Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page

[villager]

Gun owners and the NRA may not be on same page
by SusanG


Sat Jan 02, 2010

Hard to know who to root for and who to hiss when you run across a stand-off between notorious Republican strategist Frank Luntz and the scare-mongering behemoth otherwise known as the National Rifle Association.

This round, let's listen to Luntz:

Mr. Luntz queried 832 gun owners, including 401 card-carrying N.R.A. members, in a survey commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the alliance of hundreds of executives seeking stronger gun laws. In flat rebuttal of N.R.A. propaganda, the findings showed that 69 percent of N.R.A. members supported closing the notorious gun-show loophole that invites laissez-faire arms dealing outside registration requirements.

Even more members, 82 percent, favored banning gun purchases to suspects on terrorist watch lists who are now free to arm. And 69 percent disagreed with Congressionally imposed rules against sharing federal gun-trace information with state and local police agencies.

So ... a majority of gun owners want the gun-show loophole closed, favor restrictions on banned gun purchases and think it's a good idea to have gun information shared between agencies. Makes you wonder how reasonable their views would be if they weren't being pumped up by propaganda and warned to lock and load every election by the rich gun lobby.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/2/817345/-Gun-owners-and-the-NRA-may-not-be-on-same-page

[villager]

1. Ah, someone dutifully emerged from the gungeon for an unrec!

;-)

[Hello_Kitty]

2. Interesting. eom

[MichaelHarris]

3. not only will

they unreq what the hate and fear, they'll say a loophole doesn't exist.

[X_Digger]

6. Here's an easy challenge for you sport..

What law that would otherwise preclude the legal transfer of a firearm from one in-state resident to another, except for the fact that this transfer happens at a gun show?

Here, I'll even give you the source material:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

Please, show me the exception, or the poorly worded statute that otherwise would make it illegal for one individual to sell a firearm to another individual, barring the fact that this transaction happens in a certain venue.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

11. A loophole..

A technicality that bypasses the intent of a law. A weakness or exception that allows a system, such as a law or security, to be circumvented or otherwise avoided. ... A technicality that allows a person or business to avoid the scope of a law without directly violating the law.

Now.. in order for there to be a 'loophole' there has to be a law otherwise proscribing a behavior that one can avoid by some trickery or chicanery.

And since you call it a 'gun show' loophole, that would logically mean that there is something special about 'gun shows' that facilitates this bypassing of the intent of some law.

No, what you're really saying is that you want the law to be a certain way, and it isn't. That's not a loophole, nor is it specific to 'gun shows'.

[MichaelHarris]

12. Jesus

you can shake some words up. Every sane person in America calls it a loophole, even the NRA. Do you just hate the word loophole or do you want to continue selling guns to felons at gun shows?

[X_Digger]

13. So you really don't have a point?

Notice that folks who know better put quotes around the term, or add 'so-called' in front of it- for a reason.

It's disingenuous to try to 'sell' the concept, as Luntz did, as some law being bypassed by a 'loophole' when the real intent is to do away with private sales.

Had Luntz asked a question like "Do you want to have to go to a federally licensed dealer in order to sell a firearm to a friend or family member, pay a fee, submit to a background check, and register the sale with the government?" I'm sure he would have gotten a very different response.

[MichaelHarris]

14. just the same point

NRA and over half of America has. It's just different that yours. We don't want people selling guns to felons, you do.

[X_Digger]

15. Fascinating, those words just jumped right up out of my mouth..

Oh wait, they didn't. If you'd like to actually address the points I made rather than what you think I said, I'd be happy to participate in a civil discussion with you.

Otherwise, I'll sit back and enjoy your flailing.

'shake some words up', indeed.

[Doctor_J]

21. Umm...

the real intent is to do away with private sales.

Pardon me, but this sounds like NRA propaganda. How do you know what the real intent is?

The NRA and pro-gun folks in general have a huge media advantage, just like every other group with a right-wing bent. That's why, "Obama wants to take away your guns", when in fact gun possession has gotten easier and more prevalent (National Parks, presidential events, congressional town halls,...) over the last 10 months.

You like your guns, we get that. But pardon us if we don't buy NRA propaganda. And thanks also for not saying "we need guns to protect our other amendments" like some other members. Not a single shot has been fired while the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th amendments have been decimated, so that lie has been shattered.

[X_Digger]

32. Please explain how..

.. disallowing a sale between two individuals without the intervention of a police office or federally licensed dealer is not considered doing away with 'private' sales? (As is the case in California, Maryland, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania*, New Jersey*, Massachusetts*.) By definition sales between these individuals in these states cannot be considered 'private' anymore.

*handguns only in these states.

[TheWraith]

40. The FBI says that only about 1% of guns used by felons come from gun shows.

Sorry to burst your bubble. Again, what is the difference between a gun sold between two guys at a gun show and a gun sold between two guys standing in a parking lot?

Answer: none. There is no exception to firearms law for gun shows.

[wolfgangmo]

44. Interesting - can you post a link - I can't find one.

If only 1% is from gun show sales then where is the other 99% coming from?

[X_Digger]

45. Here ya go..

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

It was last revised 2/02, needs to be updated.

Only 14% of guns used by criminals were 'purchased', 0.7% were from 'gun shows'. The two largest sources were 'Friends or Family' (~40%) and 'Street/Illegal Source' (~40%).

[MichaelHarris]

46. and those

people who sold them on the street made them in their garage, everyone knows that.

[X_Digger]

47. Or stole them, or smuggled them..

.. How's that tempest in a teapot tasting, now that you see that less than 1% of guns used in crime come from those evil gun shows? *snort*

[MichaelHarris]

48. smuggled from

where? Stolen from where? Tell us Karnack does every gun start it's life as a legal purchase?

[X_Digger]

49. Stolen from houses, stolen from stores, stolen from cop cars, stolen from military bases..

Smuggled in with drugs (at least one full auto gun was found last year that was traced back to Venezuela..)

So how exactly does that <1% of crime guns compare to all the wadded underwear of yours, eh?

[MichaelHarris]

51. I think the

question I eventually asked was, "Does every gun start it's life as a legal sale?"

[X_Digger]

53. Attempted distraction noted.. and dismissed.

If you'll notice, we're talking about the so-called gun show loophole.

Of course, I can see why you'd like to move on to another topic. Not going to let you off that easily.

C'mon, there were a few weaknesses in the DOJ study quoted above (I've already given you one.. *hint: the date.) Rub some brain cells together and let's discuss.

[MichaelHarris]

54. so

you've decided not to answer the question?

[X_Digger]

57. If I thought..

.. your question had some bearing on the so-called gun show loophole, and how that affects the 0.7% of crime guns, it might be worth answering. But unless you want to connect those dots as anything other than a distraction, nope.

Ehn, what the heck..

In answer to your limited question, "Does every gun start it's life as a legal sale?", the answer would be no.

Some guns are created illegally (illegally as in contravention of laws surrounding the manufacture of firearms- without serial numbers; not on the books of a manufacturer with a federal license to create and sell firearms; assembled in configurations deemed restricted, but from legal parts {e.g. SBR rifles}.) Some guns are imported into this country illegally (admittedly small), some guns are legally created by an individual (see http://www.cncguns.com/) but are illegally sold without a person having a federal license to do so. Other guns are stolen from military facilities, and while they were legally sold from the manufacturer to the military via contract, they were never part of the civilian gun market legally.

Now, what was the point of that distraction?

[MichaelHarris]

58. OK so

you've answered the question. Gun leaves factory, gun arrives at legal store. You say that at some point between the gun leaving the factory and arriving at the store something illegal happens.

There is diversion going on here and your doing a horrible job doing it. The almost imperceivable number of weapons you tired to reference is silly, zip guns? Is that what you wanted us to believe? Garage guns? You know we're not talking about that. Grow up, we're talking about common handguns. Stop the deception. This is about loopholes, but you did know that.

[X_Digger]

59. I assume nothing since..

.. you don't seem to understand what a 'loophole' is. A loophole is not "the law isn't the way I wish it were." I explained the commonly understood meaning of a loophole upthread.

If you're going to attempt to make a point, I wish you'd speed it up a little.

[MichaelHarris]

60. stop diverting OK?

Now you've said some guns are sold illegally upon their birth right? Something to the effect some guns start life illegally. What would you call "the void" that allows the legal, American built handgun to enter the hands of a felon?

[X_Digger]

63. Circumvention of _existing law_ in most cases.

You see, for there to be a "loophole", there would have to be a "legal only by technicality" means for a felon to receive a gun. There would have to be a means of circumventing the _intent_ of a law while following _the letter_.

The means that they do receive them are already illegal..

40% Friend or family? Already illegal to provide a felon with a firearm, regardless of familial status.
40% Street / Illegal source? By definition, already illegal.
8.3% Retail? I'd imagine a straw purchase, since a felon can't pass the NICS check required of all FFLs. Already illegal.

0.7% of the time? Gun show. If a private seller knows or has reason to believe that a person is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm (age, out of state resident, felon, has a protective order sworn out against them, dishonorably discharged, adjudicated mentally incompetent, substance abuser, etc), they may not sell to the person.

[MichaelHarris]

64. Now

tell me how the just manufactured handgun ends up in the hands of a felon before it gets to the retail outlet. This question is based on your response that some guns start out as illegal. Don't do that silly garage gun or whatever that was again. You know we are talking about America built and sold handguns.

"Circumvention of _existing law_ in most cases", your wording. What mechanism in a published law provides for "Circumvention"? the law must have a "weakness" right? What word will you allow us if you don't want us using "loophole"?

You're against the word loophole probably from the NRA paranoia of registration. your against a national registry, which in reality already exists. Based on your position that a "loophole" doesn't exist, therefore nothing needs to be fixed you, in a round about way, you condone handgun sales to felons. If national registration was allowed, if the database was open to gun show and private sales a number of guns would be denied to felons. You're against that, why? Is any law pertaining to firearms bad? If the national registry were to save one persons life did it fail? Why would a database be a failure? If the gun show loophole was closed and saved a police officers life would the closure be a failure?

Give me three negatives against closing the loophole and three negatives of a national registry.

I'll continue to use loophole because that is what it is. A weakness in the law that allows firearm to be sold to felons. I'm not an NRA sock puppet.

Edited to add, your previous answer still tried to divert. For example, the hand gun sold to the felon by his brother still started it's life at some point as a legal hand gun. What we're after is how it became an illegal hand gun. you began this by saying there are some guns born illegal, we both know that's not true.

[MichaelHarris]

66. pretty

much summed it up, the silence is deafening.

[X_Digger]

70. The "silence" was sleep..

Remind me to give you a tongue lashing the next time you don't respond to me at 1am.

[X_Digger]

69. Breaking a law doesn't involve a 'weakness'

What a mess, let me give this a light fisking and see if I can make sense..

"Circumvention of _existing law_ in most cases", your wording. What mechanism in a published law provides for "Circumvention"? the law must have a "weakness" right? What word will you allow us if you don't want us using "loophole"?

Speeding in a car is circumventing the law. The fact that a cop doesn't catch me doesn't mean there's a 'weakness'. You see, no law actually stops criminals from breaking them. I shouldn't have to explain this to an adult, but what the heck. Laws set aside behaviors that society deems unacceptable. Laws aren't self-enforcing, at least not in those who choose to break them (those who consider themselves law-abiding tend to follow laws regardless of the chances of getting caught, to a large degree.) No additional law piled on top of existing laws will stop a person not likely to obey the law.

You're against the word loophole probably from the NRA paranoia of registration. your against a national registry, which in reality already exists. Based on your position that a "loophole" doesn't exist, therefore nothing needs to be fixed you, in a round about way, you condone handgun sales to felons. If national registration was allowed, if the database was open to gun show and private sales a number of guns would be denied to felons. You're against that, why? Is any law pertaining to firearms bad? If the national registry were to save one persons life did it fail? Why would a database be a failure? If the gun show loophole was closed and saved a police officers life would the closure be a failure?

Again, if you'd actually like to address my statements, rather than the statements you think I've said, or want me to have said, we can talk (see Strawman Argument).

I'm against using the word 'loophole' because what you're addressing is not a loophole as people understand it. It's a marketing ploy, trying to frame the debate in terms that are not accurate in an attempt to appeal to emotion rather than logic.

I do not condone sales of handguns to felons. I (among many here at DU's gungeon) have advocated opening up NICS to private sellers, so that if I wish to sell a handgun to someone I don't know well I can confirm that they are not a prohibited person.

If the national registry were to save one persons life did it fail?

So the success of any change in law is measured by one life? I could "save one life" by doing away with the fourth amendment and requiring random strip searches at the mall. I'm sure I could "save one life" by doing away with the fifth amendment and interrogating suspects without legal counsel and not allowing them to remain silent. I can "save one life" by doing away with the eighth amendment and using torture on 'terrah' suspects. Is that really where you wish to go?

I don't understand the fuzzy logic in your mind between the so-called gun show loophole and registration. In states that require private sales to go through an FFL, there is no registration per se attached to those laws. Are you asserting that closing the so called loophole is really a back door attempt at registration?

I'll continue to use loophole because that is what it is. A weakness in the law that allows firearm to be sold to felons.

Nothing in the law 'allows' guns to be sold to felons- if there were a technicality that provided for a legal means for a felon to acquire a firearm, then yes, that would be a loophole. The fact that a law can be broken (as all laws can) doesn't mean there's a loophole.

Edited to add, your previous answer still tried to divert. For example, the hand gun sold to the felon by his brother still started it's life at some point as a legal hand gun. What we're after is how it became an illegal hand gun. you began this by saying there are some guns born illegal, we both know that's not true.

No, that was your diversion, not mine. If you don't like the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question. A brother breaks the law by giving a gun to his sibling. That doesn't mean there's a "loophole"- it's already illegal.

[MichaelHarris]

75. if

the database was open to private sales would you also add a law to it that provided for prosecution for those who sold firearms without using the database? You and I are in agreement then that the database should be open but should it be mandatory?

You still walk all around the question of the born illegal gun. Sure, you and I both know that the transfer of the gun from a family member to a felon is against the law, we're in agreement there also. The question was, did that gun start out as an illegal weapon? This is the question that addresses a national database. I'll be open with you so you don't feel tricked or lead around. I'm asking this question because of the irrational fear many gun owners have of the government. You and I are both gun owners, I don't fear confiscation and bought 3 guns in December. Here is the question, answer honestly. When I bought those 3 firearms in December I chose to add my SSN, the dealer told me I didn't have to. When you bought your last firearm did you write your SSN down?

We both agree on access to the database for all sellers right? If we both agree to stiff punishment for those who don't use the registry then we can stop beating that beast. We also both know that getting one or two illegal guns out of the hands of felons has the potential of saving more than one life so any law that helps do that is OK by me. So one law that can make society safer is a good law, it's not taking ANYTHING from the hands of legal gun owners. It seems we are arguing over the word loophole. Choose a new one.

There is a reason I asked the questions the way I did. First I wanted to make sure I wasn't discussing anything with someone who bought into the irrational "government is after my guns" idea. A national database isn't the first step toward Nazi Germany, the government is not out to disarm America. I'm trying to separate the gun kook from the gun owner. When gun owners do that you won't believe how strong your Democratic gun vote will be. That is what the gungion should be doing, it shouldn't be praising every bit of gun violence news they see. You would not believe how damaging that is to your cause.

[X_Digger]

76. Again, you seem to equate eliminating private sales w/ registration

I don't support registration. I do support allowing private sellers to check whether or not a potential buyer is a prohibited person. That in no way presupposes a registration. Right now, if a person is approved by NICS, the record of the check is destroyed within a couple of days. Those NICS checks aren't kept unless the person is denied (those get forwarded to the BATFE for investigation because they may be evidence of perjury, but the BATFE only investigates a miniscule fraction of them.)

Currently, the 4473 resides at the gun dealer's premises. The BATFE has to come knocking if they wish to see it.

When you bought your last firearm did you write your SSN down?

I don't have to be checked in NICS- my CHL suffices in lieu of a background check. However, on the last 4473 that I filled out pre-CHL, I did enter my SSN- I know that those records are destroyed.

[MichaelHarris]

77. Why do you

not support registration? Do you have a police scanner? I do, I use it for work. Nine times out of ten when an officer is sent to a domestic dispute the dispatcher warns the officer of guns in the house. How do you suppose the dispatcher knows that?

The question is, why do you NOT support registration? For a minute I had hoped you were not going to be a government fear-monger. I was wrong. You've bought the hype.

The whole purpose of my posts in this were to show how legal guns could be tracked to illegal sources. The tracking would put law-breakers behind bars and protect legal gun owners in a number of ways, even recovering their stolen firearms. because of the Koolaid you've consumed you cannot see the positive effects of such management. NO ONE WANTS YOUR GUNS!! You can't possibly be that stupid.

[X_Digger]

78. "could be tracked to illegal sources" -- bzzt

"No, officer, that gun was stolen. Here's the police report I filed when it was taken from my car."

Great big bureaucracy defeated by one lie.

"No officer, he showed me his driver's license, and I called NICS, he checked out. How was I supposed to know that he stole someone else's identity?"

Great big bureaucracy defeated by identity theft.

The main reason that I oppose a registry is that there is no evidence that it will do anything to curb criminal acquisition of firearms. Remember that 40% that come from 'street / illegal source'? Not affected. Remember the 40% that come from 'friends / family'? Won't affect those either. Criminal acquisition of firearms is not a supply side problem, but a demand side problem. Just look at the recent spate of violence with handguns in countries with strict controls on handguns (England and the Netherlands, for instance.)

Canada's gun registry has been a $946M boondoggle of wild cost overruns that has resulted in zero criminal convictions. That's 946 million dollars to register 7M guns in 3M owners' hands. Now, try scaling that up to 300M guns in 80M owners' hands.

Here, have a quote from the brady bunch:
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/licreg.htm

Licensing systems are very expensive to administer. Canada's experience with its full licensing and registration system, begun in December 1998, is not encouraging. <snip> Using these figures as a baseline for America's arsenal of 65 million handguns, the estimated cost of such a system here is staggering.

Most importantly, licensing and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence, such as unintentional gunshot deaths, suicides and the majority of homicides, since most homicides are the result of arguments between people who know each other and who purchase guns legally.

[MichaelHarris]

79. works

pretty darn well recovering stolen cars and boats. "The main reason that I oppose a registry is that there is no evidence that it will do anything to curb criminal acquisition of firearms." I highly doubt that, if it were true you would support even a trial period. It would allow the tracking of almost every firearm immediately and who it is supposed to belong to, it would show who was violating the background check you support for private sales.

It's easy to support the private sale background check open to all when you know there is no way to enforce or track it. There's your waste of money. They have to work hand on hand, one without the other is a crippled system.

Sorry though, I don't believe your most important concern is that it won't work. If you believed that you would be open to some trial and error period to at least fix the bugs. I believe you are in the fear-monger camp, "they're coming to take my guns!" It's really ashamed though, you support one part of a system that may actually help. One without the other is useless, you would never be able to track illegal sales. Those who didn't use the check. When you talk about waste you are actually supporting a system designed to fail and waste. If you don't see that then you are truly gun blind.

[X_Digger]

80. Recovery after the fact.

It does nothing to stop firearms from getting into the hands of criminals in the first place. Unless you're going to go house to house and verify registration numbers, compliance cannot be verified. Even if you did go door to door, all it would take to defeat registration is to say "officer, I sold that gun years ago" or "that gun was lost in a tragic boating accident". Some system, eh?

Speaking of compliance- Canada had to extend 'amnesty' periods for registration for 5+ years because compliance was so low. And they're _still_ not north of 60% last time I checked, and depending on whose estimate you go by.

$948M to register 60% of 7M guns owned by 3M owners.

How much would it cost here? How much compliance? (I doubt we get anywhere close to 60%) It still doesn't put a dent in the 80% of guns used by criminals through illegal/street/family/friends.

So how large a boondoggle would it be here, for the <20% of guns that it's likely to affect?

Question for you- do some research and tell me how many crimes have been solved by registration (I mentioned the states that register handguns upthread.) We already have an 'experiment' ongoing in those states.

Here's a relevant quip from DC's top cop re registration- "Last week on WTOP radio's "Ask the Chief" program, Washington, DC Police Chief Cathy Lanier inadvertently admitted that the District's gun registration program was a failure. According to the Chief, "Honestly, there are thousands of handguns that were registered in the city and I don't know whether those handguns are still in the city." Of the 41,000 handguns registered, the police department cannot account for 36,000."

[ZombieHorde]

16. No need for personal attacks. nt

[MichaelHarris]

17. I notice

you didn't say anything to that taurus guy when he said I had brain damage. Selective are we?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=280169&mesg_id=280267

[ZombieHorde]

50. That is on a different thread, a thread I never looked at until you linked to it.

I don't look at every thread.

[MichaelHarris]

55. and yet

you still don't chastise the poster when it's pointed out to you?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. Chastise someone for asking you a question, when you routinely insult people. Get over yourself.

[ZombieHorde]

68. Your fist accusation against me was so odd I felt uncomfortable being your attack dog. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. You and Villager never unrec anything right? LOL.

[X_Digger]

4. Milking this poll aren't you?

This what, the third thread you started from a different source on the same poll?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=504479

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=503125

Yes, Luntz, whose company's motto is "It's not what you say, it's what people hear."

Let's look at some of the other questions, and their responses..

“Law-abiding Americans should have the freedom to choose how to protect themselves, based on their personal situation. No local, state or federal government should dictate this decision.”
NRA / NON-NRA
92% / 83% AGREE (NET)

A proposal requiring every gun owner to register each gun he or she owns as part of a national gun registry.
NRA / NON-NRA
59% / 42% OPPOSE (NET)

A federal law allowing guns to be carried in America’s national parks.
NRA / NON-NRA
76% / 51% SUPPORT (NET)

In the Heller v. D.C. case, the Supreme Court ruled that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense. Do you ____ with this ruling?
NRA / NON-NRA
95% / 92% AGREE (NET)

“The Second Amendment should apply to state and local laws, not just federal laws.”
NRA / NON-NRA
93% / 86% AGREE (NET)

Do you think President Obama will attempt to ban the sales of guns in the United States at some point while he is president?
NRA / NON-NRA
79% / 57% YES (NET)


Now, funny thing is.. 4M+ members continue to renew and send money every year. Would they really do that if they were so in opposion to them?

[progressoid]

5. I know a couple people that canceled their NRA membership

Apparently there are still a lot out there that don't see the disparity between what the NRA members want and what the NRA leadership wants.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Bloomie and company are getting desperate as shown with their push polling

[villager]

8. The desperation seems mostly to come from those apologizing for the NRA...

n/t

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoeyT]

20. Actually

A loophole would be something the law proscribes that, by poor wording, the proscription fails. e.g. If a law banned guns but spelled it with an "A" instead of a "U" ("gans"), therefore guns were still legal, that would be a loophole.
You can use the word incorrectly all you like, just so you realize that it doesn't bolster your argument.

[SteveM]

30. He just likes to argue; I don't think he cares about gun-control (nt)

[villager]

36. "He just likes to argue; I don't think he cares about gun-control"

Indeed.

[SteveM]

37. Glad you agree. I can't understand why so many gun-controllers...

just make attacks on folks' intelligence, manhood, humanity, style, etc., and then push out that hahahahah stuff. I don't think these gun-controllers are really honest about their motivations. They seem to be interested in an instant issue -- gun control -- but use it as a platform to condemn people, play "bull-in-the-ring" rhetoric games (this is SO common in internet blogging that it has an echoic ring), and look for gotcha moments. If they were in a speech class (where debate is often learned), the prof would tell them to can it.

Glad we can agree on this. I respect you seeing through the irony.

[villager]

38. Actually, I was thinking in differently in terms of the "irony..."

...since we have different views of the gun issue, and I see much reflexive posting on the pro-bullet, sell 'em-without-a-trace side of the debate...

[SteveM]

39. I'm sure you were. As for reflexive posting...

I'm willing to let any observer who "drops in" to the Guns Forum make his/her judgment about that.

You know, a number of pro-2A folks here favor opening the NICS background check to all who buy a gun, and not just Federally-licensed dealers; yet when this is discussed, the gun-controllers (by-and-large) continue the ad hominem attacks and refuse to offer any constructive criticism. I recall one such poster calling the NICS-for-all proposal as a distraction, when the real issue was gun bans. It seems some people are not really interested in "reasonable" and "common sense" proposals (beyond their PR utility) after all.

[villager]

42. I think the NICS b.g. check is a good idea...

...for anyone seeking to purchase devices whose main function is to kill/maim other beings.

[SteveM]

74. Well, we agree with the use of NICS...

While guns have multiple uses (hunting, target shooting, collecting, etc.), the fact they can kill or maim concerns me to the degree that I must know how to safely use one; after all, since I am the one who could do the killing or maiming.

[Don Caballero]

18. I will never understand why some gun nuts don't mind terrorists having guns

Anyone who is suspected of maybe being a terrorist should not have access to any weaponry. Have we become a nation of fools?

[winyanstaz]

22. who decides who is a terrorist?

One man's "terrorist" or "insurgant" is another man's "freedom fighters."

[Don Caballero]

23. I tend to agree with Rahm Emmanuel when it comes to this

If you are on the no fly list you could be a terrorist. Therefore you should not be allowed to own firearms.

[Enthusiast]

25. I understand the "no-fly" list

to include many that are non-threatening, completely innocent American citizens. Am I wrong on this?

[winyanstaz]

33. nope..you are correct...

Some are on there simply for having similar names...some because they were at peaceful protests against something the government was doing or wrote an article that they didn't like.
Heck they even have children on the no-fly list..and once on...its almost impossible to get off it.
You could be on it for acting funny at the airport..like say you were crying because your mom died....or for posting in democratic web sites....like DU.
Who know all the reasons as to why you can get on there or how to get off?

[SteveM]

27. You oppose 2A and 5A, even when two steps removed. Nice (nt)

[winyanstaz]

31. so everyone on Bush's no fly list is a terrorist?

sheesh....

[Doctor_J]

71. You might not want to go by that

A peaceful, unarmed American, who also happens to be an outspoken war protestor, was kept off of a flight. The last regime was quite, er, liberal with their additions to the no-fly list.

[SteveM]

26. You don't mind flushing the Fifth Amendment down the john...

"Anyone who is suspected of maybe being a terrorist should not have access to any weaponry."

So, all it takes to suspend the Second Amendment for an individual is "suspicion."

Actually, you are against two (2) amendments in the Constitution.

[X_Digger]

35. Any other rights you'd like to strip from people without due process?

Bush-era terrah secret lists that are unappealable, are signed off by no judge, are subject to no review- yah, those don't represent the pinnacle of progressive thinking in my book.

[TheWraith]

41. So you endorse the Bush terror watch list?

You endorse a completely unconstitutional, unaccountable, secret list deciding without any due process who gets to exercise their constitutional rights?

It's always enlightening to see who's willing to shred the constitution when it comes to THEIR pet issue.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

28. You have a lot of... stuff coming out of your mouth...

which reflects your cultural hatreds and method of argument: smear.

[winyanstaz]

34. oh you mean us military families?

You mean the thousands of Americans vets that have served and are now being denied the right to own a gun once they come home? Just exactly who are these "NRA types" in your little mind?

[MichaelHarris]

56. you're an

American Vet who has been denied the right to won a gun? Why?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. Who said anything about winning a gun?

[MichaelHarris]

65. I'm pretty sure

you knew what I meant, if not, then what I believe about you must really be true.

[winyanstaz]

67. not me....but they are trying to deny returning vets the right to guns...

because of their Post traumatic stress syndrome from being in wars.

HR 2640, Or the 'Veterans Disarmament Act', Signed by the President, January
8, 2008 and became Public Law.
Troublesome because HR 2640 will deny thousands of American combat veterans
the right to possess, own and carry a firearm.


Vets are fighting this best they can.
They do not want returning soldiers to be able to bear arms.

[Doctor_J]

72. Do you think vets diagnosed with PTSD should have guns?

They should return with full citizens' rights (Edit:and of course vet's benefits like school tuition and medical and so on), but if they're actually diagnosed with a possibly destructive mental illness, we probably want to curtail their gun rights, no?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. If they are adjudicated mentally ill then they will lose their rights to possess firearms.

[winyanstaz]

81. We have had vets from world war 1, world war 2, the korean war and nam....

along with the gulf war and now these wars...that do have ptsd, and did have ptsd...and they NEVER misused their rights to have guns.
Vets that were and are responsible with guns...far outnumber the few nut cases that go postal.
Vets, more than ANY OTHER have EARNED the right to be treated as full and equal citizens..and yet we are now stripping them of their civil rights..after they give their all to this nation.
My husband suffered from nightmares and stress because of ptsd...however..
He never misused his guns. He was very careful about them and took care that the children were properly educated in their use and kept away from them.
He lost his life in the end from the agent orange because he so loved and served this nation.
He told me the day he would give up his guns would be the day he died.
I think he had every right to have his guns. He EARNED the right to the full rights of being a free American.
Just because you have ptsd does NOT mean you will go postal.
When he got too frail to use the guns...he did sell his guns just before he died but it was of his own free choice.
.....but I still say...he had the right to have them and it would have been a dishonor to him and to his service to take them away.

[Enthusiast]

24. This information will

be suppressed.

Since I first owned a hunting license I have received an annual call from the NRA telling me how I must vote for Republican candidates or lose my gun ownership rights. This is every year. Every time I tell them they are doing a great injustice by ignoring the millions of gun owning Democrats and exaggerating their position on guns. The NRA is like Faux News, they are part and parcel of the GOP.

Fuck 'em. And I mean that.

[SteveM]

29. "Suppressed?" You wish for that drama, even as you broadcast this "information." nt

[Vidar]

43. K&R.

[TrollBuster9090]

82. It's time to build a WEDGE ISSUE.

Republicans are masters of the wedge issue. Let's learn from their example.

Table a federal bill saying, simply, that only American citizens with no criminal record can buy or own guns, and then watch Lindsey Graham filibuster for the right of illegal immigrants and Los Angeles gang members to buy guns.

[X_Digger]

83. Umm.. USC 18 Sec 922(d)

"It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
<snip>
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."