

 

 

In overall suicide rate, the United States ranks roughly in the middle of the pack among industrialized nations. However, we are the exception when it comes to suicides among children between the ages of 5 and 14, with an overall rate twice the average of other developed nations. This stark difference is driven almost exclusively by a firearm-related suicide rate that is 10 times the average of other industrialized nations.

 

Adolescents living in states with higher gun prevalence also suffer from higher rates of suicide. Adolescents who commit suicide are significantly more likely to live with a firearm in their home even after adjusting for various risk factors. This increased risk holds true regardless of how the firearm is stored or the type of gun. Firearms that are stored loaded have the highest risk, while safely stored guns (locked and unloaded) are much safer. Proper firearm storage can’t mitigate the entire risk of adolescent gun suicide, but it is a necessary step.

Pasted from <http://www.armedwithreason.com/guns-and-children-a-tragic-combination/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I often don't read what you write because you are a constantly trolling shitbag who throws shit out just to be incendiary and outrageous. You destroyed your credibility here, not me.

 

They why do you ask for my opinion? You do read my posts, they rattle in your empty head until the rage increases to a point that you call me a cunt and reply to something you have assigned to my words, and not my actually words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

You're asking for increased regulation on private transfers. ...

 

 

Well, yes that's true. But I've advocated for that from the beginning. I think it is the one area that some inconvenience on the part of the seller and buyer is worth the tradeoffs. I believe that there are some people (in fact I know of some) who are happy to look the other way at the point of sale and would sell to some potentially shady charactors as long as it wasn't shoved in their face. As long as they had some plausible deniability that they didn't know the person was legal to purchase, they would sell. Simply asking "are you legal to buy this gun" and the buyer answering in the affirmative, even though he may be lying through his teeth is not good enough for me.

 

So I think that a law that requires even private sellers to verify the legal status of a buyer would be a huge deterrent to a significant portion of the private sellers out there who have no desire to run afoul of the law. But they either are too lazy, ambivalent, or able to have at least some deniability now so they go through with a sale even though their gut may tell them this is not a good idea. So a think a private, simple, FREE system where a seller could run a buyer's number through a check system would even further narrow the supply of guns to criminals or miscreants. Then someone with a red flag and unable to buy would then have to purchase from someone who would have to knowingly sell the gun illegally with potential huge penalties if caught. AS it is now, there is simply no mechanism to punish people who sell to bad guys because there is no way for the seller to know for sure.

 

As we constantly say, there is a balance between liberty and responsibility and I think this is one of the easy tradeoffs of a bit of inconvenience that would actually make a real difference.

 

 

I'm not aware that gun culture is rife with people selling guns to people who give them a bad gut feeling. That would have to happen between strangers. Very few criminals get their guns from strangers at places like gun shows. Far more borrow them, but if your system only governs sales, I guess those transfers are not of any concern.

 

crime-gun-sources.gif

 

 

 

No, "loans" from family or friends is not my concern. But as I said, if you loan your gun to a friend or cousin and they use it in a drive-by shooting - you're going to go to jail too. Guess that means you'd better be more careful who you loan your guns out to.....

 

Edit: Gunshows are not the only source of private sales. Probably the smallest in fact. Looking at your table - I would say buying from some stranger on Craigslist would qualify as "Street". That's 25% right there. Family and "friends" are another 20% that my system would catch as well if you remove the "rented or borrowed". 45-50% additional guns going through the BCG system under my plan that criminals in your list would previously could get without a BCG is not a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're asking for increased regulation on private transfers. ...

 

 

Well, yes that's true. But I've advocated for that from the beginning. I think it is the one area that some inconvenience on the part of the seller and buyer is worth the tradeoffs. I believe that there are some people (in fact I know of some) who are happy to look the other way at the point of sale and would sell to some potentially shady charactors as long as it wasn't shoved in their face. As long as they had some plausible deniability that they didn't know the person was legal to purchase, they would sell. Simply asking "are you legal to buy this gun" and the buyer answering in the affirmative, even though he may be lying through his teeth is not good enough for me.

 

So I think that a law that requires even private sellers to verify the legal status of a buyer would be a huge deterrent to a significant portion of the private sellers out there who have no desire to run afoul of the law. But they either are too lazy, ambivalent, or able to have at least some deniability now so they go through with a sale even though their gut may tell them this is not a good idea. So a think a private, simple, FREE system where a seller could run a buyer's number through a check system would even further narrow the supply of guns to criminals or miscreants. Then someone with a red flag and unable to buy would then have to purchase from someone who would have to knowingly sell the gun illegally with potential huge penalties if caught. AS it is now, there is simply no mechanism to punish people who sell to bad guys because there is no way for the seller to know for sure.

 

As we constantly say, there is a balance between liberty and responsibility and I think this is one of the easy tradeoffs of a bit of inconvenience that would actually make a real difference.

 

 

I'm not aware that gun culture is rife with people selling guns to people who give them a bad gut feeling. That would have to happen between strangers. Very few criminals get their guns from strangers at places like gun shows. Far more borrow them, but if your system only governs sales, I guess those transfers are not of any concern.

 

crime-gun-sources.gif

 

 

 

No "loans" from family or friends is not my concern. But as I said, if you loan your gun to a friend or cousin and they use it in a drive-by shooting - you're going to go to jail too. Guess that means you'd better be more careful who you loan your guns out to.....

 

 

So where will the registry um... list be kept that ties any particular gun to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Registration is inevitable and completes the loop. Once we can trace the chain of custody of weapons used in crimes, the supply chain of those weapons will dry up.

 

No, acting on registration information completes the loop. Shall I link once again to the fact that Washington DC's gun registry was never used to solve a crime? Not even once in the many decades it has been around.

 

Gun registration will assign some liability to the last registered owner of the firearm unless they have reported it stolen prior to the commitment of the crime. This is a good thing. We all want responsible gun owners.

Gun registration will allow law enforcement to know what they are facing prior to engaging a suspect, extraordinarily useful in domestic violence and well checks.

Gun registration will allow the confiscation of guns for safe keeping when a lawful owner has been determined to be a danger to himself and others. A restraining order, notorious misbehavior or psychotic episode could trigger the confiscation until the matter is settled.

Gun registration will give a treasure trove of statistical information on the demographics, model and type of weapons legally owned by Americans. From this, we can make intelligent new laws and retire ineffective and onerous ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Registration is inevitable and completes the loop. Once we can trace the chain of custody of weapons used in crimes, the supply chain of those weapons will dry up.

 

Hi Five with Carlos Danger! Baby steps!

Cunfinder The Great is showing moderate gun safety leadership...

 

And this (above) is Jeff's answer to how gun registration reduces crime. Sellers and owners get careful. Straw buyers get needy, and unfulfilled.

Is this rocket science or something?

The fact that Jeff was stuck asking that elementary question (how does registration reduce crime) is scary. The self-imposed blindness, and the lack of talking points, and the lack of embarassment.

He's a "responsible gun owner" who supports unregistered weapons...A model gunowner, he tells us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the responsible gun owners....should you be required to report a stolen weapon under penalty of law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course.....

I hear guns are just tools, like chainsaws, shovels and hammers. Do you think we should be required to report any of those tools under penalty of law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda like not being an accessory to a crime after the fact. Color me prison adverse.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course.....

 

I know this seems like a good idea on the surface, but there are a number of cases where they have been used to harass gun owners and I don't know of a single case where the law actually did anything positive. Taking myself as an example, I have a decent sized collection of guns and while I keep them locked up, there is the possibility that one could go missing and I might not realize it for a few weeks, especially if I am on vacation or away on business. I don't take a regular inventory of everything, so it is possible that something used infrequently might not be noticed immediately unless there are obvious signs of a break in. As soon as I did realize something was missing, I would report it, since that is the only way to collect the insured value, but in many areas that might have lead to an arrest for failing to report it immediately, especially if the gun was recovered somewhere else in the interim. I don't personally know anyone who will not report a stolen gun, with or without the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that it's no sweat off my teeth, and the responsible thing to do....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that it's no sweat off my teeth, and the responsible thing to do....

You do realize that reporting a stolen weapon is back door registration, don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're showing a lack of critical thinking skills, again, ed.

 

One reports it to let authorities know the crime of theft has occurred.

 

If/when they recover it, they can return it to rightful owner.

 

 

 

 

now, ed,

 

:) Quid Pro Quo

 

, about this Spike in Private Airplane Violence,

 

How many acts of domestic terrorism are acceptable to you ed ?

 

This time, he was only able to damage the bridge,,

, how about if there were a passenger car full of schoolkids in the train @ that moment ??.

 

Let's ignore, for a moment, polluting the environment by dumping fuel in a public street.

 

Let's ignore, for a moment, the med recourses consumed from the EMS guys, to the ER, & Critical Care,, ( thassa a lotta dinero )

 

 

Let's ignore, for a moment, shutting down a public street,

, and the city/fed $$ it takes to let NTSB do their prelim investigation, & clean the debris up .

 

Let's ignore, for a moment, the infrastructure itself.

( It WILL need to be Inspected/repaired before they can put a loaded train over it )

AND the ripple effect economic impacts to every one who drives under it

, or gets or sends a shipment from the train.

 

? How many acts of Private Airplane Suicide are acceptable, ed ?

 

? How many acts of Private Airplane Murder are acceptable, ed ?

 

 

 

? How many of our kids being killed by Murderous Private Airplanes is acceptable to you, ed ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you report a stolen weapon, the government is going to want to know make/model/serial#/date of purchase/place of purchase/distinguishing markings of your precious. They will record this information and put it on file with your name attached to it. Sounds like gun registration to me, albeit after the fact.

 

I don't think its a law around here, but if it were, would you be for or against it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gubmint already knew that info about that Private Airplane.

 

? did that prevent this (or ANY case) Private Airplane Violence ?

 

 

 

, answer the questions above, ed

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for the responsible gun owners....should you be required to report a stolen weapon under penalty of law?

 

8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gubmint already knew that info about that Private Airplane.

 

? did that prevent this (or ANY case) Private Airplane Violence ?

 

 

 

, answer the questions above, ed

 

:)

Start another thread. Don't hijack this one.

 

Question for the responsible gun owners....should you be required to report a stolen weapon under penalty of law?

 

8.

 

Yes under your new law (which I agree to mostly). But currently, are Americans required to report stolen weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... gun information is being registered with the Feds, and that is a defacto registration of the gun

 

See, I think you have to be nuts to see it any other way. But here, we have nuts. And believe me, this info won't be lost like the IRS records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmm,,,,

 

maybe if they had microstamped the spinner on that Murderous Private Airplane,,

 

Airplanes, Guns, ? what's the difference here, ed ?

 

I WAS being very careful to limit this to Private Airplanes.

, since Private Gunz seems to keep you in a perpetual state of pantywettedness,,

 

We have all seen the news reports about this surge of Commercial Airplane Violence,

, including Mass Commercial Airplane Murder, Mass Commercial Airplane Suicide,

 

, as well as a recent incident of Mass Commercial Airplane Terrorism.

(when that commuter plane tried to slice a bridge in half with his wing)

 

 

, so if you want to talk about Commercial Airplane Violence,, :)you can start another thread.

 

 

Answer the question, ed.

 

 

? How many acts of Private Airplane Suicide are acceptable, ed ?

 

? How many acts of Private Airplane Murder are acceptable, ed ?

 

 

 

? How many of our kids being killed by Murderous Private Airplanes is acceptable to you, ed ??

 

 

Answer the question, ed.

 

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I personally think that it's no sweat off my teeth, and the responsible thing to do....

You do realize that reporting a stolen weapon is back door registration, don't you?

 

 

Only if you find it later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But are you required to report it? If not, should you be?

 

No, and no, because keeping track of such a thing would require a registry and it has already been shown that registries are restricted and closed in various attempts to separate gun owners from guns, but are not used to solve crimes.

 

If we suddenly had a gungrabby culture interested in protecting our right to own guns instead of undermining it and interested in fighting crime instead of disarming citizens who have done nothing wrong, my view would change. But we don't and I can't see that on the horizon. No restriction on a registry, including closing it and banning the affected guns, seems to go too far.

 

Basically, I'll change my mind when jocal identifies a gun control law he thinks goes too far. Don't hold your breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I personally think that it's no sweat off my teeth, and the responsible thing to do....

You do realize that reporting a stolen weapon is back door registration, don't you?

 

 

Only if you find it later.

 

Do you think there should be a law to report stolen weapons? Jeff does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I personally think that it's no sweat off my teeth, and the responsible thing to do....

You do realize that reporting a stolen weapon is back door registration, don't you?

 

 

Only if you find it later.

 

Do you think there should be a law to report stolen weapons? Jeff does.

 

 

If you don't, you can't collect on the insurance.

 

Sure, I would report a stolen gun or a stolen lawn tractor or pretty much anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Do you think there should be a law to report stolen weapons? Jeff does.

 

 

If you don't, you can't collect on the insurance.

 

Sure, I would report a stolen gun or a stolen lawn tractor or pretty much anything else.

 

That's not the question, the question is should there be a law REQUIRING you to report a stolen weapon? Why can't anyone take a stand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Only 'cuz we're sick of your trolling.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you think there should be a law to report stolen weapons? Jeff does.

If you don't, you can't collect on the insurance.

 

Sure, I would report a stolen gun or a stolen lawn tractor or pretty much anything else.

That's not the question, the question is should there be a law REQUIRING you to report a stolen weapon? Why can't anyone take a stand?

Maybe cause the word 'require' reeks of government intervention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with the word "require". We are required to do a lot of things. I get that reporting a gun will then require all the pertinent info to be recorded and some could construe that as a "registry", but I don't think so. We already have a defacto registry with the recording of gun data during a NICS check. But there are federal laws in place, thanks to the SAF and NRA, that really restricts and controls what the gubmint can do with that data - thereby making it much more difficult (but not impossible theoretically) to use that as a closed registry to confiscate or ban guns. SO I think similar laws could be put in place that limits what the police could do with that data of a lost or stolen gun. But I think the benefit of having to report it lest you be held liable is a big deterrent to some to be careless with their weapons. With liberty goes responsibility.

 

As I said in my "king for a day" plan - secure your weapons or don't - but you will be held accountable for the consequences of your actions. IOW - feel free to loan your gun out or leave it laying around while you're at work and not in a secure safe. I'm not going to tell you how to do it, but if your gun ends up stolen and used in a crime or picked up by a kid and he shoots his friend - then you pay the price for your decisions. So think hard about how you are going to secure them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with the word "require". We are required to do a lot of things. I get that reporting a gun will then require all the pertinent info to be recorded and some could construe that as a "registry", but I don't think so. We already have a defacto registry with the recording of gun data during a NICS check. But there are federal laws in place, thanks to the SAF and NRA, that really restricts and controls what the gubmint can do with that data - thereby making it much more difficult (but not impossible theoretically) to use that as a closed registry to confiscate or ban guns. SO I think similar laws could be put in place that limits what the police could do with that data of a lost or stolen gun. But I think the benefit of having to report it lest you be held liable is a big deterrent to some to be careless with their weapons. With liberty goes responsibility.

 

As I said in my "king for a day" plan - secure your weapons or don't - but you will be held accountable for the consequences of your actions. IOW - feel free to loan your gun out or leave it laying around while you're at work and not in a secure safe. I'm not going to tell you how to do it, but if your gun ends up stolen and used in a crime or picked up by a kid and he shoots his friend - then you pay the price for your decisions. So think hard about how you are going to secure them.

 

Usually it's jocal who writes posts that make me want to go buy a mean-looking rifle in an unrecorded, private sale. I see no difference between a "list" and a registry, if my earlier post didn't make that clear. What is the difference you see?

 

The "theoretically impossible" has been happening, FYI. Yeah, it's illegal as hell, but we're talking ATF here. Legal doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with the word "require". We are required to do a lot of things. I get that reporting a gun will then require all the pertinent info to be recorded and some could construe that as a "registry", but I don't think so. We already have a defacto registry with the recording of gun data during a NICS check. But there are federal laws in place, thanks to the SAF and NRA, that really restricts and controls what the gubmint can do with that data - thereby making it much more difficult (but not impossible theoretically) to use that as a closed registry to confiscate or ban guns. SO I think similar laws could be put in place that limits what the police could do with that data of a lost or stolen gun. But I think the benefit of having to report it lest you be held liable is a big deterrent to some to be careless with their weapons. With liberty goes responsibility.

 

As I said in my "king for a day" plan - secure your weapons or don't - but you will be held accountable for the consequences of your actions. IOW - feel free to loan your gun out or leave it laying around while you're at work and not in a secure safe. I'm not going to tell you how to do it, but if your gun ends up stolen and used in a crime or picked up by a kid and he shoots his friend - then you pay the price for your decisions. So think hard about how you are going to secure them.

Thanks for coming around to my POV. Welcome aboard the Sanity Express.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't have a problem with the word "require". We are required to do a lot of things. I get that reporting a gun will then require all the pertinent info to be recorded and some could construe that as a "registry", but I don't think so. We already have a defacto registry with the recording of gun data during a NICS check. But there are federal laws in place, thanks to the SAF and NRA, that really restricts and controls what the gubmint can do with that data - thereby making it much more difficult (but not impossible theoretically) to use that as a closed registry to confiscate or ban guns. SO I think similar laws could be put in place that limits what the police could do with that data of a lost or stolen gun. But I think the benefit of having to report it lest you be held liable is a big deterrent to some to be careless with their weapons. With liberty goes responsibility.

 

As I said in my "king for a day" plan - secure your weapons or don't - but you will be held accountable for the consequences of your actions. IOW - feel free to loan your gun out or leave it laying around while you're at work and not in a secure safe. I'm not going to tell you how to do it, but if your gun ends up stolen and used in a crime or picked up by a kid and he shoots his friend - then you pay the price for your decisions. So think hard about how you are going to secure them.

 

Usually it's jocal who writes posts that make me want to go buy a mean-looking rifle in an unrecorded, private sale. I see no difference between a "list" and a registry, if my earlier post didn't make that clear. What is the difference you see?

 

The "theoretically impossible" has been happening, FYI. Yeah, it's illegal as hell, but we're talking ATF here. Legal doesn't matter.

 

 

I never said it was theoretically impossible. You should read better what is actually written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't have a problem with the word "require". We are required to do a lot of things. I get that reporting a gun will then require all the pertinent info to be recorded and some could construe that as a "registry", but I don't think so. We already have a defacto registry with the recording of gun data during a NICS check. But there are federal laws in place, thanks to the SAF and NRA, that really restricts and controls what the gubmint can do with that data - thereby making it much more difficult (but not impossible theoretically) to use that as a closed registry to confiscate or ban guns. SO I think similar laws could be put in place that limits what the police could do with that data of a lost or stolen gun. But I think the benefit of having to report it lest you be held liable is a big deterrent to some to be careless with their weapons. With liberty goes responsibility.

 

As I said in my "king for a day" plan - secure your weapons or don't - but you will be held accountable for the consequences of your actions. IOW - feel free to loan your gun out or leave it laying around while you're at work and not in a secure safe. I'm not going to tell you how to do it, but if your gun ends up stolen and used in a crime or picked up by a kid and he shoots his friend - then you pay the price for your decisions. So think hard about how you are going to secure them.

Thanks for coming around to my POV. Welcome aboard the Sanity Express.

 

 

Phuque awf, troll boi! I haven't "come around" to shit. I have long advocated this. Your sanity express is more like the "Crazy Train".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are just navigating the 5 stages of grief.

Denial and isolation (Fuck off, give no ground)

Anger (CUNT!)

Bargaining (the JSBF manifesto, post #406)

Depression (Phuque awf, troll boi!)

Acceptance (I stand with SE)

 

I'd say you well through 3 and possibly into 4. There is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't have a problem with the word "require". We are required to do a lot of things. I get that reporting a gun will then require all the pertinent info to be recorded and some could construe that as a "registry", but I don't think so. We already have a defacto registry with the recording of gun data during a NICS check. But there are federal laws in place, thanks to the SAF and NRA, that really restricts and controls what the gubmint can do with that data - thereby making it much more difficult (but not impossible theoretically) to use that as a closed registry to confiscate or ban guns. SO I think similar laws could be put in place that limits what the police could do with that data of a lost or stolen gun. But I think the benefit of having to report it lest you be held liable is a big deterrent to some to be careless with their weapons. With liberty goes responsibility.

 

As I said in my "king for a day" plan - secure your weapons or don't - but you will be held accountable for the consequences of your actions. IOW - feel free to loan your gun out or leave it laying around while you're at work and not in a secure safe. I'm not going to tell you how to do it, but if your gun ends up stolen and used in a crime or picked up by a kid and he shoots his friend - then you pay the price for your decisions. So think hard about how you are going to secure them.

 

Usually it's jocal who writes posts that make me want to go buy a mean-looking rifle in an unrecorded, private sale. I see no difference between a "list" and a registry, if my earlier post didn't make that clear. What is the difference you see?

 

The "theoretically impossible" has been happening, FYI. Yeah, it's illegal as hell, but we're talking ATF here. Legal doesn't matter.

 

 

You are a fearful, silly fellow. You are jacked up by supposedly protecting your entire belief system, which is a false alarm, with guns.

It's like when Nixon saved us from the Nixon recession.

 

You are contributing fear, then fighting fear. With guns?

Your elk are Twilight Zone material. An armed tempest in a teacup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom's link, has been happening, goes to a GOA website which has a high-ghquality, well-sourced article on nine examples of government lists. Lists which "could be" used for registration which is what we call imagining around here.

 

This is the trashy tag on the good great research--

 

CONCLUSION: Universal Background Checks will send us much further down road to giving the Andrew Cuomos of the world the registration lists they need for gun confiscation. But we still won't be able to stop creeps like Adam Lanza from circumventing those background checks (he stole his weapons) and attacking children.

 

Meet Larry Pratt, the GOA founder, and right-wing Christian Fundamentalist.

He's the Oz behind the bullshit second amendment curtain, actually.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-zealot-larry-pratt-is-the-gun-lobbys-secret-weapon-20140714#ixzz37Sycopcr

 

Pratt wrote the script for Charlton Heston. Before that, he wrote the script for Alan Gottlieb and the SAF. (They met as Gottlieb was cooking up and printing early global warming doubter pamphlets, LOL). Pratt is the spiritual leader of your runaway gun rebellion.

 

I suspect based on certain dates, but have not verified, that Pratt and Ashcroft's historian, David Hardy, can be linked arpound 1974, cooking up a morph for the second amendment in order to torpedo the GCA '68.

 

Dear Senator Knight,

 

As a California Senator, you understand that there are times when you will disagree with your colleagues about important issues and legislation. But there should never be a time when those disagreements lead to threats and/or violence.

Unfortunately, one of your donors, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America (GOA), does not feel the same.

In March 2014, upon learning that Rep. Carolyn Maloney and other Members of Congress feared that GOA members might feel compelled to shoot them if they voted for gun reform, Pratt stated, “You know, I’m kind of glad that’s in the back of their minds.”

Then, on July 23rd, Pratt posted “An Open Letter to Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney” on GOA’s website. In that letter, Pratt threatened:

“Should you attempt to disarm Americans the way the British crown tried 240 years ago, the same sovereign people who constituted this government using the cartridge box someday may need to reconstitute it, as clearly anticipated by the Declaration of Independence.”

Senator Knight, as someone who spent 18 years enforcing the law with the Los Angeles Police Department, you should be the first to reject this type of treason and vigilantism. Americans hold different, and passionate, views on the gun issue. But we can express those differences—and debate them—without threatening one another. Larry Pratt has obviously crossed a line in suggesting his members might shoot a Congresswoman who votes in a way they believe is unconstitutional. By continuing to accept money from GOA you are sending a dangerous message that you, too, share this radical view.

Please return the $4,994 that Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America (GOA) gave you during the current election cycle.

Josh Horowitz, Director of the Coalition to Stop Violence
Tom, when are you going to explain using misc. murder rate stats to contrast MO gun homicide statistics? The gun murders soared there after the backgtrounm checks were cancelled in '07. Your dishonest stats have not demonstrated otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

,,, That's not the question, the question is ,,,

Why can't anyone take a stand?

You have failed to respond to a standing Quid Pro Quo, (post #449) .

, also, 505 has failed to respond.

 

 

;) , ? maybe y'all din't see it the first time ?

 

 

? How many acts of Private Airplane Suicide are acceptable ?

 

? How many acts of Private Airplane Murder are acceptable ?

 

? How many acts of Private Airplane Terrorism are acceptable ?

 

? How many of our kids being killed by Murderous Private Airplanes are acceptable to you ?

 

 

Quid Pro Quo, gentlemen.

 

 

If unable or unwilling to to respond, it would appear that ,

 

You are a fearful, silly fellow. You are jacked up by supposedly protecting your entire belief system, which is a false alarm, with Private Airplanes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

,,, That's not the question, the question is ,,,

Why can't anyone take a stand?

You have failed to respond to a standing Quid Pro Quo, (post #449) .

, also, 505 has failed to respond.

 

 

;) , ? maybe y'all din't see it the first time ?

 

 

? How many acts of Private Airplane Suicide are acceptable ?

 

? How many acts of Private Airplane Murder are acceptable ?

 

? How many acts of Private Airplane Terrorism are acceptable ?

 

? How many of our kids being killed by Murderous Private Airplanes are acceptable to you ?

 

 

Quid Pro Quo, gentlemen.

 

 

If unable or unwilling to to respond, it would appear that ,

 

You are a fearful, silly fellow. You are jacked up by supposedly protecting your entire belief system, which is a false alarm, with Private Airplanes

 

I don't want to hijack JBSFs thread. I have too much respect for him now that we both agree on gun control.

If you want talk planes, start a new thread. I'd be happy to oblige.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

, see #472,

 

, re/new thread, see #455

(edit) there's a real good news bit right now, for you to lead with (end edit )

 

It would seem ( to moi, @ least),

 

, that he IS interested in the number of our kids killed by Private Airplanes

, that ed & 505 find acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An even better question would be how many DUI deaths are 'acceptable' per year?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

, well I wasn't going to go into smearing ALL the Private Airplanes,,

 

, I'm willing to concede that DUI Private Airplanes is probably a small % ,

 

 

 

 

505 ?

ed ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The right to possess ordinary guns implies the right to buy them and reasonable regulation doesn't include banning new semi-auto's. Tom is on his soapbox again.

With a one-liner/strawman combo, too. Cool.

This is just another slow-motion ban being imposed because quicker ones are politically impossible. His drone is mesmerizing the choir; he plays the ban card. The choir squirn in fear.

 

... If you are asking about doing it illegally, it's true that we can't eliminate the black market in guns. Tom may be brainwashing by using (at best) a half-truth here. See below

 

... If it's about doing it illegally, it's true that criminals don't tend to register their guns. We see here that Tom is both profound, and understated. Tom is good, Tom defends your guns.

 

 

 

 

But I suspect Tom is a disinforming wanker. Because, far away from the Florida swamp gas, this is how sociologists view black-market guns.

(Guns for felons are very sensitive to supply.)

 

"Thin" Underground Gun Markets

Philip J. Cook, Jens Ludwig, Sudhir Venkatesh, Anthony A. Braga

NBER Working Paper No. 11737

Issued in November 2005

NBER Program(s): CH HE LE

This paper provides an economic analysis of underground gun markets drawing on interviews with gang members, gun dealers, professional thieves, prostitutes, police, public school security guards and teens in the city of Chicago, complemented by results from government surveys of recent arrestees in 22 cities plus administrative data for suicides, homicides, robberies, arrests and confiscated crime guns.

We find evidence of considerable frictions in the underground market for guns in Chicago. We argue that these frictions are due primarily to the fact that the underground gun market is both illegal and “thin” -- the number of buyers, sellers and total transactions is small and relevant information is scarce.

Gangs can help overcome these market frictions, but the gang’s economic interests cause gang leaders to limit supply primarily to gang members, and even then transactions are usually loans or rentals with strings attached.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w11737>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

, well I wasn't going to go into smearing ALL the Private Airplanes,,

 

, I'm willing to concede that DUI Private Airplanes is probably a small % ,

 

 

 

 

505 ?

ed ?

 

Hi Mike. Gotcha covered in my sig line.

You guys like to dumb everything way, way down (to the lowest possible denominator),

where you can win the argument every time.aakingkongress_zps3d01ac2e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me take a different tact.

 

I don't think any of us gun owners object to the fact that our guns leave a riflingprint on the bullet any more that we complain that we were born with fingerprints and DNA.

 

What we would object to is any law forcing the collection of everyones fingerprint, DNA or riflingprint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't have a problem with the word "require". We are required to do a lot of things. I get that reporting a gun will then require all the pertinent info to be recorded and some could construe that as a "registry", but I don't think so. We already have a defacto registry with the recording of gun data during a NICS check. But there are federal laws in place, thanks to the SAF and NRA, that really restricts and controls what the gubmint can do with that data - thereby making it much more difficult (but not impossible theoretically) to use that as a closed registry to confiscate or ban guns. SO I think similar laws could be put in place that limits what the police could do with that data of a lost or stolen gun. But I think the benefit of having to report it lest you be held liable is a big deterrent to some to be careless with their weapons. With liberty goes responsibility.

 

As I said in my "king for a day" plan - secure your weapons or don't - but you will be held accountable for the consequences of your actions. IOW - feel free to loan your gun out or leave it laying around while you're at work and not in a secure safe. I'm not going to tell you how to do it, but if your gun ends up stolen and used in a crime or picked up by a kid and he shoots his friend - then you pay the price for your decisions. So think hard about how you are going to secure them.

 

Usually it's jocal who writes posts that make me want to go buy a mean-looking rifle in an unrecorded, private sale. I see no difference between a "list" and a registry, if my earlier post didn't make that clear. What is the difference you see?

 

The "theoretically impossible" has been happening, FYI. Yeah, it's illegal as hell, but we're talking ATF here. Legal doesn't matter.

 

 

I never said it was theoretically impossible. You should read better what is actually written.

 

 

I thought "not impossible theoretically" implied that it could happen in theory, but hasn't. Fact is, it has. "Much more difficult" doesn't mean impossible either. Fact is, it's not all that difficult to illegally photocopy FFL bound books and the ATF has been doing it.

 

If that kind of illegal and abusive activity set off any alarm bells in our gungrabby friend jocal, I haven't noticed it. Like I said, nothing goes too far, even breaking the law to create an illegal registry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom's link, has been happening, goes to a GOA website which has a high-ghquality, well-sourced article on nine examples of government lists. Lists which "could be" used for registration which is what we call imagining around here.

 

This is the trashy tag on the good great research--

 

CONCLUSION: Universal Background Checks will send us much further down road to giving the Andrew Cuomos of the world the registration lists they need for gun confiscation. But we still won't be able to stop creeps like Adam Lanza from circumventing those background checks (he stole his weapons) and attacking children.

 

Meet Larry Pratt, the GOA founder, and right-wing Christian Fundamentalist.

He's the Oz behind the bullshit second amendment curtain, actually.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-zealot-larry-pratt-is-the-gun-lobbys-secret-weapon-20140714#ixzz37Sycopcr

 

Pratt wrote the script for Charlton Heston. Before that, he wrote the script for Alan Gottlieb and the SAF...

 

 

 

 

The ATF is not supposed to photocopy an entire bound book. They've been doing that illegally. Glad to know you have no problem with the government breaking laws.

 

Who wrote the script for Chief Justice Taney? He seems to have thought that the second amendment protects a right of citizens to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.” But none of your villians were born when he said it. So where did he get that strange idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't see how taking an interest in individual rights at the age of 23 is bad.

 

 

 

"Taking an interest" in individual rights of weapons at age 23 isn't bad. But if one is to re-write the 2nd A, to be its foremost authority, it would be nice to be a real authority. David Hardy was fresh out of college.

 

Have you read Hardy's 1974 thesis? I've linked it twice. it's only 56 pages. I DID read it.

 

.Can you list the historians who supported Heller yet?

Because here are the REAL historians and legal scholars who first went on record to oppose Hardy, in the version for Ashcroft's whiewash.

 

 

  1. The Ad Hoc historians and legal scholars were

Bruce Ackerman,

Joyce Appleby,

Jack M. Balkin,

Michael Bellesiles,

Adele Bernhard,

Ruth Bloch,

Carl T. Bogus,

Frank Bowman,

John Brooke,

Chandos Michael Brown,

Darryl Brown,

Edwin G. Burrows,

Andrew Cayton,

Erwin Chermerinsky,

Saul Cornell,

Edward Countryman,

John DiPippa,

Michael Dorf,

Norman Dorsen,

David Dow,

Susan R. Estrich,

Heidi Li Feldman,

Hendrik G. Hartog,

Bruce Hay,

Don Higginbotham,

Peter Charles Hoffer,

Nancy Isenberg,

Sheri L. Johnson,

Stanley N. Katz,

Arthur LaFrance,

Jan Lewis,

Jill Lepore,

Rory K. Little,

Mari J. Matsuda,

Andrew J. McClurg,

Frank Michelman,

Dawn Nunziato,

Michael Perlin,

Carl Prince,

Norman L. Rosenberg,

Malinda L. Seymore,

Peter Shane,

Billy G. Smith,

Peter J. Strauss,

Richard Uviller,

Spencer Weber Waller,

Eldon D. Wedlock, Jr.,

Leila Sadat Wexler,

Welsh S. White,

Steve Winter,

David Yassky, and

Michael Zuckerman.

  1. Robert J. Spitzer, Symposium at 384.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get rid of your gun yet, JokeAwf?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom's link, has been happening, goes to a GOA website which has a high-ghquality, well-sourced article on nine examples of government lists. Lists which "could be" used for registration which is what we call imagining around here.

 

This is the trashy tag on the good great research--

 

CONCLUSION: Universal Background Checks will send us much further down road to giving the Andrew Cuomos of the world the registration lists they need for gun confiscation. But we still won't be able to stop creeps like Adam Lanza from circumventing those background checks (he stole his weapons) and attacking children.

 

Meet Larry Pratt, the GOA founder, and right-wing Christian Fundamentalist.

He's the Oz behind the bullshit second amendment curtain, actually.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-zealot-larry-pratt-is-the-gun-lobbys-secret-weapon-20140714#ixzz37Sycopcr

 

Pratt wrote the script for Charlton Heston. Before that, he wrote the script for Alan Gottlieb and the SAF...

 

 

 

 

The ATF is not supposed to photocopy an entire bound book. They've been doing that illegally. Glad to know you have no problem with the government breaking laws.

 

Who wrote the script for Chief Justice Taney? He seems to have thought that the second amendment protects a right of citizens to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.” But none of your villians were born when he said it. So where did he get that strange idea?

 

 

TOM, WHAT ABOUT YOUR LATEST BUNK STATS? You feel no need to make it right?

 

Tom the sources in your has been happening, first are off, are questionable. Figaro and one Gun Rights Examiner, etc. Did you even check into the cites?

 

The story line is also questionable, frankly. Background checks are absolutely tied to gun confiscation.

That premise sounds iffy to me, for many reasons.

Jeff has Mad Logic Skilz: better run it by him.

 

 

Larry Pratt attracts "Second Amendment Absolutists" like yourself (and like LenP, I fear). I think the whole bunch of you are kooks, Tom.

The first part of this five-page Rolling Stone article has been edited for choice content. Enjoy.

 

"The NRA describes itself as a religion, and Larry Pratt is the snake handler," says Tom Diaz...

 

...adds Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center: "When NRA members stamp their feet over some rumored compromise, Pratt's who they go to. When he says make the calls, the calls are made, and it has influence on the Hill."

 

"Obamacare is allowing the medical profession to use information that people give their doctor against them, to take their guns," says Tim Macy, vice chairman of GOA. "McConnell hasn't stopped it so far, and he's been in a position to help stop it."

 

When Gun Owners of America helped lead the gun-rights charge against an expansion of background checks, the New York Times discovered this "influential force" capable of both "freezing" and "empowering" senators.

 

"What does the Bible Say About Gun Control?" Pratt writes, "If Christ is not our King, we shall have a dictator to rule over us, just as Samuel warned."

 

He has also found new champions in the forms of his favorite senators: Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. He believes this November offers a chance to further grow the "Second Amendment Absolutist" bloc in Congress.

 

"The Second Amendment is not for hunting, it's not even for self-defense," Pratt explained in his Leadership Institute talk. Rather, it is "for restraining tyrannical tendencies in government. . .Especially those in the liberal, tyrannical end of the spectrum. There is some restraint, and even if the voters of Brooklyn don't hold them back, it may be there are other ways that their impulses are somewhat restrained. That's the whole idea of the Second Amendment.

 

As the director of an organization claiming 300,000 members, Pratt understands the gun movement's role as that of a heavily armed guard, holding a cautionary gun to the head of America's would-be dictators.

 

When speaking before smaller, conservative audiences, Pratt explains that it is necessary to both generate an undercurrent of fear and muster the organization and will to defeat the dictator prophesized in the Book of Samuel. When asked during a 2010 Q&A session, "Do we have the will to stand up to the government when they trample our rights?" Pratt replied, "That is an exceptionally important point to raise. We can have all the guns in the world, and if we don't have the will to use them [against the government], then they are useless."

 

what he's been trying to do since the 1970s: defeat any Republican who does not share his absolutist understanding of Second Amendment freedom.

Many of Pratt's current targets in the primaries enjoy high or perfect ratings from the NRA. Some of them, like Mitch McConnell, have long enjoyed "B" or higher grades from the GOA. But only perfect grades like Rand Paul's "A+" are truly acceptable in Pratt's purist world.

 

Read more: