N.R.A. to Sue Over Bulk Gun Sales Rule

[SecularMotion]

Source: NY Times

WASHINGTON — The National Rifle Association is expected to file a lawsuit on Wednesday challenging a new federal regulation requiring gun merchants along the border with Mexico to report bulk sales of certain semiautomatic rifles, contending that the Obama administration exceeded its powers by imposing the rules last month without Congressional permission.

The N.R.A. is bringing the lawsuit in the name of two firearms dealers in Arizona. Its draft complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asks a federal judge in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to issue an injunction barring enforcement of the rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

“N.R.A. has always viewed this as a blatant attempt by the Obama administration to pursue their gun-control agenda through back-door rule making, and the N.R.A. will fight them every step of the way,” said Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the gun-rights group.

But Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the Justice Department would fight the N.R.A. challenge.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/us/04guns.html?hp

[onehandle]

1. Speaking of Republican terrorists.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[gejohnston]

11. I'm convinced

Pictures in order

Some people standing around with their hands in their pockets

Comic strip

You taped pictures of Tim McVeigh over some people at a non violent protest

A close up on a pistol

A propaganda picture, an absurd one at that

another guy with a protest sign

A couple of rural folks with skeet guns, you assume too much. Got that regional bigotry going?

A picture that has nothing to do with anything

A propaganda picture of a target specially made for the ad.

You call that an arguement? Hate to break it to you, but the reason your side is losing because your side has not substance.

[ileus]

13. I thought the one with the shotguns was extra intimidating.

[petronius]

19. There's nothing absurd about the handgun vending machine

I'd drop a couple of quarters in there for sure... :rofl:

[rl6214]

21. I'd go through a whole roll of quarters myself.

[SteveM]

63. Jeez, I thought they were trigger locks!

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. The "little girl target" was disinformation INVENTED by the Brady Camapign.

But a little faith-promoting rumor is OK, if the cause is just, eh?

[gejohnston]

43. I think that is what I said,

the ad for the "assault clip". But they do have a thing for ends justify the means don't they?

[SteveM]

64. OH, you mean that compassionate GOP-founded, GOP-led storefront?

GOP

fail

[Starboard Tack]

90. Are you serious about your take on these images?

Some people standing around with their hands in their pockets - You really missed the guy in back with a military grade weapon strapped to his back? I'm sure you could identify it as an Ar-AK-BS something or other. Give me one valid reason any citizen would need one for.
"A close up on a pistol" - You think it's OK to take weapons to a political rally?
Apparently, you feel proud to be a part of this group represented in the other images. Must get real lonely out there.

[gejohnston]

92. From the top

military grade? Was it full auto? I doubt it. If not, it was not military grade. That horse's bones are now fossils.
Was it? It was a close up of a pistol in a holster. I could not tell anything else of the picture.
We are talking about this one right?

After watching the corporate media cheer lead for Bush's Bogus war, the wonders of supply side economics, and distort's reporting on anything to fit the narrative do you think I am going to take anything else they do at face value? This is the same media that ignores anti war protests involving millions, but two guys show up with a Gadsden Flag and a fleet of satellite trucks show up.

To answer your question, no. It was dumb and counter productive. It was a big wet kiss to Brady/VPC. Proud? I am proud that Obama did not over react and do what Bush would do for wearing the wrong tee shirt. I am proud the first amendment applies.

[benEzra]

111. FYI, that's the most popular non-automatic civilian sporting rifle in the United States,

and is quite popular in European target circles as well (Oberland, JP, Uronen Precision, Hera, Astra). The fact that some clown used one to get the media to cover his little political rally doesn't mean that AR owner = weirdo.

FYI, The AR in its most common civilian configuration is a centerfire .22, and all Title 1 AR's are non-automatic; I shoot one myself in sanctioned USPSA matches. It dominates most civilian target competition in this country, except in those classes in which its relative lack of power is a handicap, and it tends to dominate recreational target shooting as well.

The ammunition it shoots, .223 Remington, has been the top selling caliber of centerfire rifle ammunition for years.

Give me one valid reason any citizen would need one for.

Well, aside from the fact that rifles are the least misused class of weapon in the United States...

Sanction target competition
Informal target shooting
More precise, light-recoiling alternative to the traditional .729 caliber (12-gauge) home shotgun
Small game/small predator hunting (OK for up to coyote sized animals, can be used for deer if fitted with larger-caliber upper)

It's as accurate out-of-the-box as a traditional bolt-action, is modular so you don't need a gunsmith to customize it, and it kicks like a .22 (which is to say, barely).

military grade weapon

Any AR-15 looks a lot like an M16/M4 (which is one reason why the media gets them so confused), and they share some parts commonality, particular in the upper receiver. However, the civilian AR-15 uses a different civilian-only lower receiver and fire-control parts than the military M16/M4, and the military parts will not fit in a civilian gun.

Here's my competition/target/HD carbine, FYI. Rock River Arms lower and upper receivers, Wilson 16" heavy target barrel, commercial Smith Enterprises flash suppressor, commercial receiver extension, commercial 6-position stock, civilian sling, civilian optic.

[Starboard Tack]

114. Thanks for the education. Always appreciated.

I guess guns have changed some since I was a kid.

[RSillsbee]

116. Give me one valid reason any citizen would need one for.

I suspect our interpretation of "valid" will not match, That's the nice thing about the Bill Of Rights I don't have to convince you that my need for such a gun is "valid" I only have to convince me.

That said, IMO "I want one" is a valid reason

[krispos42]

28. So it's okay for the Obama Administration to exceed its constitutional authority...

...as long as it's for something you agree with?

[slackmaster]

2. Here's an excerpt from an email sent out by one of the plaintiffs

...As many of you may have heard, the BATFE has sent an unprecedented "demand letter” to all the licensed firearms dealers in the four border states of Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Texas. This will require dealers to report to the BATFE the names and addresses and serial numbers of all purchases of more than one semi-automatic rifle, with a detachable magazine, over 22 caliber, within a 5 business day period. This new and extreme regulation goes into effect for all purchases that occur on or after August 14th, 2011. The BATFE has issued a new form 3310.12 that FFL dealers have to complete and return to the BATFE starting on this date and going forward.

The BATFE and Department of Justice has made this demand on us and on you, with no Congressional authorization. Therefore today J&G Sales has filed suit in the Washington DC federal court challenging this illegitimate regulation. We are being assisted in this law suit by the NRA as well. We hope the outcome of our challenge will be a reversal of this unconstitutional regulation.

Thank you all for your support of the 2nd amendment and will keep you all updated as this case progresses....

[Hoopla Phil]

18. Slackmaster, are you with the J&G folks?

I ask because you used "we" in your letter. If so, can I get a discount? j/king

[Doctor_J]

3. Didn't the president go grovelling to these nuts 6 months ago?

I wonder if he's surprised that he's now the lead character in their campaign literature to vote him out. Who'da thunk it?

OTOH, since most of the amendments are being curtailed, I guess it's good that someone is defending one of them :crazy:

[Kolesar]

4. ^mixed message, for sure...eom

[Altoid_Cyclist]

5. So many replies come to mind when I see LaPierre's name.

Every time that he shoots (sorry) off his mouth, it gets more and more inane.

I don't think that he'll be happy until the NRA is legally able to sell assault weapons and 50cals. (for hunting....yeah, that's the ticket...for hunting) door to door and claim that it's just like Girl Scout cookies.

How many guns do you need in one week?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

6. Technically, if you have an FFL, you CAN go door to door selling assault weapons and .50 cals

All the NRA would need is a valid in-state FFL and possibly SOT.

... just sayin'

[Altoid_Cyclist]

7. I did not know that.

A business like that would do very well where I live. The only drawback would be that there are so many baggers around here. I've about had it with all of the damn yellow flags and banners.

[SteveM]

67. Noted your photo: Hasn't live pigeon shooting ended in this country...

in favor of sporting clays? Just asking.

I would note that in most states where dove-hunting occurs, "rock dove" (or feral pigeons) are legal to shoot as well. Along with Eur-Asian Collared Dove, an invasive which has occurred within the last few decades. All three are excellent table fare.

[russ1943]

85. Just curious........

So, in response to a sarcastic comment, you have specific technical knowledge you decided to share with us. That is, the fact that, if someone had a valid in state FFL, they CAN go door to door selling assault weapons and .50 cals.
Wow!
How do you know this? I’ve never seen anything at the atf site that would allow an FFL to sell a firearm outside of a licensed place of business and a gun show. Please provide a link or some official information from a reputable source.
FEDERAL FIREARMS REGULATIONS REFERENCE GUIDE
General Information ...153
Questions and Answers ...169
http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

113. Generally, the laws being as they are in this country, actions are not permitted

so much as actions expressly being disallowed. Generally, laws forbid one from doing something much more often than granting permission to do something. Basically, in your asking me to "provide a link or some official information from a reputable source" for people being allowed to sell firearms door to door... you'd be asking me to prove the non-existence of such a law prohibiting that action... in essence, proving a negative. Bit of a daunting task, don't you think? It would be much more efficient and productive to find a law prohibiting, since that's how most laws actually fuction.

So in that light, it would seem that the quest is yours - to find laws prohbiting the sale of firearms.

As I see it, it comes down to this:

If one is "engaged in the business of selling firearms" they'll need an FFL license. I would fully expect one going door to door to almost certainly be "engaged in the business". Although I suppose you could go door to door trying to sell a personl firearm you've got laying around, I wouldn't want to try and defend myself against the ATF by spinning off door to door solicitation as not a business venture.

Also, if the firearms for sale are assault rifles (or any other article covered under the 1934 NFA) they'll also need an SOT status - which again may not be necessary for personal non-business transactions. However, given the context of the original pot I responded to (the NRA being the soliciting party) an FFL/SOT would almost certainly be required because the NRA is not an individual.

License holders are generally only required to record EVERY firearm transaction, regardless of the location of the sale.
I'm fairly sure the location is not a restriction - so solicitation would merely be a form of advertising.
I've seen FFL holders sell (and fill out background checks & paperwork) well outside of gunshows or gunshops.

After further reading of a few of the FFL codes, the concept seems questionable as the intent of laws would seem to discourage busness outside the FLL permanent address... however, the practice is not expressly forbidden. It would be one of those legal grey areas where you'd probably end up having to spend alot of money defending your actions, and even the law would leave your actions open to interperetation. Although the law DOES difinitively state that for holders of a C&R FFL (curios and relics, aka: antique/historical) collectors may aquire or divest qualified firearms "at any location".

[russ1943]

115. Licenses are different from laws.

While I won’t argue that “generally, the laws being as they are in this country, actions are not permitted” what we’re discussing is, whether or not the FFL license allows door to door sales as you specifically stated in your post. As I understand it, the FFL license has restrictions on where and how business can be conducted. Your statement; “Technically, if you have an FFL, you CAN go door to door selling assault weapons and .50 cals “ makes me (and lurkers) think that you have some knowledge that is contrary to all I have read and heard from FFL’s.

Example; § 478.100 Conduct of business away from licensed premises.
(a) (1) A licensee may conduct business temporarily at a gun show or event
as defined in paragraph (b) if the gun show or event is located in the same State
specified on the license: Provided, that such business shall not be conducted from
any motorized or towed vehicle. The premises of the gun show or event at which the licensee conducts business shall be considered part of the licensed premises. Accordingly, no separate fee or license is required for the gun show or event locations. However, licensees shall
comply with the provisions of § 478.91 relating to posting of licenses (or a copy thereof) while conducting business at the gun show or event.
http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf Page 54

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Lurks Often]

17. Can you please define an "Assault Weapon" for us? n/t

[RSillsbee]

20. Definition of an assault weapon

Any scary weapon w/ features I don't like

ETA Almost for got it has to be designed to appeal to "toter's" baser instincts while causing antis to pee teheir pants and run screaming like little girls when they see it.

Yup

[ileus]

118. that's easy anything that doesn't have flowers in the barrel.

[PavePusher]

26. None of your business, Ms. Grundy. n/t

[SteveM]

65. I think of that joke about the dehydrated French man. nt

[Hoyt]

8. I bet greedy/immoral gun dealers are upset- infringing on their right to arm gangs, TBag militia, et

All they want is cash, a name that will go through background check, and the NRA protecting their money making capitalist enterprise.

[TheWraith]

12. I'm sure that's why they kept reporting potential illegal buyers to the ATF.

And the ATF kept ordering them to make the sales. :eyes:

[SteveM]

68. HA!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. More unjustified tripe...

[MicaelS]

14. I think that this is ass-covering by the BATFE in the wake

Of Gunwalker. Sort of "after the horse has left the barn" regulation.

[spin]

23. Unfortunately there will be a long blood trail because of the failure of he BATFE ...

and it MIGHT turn in a scandal that could endanger Obama's reelection.

It does appear that that there may be a cover up in progress and if so, we all know how such cover ups work out.

[Katya Mullethov]

30. I dont think that was

what the dude meant by transparency .


H.R. 2668, the "Brian A. Terry Memorial Act" principal cosponsor Rep. Elijah Cummings .


ETA : lol

[ileus]

15. I'm all for keeping American guns in American hands where they belong.

[spin]

24. Damn right. (n/t)

[Euromutt]

29. I love how the NYT uses the term "bulk sales" with a straight face

After all, what reasonable person could be against a reporting requirement for bulk sales of firearms?
Until you find out that "bulk" in this context means two guns purchased within five business days from each other.

I'll admit I'm not opposed to a reporting requirement on multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles in principle, but I do not support this requirement.
For starters, I think the low threshold will generate more reports than the ATF can process, so that any grain of intelligence will be buried in such a large amount of chaff that no useful intelligence will be recovered in time to do anything with it.
Second, I don't like the way the ATF pushed this through by executive fiat. There's a reason separation of powers exists in this country, and letting cops write the law has never turned out to be a good idea.
Third, given the increasing amount of information coming to light about Operation "Fast & Furious," we can seriously question whether this reporting requirement is even necessary. Apparently, FFLs were quite proactive about reporting suspicious multiple purchases to the ATF themselves, only to have the ATF not do anything about it.

You don't have to like the NRA, but there are very good reasons to want this reporting requirement scrapped.

[Atypical Liberal]

31. I have written to the NRA

I have written to the NRA and expressed my support for the BATFE keeping track of these kinds of sales.

I cannot believe there are that many people out there with the disposable income to buy more than one rifle a week.

I'm sure there may be some few people who buy multiple firearms for Christmas presents, or maybe they are new to the hobby and go hog-wild buying firearms, but at $600 or more a pop, I just don't see a lot of people buying multiple firearms in a week, unless something dodgy is going on.

[PavePusher]

32. Yeah, 'cause no-one ever saves up to buy more than one at a time...

or stumbles over a package deal, or a discount sale, or an estate auction, or....

Seriously, your stated suspicion and paranoia has a lot of exceptions clearly evident. If I was to go out and buy matching rifles for my neices and nephews (4) for Christmas, I'd get reported as a potential terrorist.

Fuck. That. Noise.

That's not the way this country is supposed to be set up.

[iverglas]

34. if you bought your nieces and nephews handguns for Christmas ...

From the article:

Firearms dealers across the United States have long been required to report similar bulk sales of handguns. But the N.R.A. suit notes that the reporting rule for handgun sales was enacted by Congress as part of the statute that sets rules for licensed firearms dealers. That statute also says dealers shall not be required to report information “except as expressly provided by this section,” and the N.R.A. contends that the firearms bureau has no authority to impose a reporting requirement on long guns.

Surely "that's not the way this country is supposed to be set up".

The rule requires licensed firearms dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas to report within five days whenever someone buys more than one weapon like a variant of the AK-47 assault weapon. The rule covers any semiautomatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine and ammunition larger than .22 caliber.

Your nieces and nephews all ... firearms afficionados ... are they?

[gejohnston]

36. the key phrase is

enacted by Congress. The issue with long guns is that the ATF making their own rules instead of Congress passing a law. Granted, it would not pass but that is not the point.

[iverglas]

37. no, it isn't

That is the key phrase in the NRA's action.

It isn't the key phrase to any discussing the merits of the policy.

Or did you think legislation could not be amended?

I assume the ATF and the US Justice Dept will have its own arguments to defend its actions under the existing legislation, as they have asserted they will do.

[gejohnston]

42. I think it should be done by congress

Of course the ATF will have their own argument. I have a problem with law enforcement making their own rules. Has nothing to do with merits of the policy.

[iverglas]

45. "Of course the ATF will have their own argument. "

But hey, why bother knowing what it is before spouting an opinion, eh?

[PavePusher]

44. Correct, I think the handgun requirement is also bullshit....

but at least it went through a representative legislative body.

And as to the last question, if it's none of the governments business, it's certainly none of yours.

[rl6214]

95. I have purchased 5 AR15 lower recievers at one time.

They are the key ingredient to building an AR15 and are considered the gun, even though it is just a chunk of machined metal. Two of them I have built into fully functioning guns, the other three are sitting in my gun safe. I know quite a few people that have done the same, it is not at all unusual, especially if you get a better price for buying multiples.

[Atypical Liberal]

38. I just can't believe that happens very often.

I don't know anyone who's ever bought more than one firearm at a time, and I've spent a lot of time around "gun people" my whole life.

For all of my acquaintances, buying a firearm is a big deal, an infrequent splurge.

I'm sure every once in a while someone goes into a gun store and buys multiple firearms, but I bet it doesn't happen very often.

I don't have a problem with the BATFE taking extra note of these kinds of purchases, especially at FFLs near the Mexican border.

[PavePusher]

47. "doesn't happen very often" isn't a criteria for judgement.

And I live in Tucson, so it can/will affect ME and lots of my fellow Citizens.

Where do you live? If you aren't in the affected area, your opinion is really irrelevent.

[Atypical Liberal]

48. Sure it is.

"doesn't happen very often" isn't a criteria for judgement.

It is for me. If hardly anyone except straw purchasers buy firearms more than one a week, then I don't have a problem with those sales undergoing more scrutiny.

And I live in Tucson, so it can/will affect ME and lots of my fellow Citizens.

Where do you live? If you aren't in the affected area, your opinion is really irrelevent.

Oh noes, someone had an irrelevant opinion on the internets!!!11!

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. How about the fact that this is sheer security theater, and easily avoided?

Step 1: "Clean" (i.e. "will pass NICS") straw purchaser goes on in-state road trip.

Step 2: Purchaser stops at as many gun dealers as possible, buying one relevant firearm per stop.

Step 3: Repeat at suitable interval.

Step 4: PROFIT.

I suppose a dedicated "gun launderer" could even carefully steal the identity of some innocent person and use that, as no one
would be the wiser if said launderer/straw purchaser paid cash. By the time the ATF caught on to (if they ever do)the fact that "Jose" or "Jane" "Smith" somehow has bought 75 ARs or KalashniKlones, the fake Smith would be long gone, and the real
Jose (or Jane) Smith would be stuck in some Kafkaesque nightmare.

I'm all for stopping straw purchases, but this ain't the way to do it.

[Atypical Liberal]

56. This should be handled at the NICS level.

Step 2: Purchaser stops at as many gun dealers as possible, buying one relevant firearm per stop.

Yup, you're right.

Really, this should be handled at the NICS level.

If more than one NICS check comes through the system for the same person in a week, flag that.

[Euromutt]

58. Whatever your suggested approach, can we at least agree...

...that we'd like to see it implemented by an Act of Congress, instead of by executive fiat from an agency that is fast being revealed to have itself undermined whatever benefit might have derived from this measure?

[Atypical Liberal]

59. I'm fine with that.

I'm fine with it being implemented by an Act of Congress, but frankly, if there is going to be a BATFE agency, then one of the things I would want it to do is to help keep firearms out of the hands of people who aren't supposed to have them. This means investigating straw sales or other bulk sales of firearms being funneled to cartels.

[PavePusher]

60. They seem to have gotten confused on that.... n/t

[PavePusher]

61. You are still buying into the Watch List(tm) idea. No, thank you.

Get a Judge to sign off on a surveillance warrant, and you have my (conditional) blessing.

[SteveM]

69. If you want to change NICS, it will require an act of Congress...

As I understand NICS, a purchaser submits a Form 4473 and appropriate I.D. The FFL runs you through a database to determine:
(1) If applicant has a felony record or not; and
(2) If applicant has been adjudicated mentally incompetent.

There is not supposed to be storage or record-keeping capabilities with NICS, and as such it cannot "flag" what you want. To do so may put NICS in the position of de facto national registration, which will be vigorously opposed.

[oneshooter]

77. 8-10 years ago a local sporting goods chain failed.

At the close out sale I bought 3- Swedish Mauser's, 2 Remington 870, 1-22pistol and 1- 9mm pistol. Filled out the forms, showed my Texas CHL, paid for them and left. No problems, no muss, no fuss. NO NCIS check.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

80. Obviously some government agency should have a watchful eye on you.... n/t

[oneshooter]

83. Yea, 3- 70+ year old rifles( but incredably accurate for military rifles)

a 22 rimfire target pistol, and a no longer made 9mm.

I'm ready for anything!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

87. Ahem.... those are full-bore military sniper rifles....

an assasins' pistol and a handgun that should only be in the hands of police (and European police at that).

SO THERE.....!

:silly:

[oneshooter]

89. NA, just a couple of old moose hunting rifles

a competition 22, and a CCW that is under sized, and over rated!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

I have restocked the rifles, kept one, sold one, and donated the the third to a auction to help one of my sons friends who had a sports injury(a broken neck). The rifle, reloading dies, 100rds brass, and 100 rds of 140gr Nosler JSP sold for $750!!! Bought by a lady who wanted a birthday present for her husband.

[PavePusher]

104. Well done! n/t

[iverglas]

49. just because you're being sweet reason itself

You might find this tale amusing (amusing largely because of my ignorance of obscure collectors-item firearms -- my dear departed buddy DoNotRefill, and I am not being sarcastic, set me straight) and interesting (for other reasons).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x45318

TORONTO - A joint police effort between Canada and the U.S. broke up a gun smuggling ring Tuesday. Officers seized almost 2,000 M1 Garand rifles, guns that date back to the Second World War.

They also found three machine guns, and a large number of gun parts.

The guns and the parts are all perfectly legal in Canada. It's also legal to sell them in the U.S. The illegal part is that they were being shipped there labelled as auto parts.

It's illegal to ship them at all.

Supt. Ron Taverner of Toronto police described it as a type of "gun laundering."

Taverner says a large number of gun registrations in Canada caught the attention of authorities. ...

(the link to the CBC report is dead now)

My actual point was as I stated there, which is relevant here:

We are constantly told here that if the US adopted such a system, those criminals would just get their weapons somewhere else. Just as those criminals in DC get theirs, despite all those laws in DC.

So here's the point.

They would not be getting very many of them from Canada.

The story I reported demonstrates that the existence of the Canadian system of licensing and registration makes it extremely improbable that any significant number of firearms is going to be moving from Canada to the US. ...

Anyhow. Just because I thought you might be interested.

[PavePusher]

50. I will also opine that this parallels the No Fly lists....

with an equal lack of due process, or any RAS other than exercising a Constitutional Right. Please note that I have no problem with the dealer reporting such a sale, on their own initiative, if they feel something is wrong. But making it mandatory, absent any actual aberant behavior? Why don't we just save some time, skip the intervening incrementalism, and simply lunge headlong into Fascism....

[rl6214]

96. Get a C&R license so you can purchase curios and relics

you will be hooked on buying collectable firearms by the bunches. Not at all unusual in the C&R community to buy multiples.

[rl6214]

94. I have bought 5 AR15 stripped lowers at one time

They sell for anywhere from $79+ and is the main ingredient in building an AR15. That's not spending $600 per gun and yes, the stripped lower is considered the gun.

[iverglas]

33. there's such an easy solution to this little inconvenience

Firearms dealers should need only to see the purchaser's licence to acquire and possess (not waste time on "background check" phone calls), and then enter the information about the transfer (firearm, purchaser) into the firearms registry on line.

Then it's up to the appropriate authority, the government agency in charge, to identify "bulk sales" and other problematic patterns, e.g.. multiple sales to an individual, a spike in sales of a particular kind of firearm in a particular area or by a particular dealer, and the like.

Pull the rug out from the NRA! Make it your issue! Call for licensing of firearms owners and registration of firearms transfers!

[gejohnston]

35. while that works great for machine guns in the US

just like it has for pistols since 1934 and machine guns since 1953 in Canada because there were few owners to start. Your centralized long gun registry seems to have problems. For us, it would be train wreck.

One thing that strikes me as odd, if I read the history of Canadian gun laws correctly, you had (until 1977) stricter rules on pistols than machine guns.

[PavePusher]

51. You can see my Licence any time you want...

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[RSillsbee]

53. Here is a copy of my licence to acquire and possess

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I happen to keep a second copy handy as well here you go

Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).

[Oneka]

55. Would this easy solution

Be enacted, with statutory authority , unlike ,the long gun reporting
Requirement, or would the ATF just send a letter demanding compliance?

[spin]

57. Yup. That registry really works well in Canada, didn't it? ...

There's an excellent chance that your super wazoo long gun registration program will be history next year.

Please explain to me why we should wastes billions of dollars on a scheme that will only cause Democrats to lose votes at the polls and will eventually be scrapped just like the idiotic assault weapons ban we once had.

Tories target fall for long-gun registry showdown

Day of reckoning for the NDP; Quebec base favours firmer support for gun control, political scientist says

By JEFF DAVIS, Postmedia News July 20, 2011

The Conservative government will introduce legislation in the fall to scrap the long-gun registry, this time using its parliamentary majority to back it up.

The vote will be an early test of unity for the NDP, Canada's new official Opposition, which wrangled with internal disagreement over the contentious issue when it was voted on as a private member's bill in 2010. Manitoba MP Candice Hoeppner, the Tory backbencher who introduced the failed private member's bill last year, said earlier this week the government will kill the registry soon after Parliament resumes.

"Everyone knows it's been part of our party's policy for many years, and the prime minister committed to Canadians during the election we would scrap the long-gun registry," she told Postmedia News.

"We're going to follow through on that commitment."

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Tories+target+fall+long+registry+showdown/5129022/story.html#ixzz1UAOEYj3e

Put the gun registry out of its misery
National Post · Jul. 21, 2011 | Last Updated: Jul. 21, 2011 2:10 AM ET

The federal Conservatives have confirmed that the contentious long-gun registry will be scrapped this fall. Speaking with Postmedia News, Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner said: "Everyone knows it's been part of our party's policy for many years, and the Prime Minister committed to Canadians during the election we would scrap the longgun registry.. Canadians can expect to see fairly early on in the fall."

We support this move. The long-gun registry, which has been with us for a decade, should never have been created. There was no convincing explanation as to how a database of serial numbers and street addresses was supposed to improve public safety. Gun crime is a real problem. But the criminals who kill people with guns generally are using illegal handguns smuggled in from the United States - not legally registered rifles and shotguns.

Once established, the registry not only proved to be expensive and errorprone, it drove a wedge between police and lawful Canadian firearms owners, who became justifiably frustrated at being deemed public safety risks simply because they owned a firearm. The Liberals' hysterical insistence that harassing duck hunters and sport shooters was somehow necessary to pay proper homage to the victims of the 1989 École Polytechnique massacre (which wouldn't have been prevented with a registry anyway) has been particularly grating. Scrapping the registry will remove such irritants, and is worth doing for that reason alone.

This move, we hope, will help restore badly needed perspective to the gun-control debate. Contrary to what supporters of the registry might believe, Canada's firearm owners generally recognize the importance of strong, effective gun-control laws that strike the right balance between keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the emotionally unstable while allowing law-abiding citizens to hunt and participate in shooting sports without social stigma. Canada's pre-1995 firearms licensing system, combined with harsher punishments for those who use firearms while committing crimes, adequately address those needs. The registry has always been a distraction that offered only an illusion of safety, one we will do well to be rid of.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/registry+misery/5134803/story.html

[iverglas]

62. you shooting for the crown as king of the non sequitur?

That registry really works well in Canada, didn't it? ...

Yes, it does ... did ... whatever. As well as it can be expected to work. Without a prohibition on possession of firearms and more varieties of semi-automatic rifles, it's not going to work as well as it could. Jerks and murderers are still getting their hands on too many of them, in various ways.


There's an excellent chance that your super wazoo long gun registration program will be history next year.

I wouldn't be counting any chickens. But I'm curious. Why are you aligning yourself with a far right-wing government on this issue?

Oh, and why are you quoting editorial opinion from the National Post at me?

I'll be happy to find some equivalent source to quote at you regarding some progressive cause or other.

Would you prefer the Washington Times or Fox News?

Just let me know.

Oh, and let me know when you find a PROGRESSIVE political party or opinion source to quote in support of yourself.

Beggars belief, it does, once again.

[iverglas]

66. crap ... and too late to edit

Everybody knew that when I was composing a post about the firearms registry and said:

Without a prohibition on possession of firearms and more varieties of semi-automatic rifles, it's not going to work as well as it could.

-- I of course meant a prohibition on possesion of handguns -- because that is the only thing I have ever said in the past and I have expressly rejected what I accidentally typed and will continue to do so whenever anyone attempt to ascribe that position to me, since it simply is not fact.

:blush:

Just for the record!

[spin]

72. In my opinion you already have draconian handgun laws ...

Gun Control Laws in Canada

***snip***

Handgun Ownership Restricted
Canada, with a population of 31 million, limits possession of handguns to collectors, target shooters and those who can demonstrate a need of guns to protect their lives.

In addition to licensing all gun owners and buyers, the Canadian Firearms Act requires every gun in the Country to have a certificate of registration.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030500a.htm

And you already prohibit small handguns.

Size Matters

There are three legal classes of firearms in Canada. Here are the general rules:

Prohibited: Handguns with a barrel length of 105 millimetres (4.2 inches) or less, or that discharge .25 or .32 calibre ammunition; rifles or shotguns that have been altered so their barrel length is less than 457 mm (18.3 inches) or their overall length is less than 660 mm (26.4 inches); automatic weapons and short semi-automatics.

Restricted: Handguns with barrel lengths longer and calibres larger than prohibited ones; and some semi-automatics.

Non-restricted: Ordinary hunting and sporting rifles, shotguns and airguns.
http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/canada/2007/Handguns-in-Canada.html

I was reading through the section from the above link on the steps required to get a handgun in Canada. It's too long to excerpt, but it is simply amazing. I recommend any one interested in RKBA read it. To be fair the UK has even stricter laws on handguns.

[iverglas]

75. that's nice

Round and round.

I looked into it all last year. I've only ever "shot" at targets during the archery segments of high school phys ed ... at which I was quite good, but urban core neighbourhoods don't afford a lot of opportunity ... and at an amusement park a couple of years ago ... where I outshot a Guns forum poster with a CCW.

I could go to the big non-profit recreational complex in town, get instruction, join the recreation association, apply for a restricted firearms licence, get one, and get a handgun. Hmm, that's about what it says at your link, I see; tsk, just "simply amazing" it is. Quite a few people do it, actually. My use of my handgun would be restricted to the premises of the recreation association (or at meets, I suppose), and I would be allowed to transport it only to and from there, and I would have to meet reasonably stringent storage standards. (If I do do this, and it's entirely possible I will if I feel like taking up a hobby when I retire - the complex is a good distance from where I live and I'm not driving these days - I would not even consider storing a handgun in my home. I would likely use the ones provided by the complex.)

From your link:

Federal and provincial Conservatives point to the law, and previous restrictions dating back to the 1930s, and say handguns are "effectively banned."

Well, did you expect something other than bullshit from Conservatives? Total bullshit.

"The best I've ever seen in handgun sales was last winter when we had our federal election and Paul Martin came on TV and said he was going to ban handguns if elected. Wow – you should have seen the phone ring the next morning and for a month after that," said Winkel who sells about 2,500 new and used handguns a year.

Huh. A single gun dealer sells 2,500 handguns a year. And yet they're "effectively banned".

When will you acknowledge that the right wing LIES?

Or, as the (Liberal Party) Attorney General of Ontario said:

And as for people like Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory, who say handguns are already effectively banned, they are "either misinformed or misleading" the public, Bryant said.

What you might actually have wanted to quote, except for the length and the number of incidents, is the reports of stolen handguns being used in crime, and careless storage of handguns by legal owners.

[spin]

76. No matter how hard you try to spin it, the laws in Canada are draconian compared to the laws ...

in many states in the U.S.

Lets look at Florida gun laws.

What Are the Gun Laws in Florida?

Caution: This summary is meant for general purposes only. Firearm laws frequently change and the following answers may not reflect changes in the laws.

State Requirements

Rifles and Shotguns

Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No
Registration of rifles and shotguns? No
Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No
Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No

Handguns

Permit to purchase handgun? No
Registration of handguns? No
Licensing of owners of handguns? No
Permit to carry handguns? Yes


Purchase and Possession:
No state permit is required to possess or purchase a rifle, shotgun or handgun

***snip***

It is lawful to possess a concealed firearm for self-defense or other lawful purposes within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use.
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_fl.htm

[iverglas]

78. facts are "spin" ...

Sorry. What's spin is shock-and-awe words like "draconian".

I outlined what the law requires. You call it whatever you want.

Meanwhile, I'll call laws like the one you cite pieces of right-wing crap advocated and enacted by pieces of right-wing crap, in furtherance of the right-wing agenda and contrary to the public interest. Strange how that works.

[spin]

81. Remember the post where I provided a link ...

that mentioned the prime driver behind the current gun laws in Florida, Marion Hammer, is a life long Democrat? She's my type of Democrat!

http://www.floridatrend.com/people_article.asp?cName=People&rName=Florida%20Icons&whatID=1&aID=49217

[iverglas]

82. from your link

The ’68 Gun Control Act is what got me heavily and actively involved. Because of the atrocious acts of criminals, the Congress decided to infringe upon the constitutional and God-given rights of law-abiding people, and that made me angry.

Southern Democrats can be odd ducks, can't they just?

George P. Mahoney ... oh, and let's not forget that other George character!

But give me a break ... the 1968 Gun Control Act? I won't even comment on thos "God-given rights of law-abiding people". I guess her god just hates speeders.

[spin]

86. Well I am a Democrat and I dislike extreme gun laws ...

I was not fond of the 1968 gun control act for several reasons.

Federal Firearms License regulatory reform

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) was given wide latitude on the enforcement of regulations pertaining to Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders. Allegations of abuse by ATF inspectors soon arose from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and certain targeted Federal firearms licensees.

In the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982), a bipartisan subcommittee (consisting of 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) of the United States Senate investigated the Second Amendment and reported its findings. The report stated:emphasis adde

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.<1>

It concluded that seventy-five percent of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives prosecutions were "constitutionally improper", especially on Second Amendment issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

Firearm Owners Protection Act

***snip***

The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 addressed the abuses noted in the 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report. It reopened interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, allowed ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act), ended record keeping on ammunition sales, except for armor piercing, permitted travel between states supportive of Second Amendment rights even through those areas less supportive of these rights, and addressed several other issues that had effectively restricted Second Amendment rights. However, the act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement. Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000. Regarding these fully automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the United States, political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime."<3>

The gun rights movement lobbied Congress to pass the FOPA to prevent the abuse of regulatory power — in particular, to address claims that the ATF was repeatedly inspecting FFL holders for the apparent purpose of harassment intended to drive the FFL holders out of business (as the FFL holders would constantly be having to tend to ATF inspections instead of to customers).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

I will admit that in 1968, I was in the military and had little interest in shooting or owning firearms. That changed quickly after I left the service and discovered the challenge and enjoyment of shooting handguns. By 1986 I fully supported the The Firearm Owners Protection Act.

As far as the comment "God-given rights of law-abiding people", I consider myself a Christian (although few church going Christians would agree.)

As such I could point out that the Bible discusses how one of the disciples used a sword to cut off the ear of one of people who arrested Christ in the garden of of Gethsemane.

John 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

A sword was the handgun of its time and could be concealed. If Christ was against deadly force, he would have never allowed his disciples to carry a sword.

edited for HTML error

[iverglas]

88. you kinda missed the point there

I don't think that when imaginary gods are handing out rights, they check everybody's record to see whether they have form.

"The God-given rights of law-abiding people" just isn't a Christian thing to say, I fear.

People who break laws actually do have rights, not that they come from gods.

Otherwise, we wouldn't have courts.

All she was doing was spewing right-wing crap.

[spin]

91. Who is saying that god is a Christian God?

as interpreted and defined by modern day right wing Christians? Hell, most of them have never read the Bible let alone studied it, they just listen to fools that tell them what to believe.

The God I believe in is far more and far better than what they envision. I label myself as Christian because that is the local religion and if people actually followed the teachings of the enlightened individual we call Christ, we would live in a far better world.

As I said, few church going Christians would consider me to be a Christian.

[rl6214]

98. She dosen't believe in a God of any sort

if you hadn't noticed with her slights and insults at anything considering a religion.

[spin]

106. If so, that's fine. I've know atheists that acted more Christian than most Christians ...

One said he tried to be a good person so his actions could better the society he lived in.

[iverglas]

108. I have nothing against Christians per se

People tend to believe what they are brought up to believe. Some of us break free.

There's nothing Christian about trying to control other people's lives, as some Christians do -- and as many non-Christians do. What they do has nothing to do with their religion. Nothing anybody does has anything to do with their religion. People, not religions, are responsible for what people do. Some people have diminished responsibility because of brainwashing, but that's other people's fault.

I've known many Christians I've been quite fond of as individuals. A member of my former church -- a lesbian clergyperson in her 70s -- just sent this out (old but good):



In church I heard a woman in the pew next to me saying a prayer.
It was so sweet and sincere that I just had to share with you:

Dear Lord,
This has been a tough couple of years ...
You have taken my favorite actor - Patrick Swayze.
My favorite musician - Michael Jackson.
My favorite salesman - Billy Mays.
And now my favorite actress - Elizabeth Taylor.
I just wanted you to know that my favorite politician is Stephen Harper.

[spin]

110. I have met many fine Christians also ...

Unfortunately, a high percentage of the Fundamentalists that I encounter push attempt to push their brand of Christianity down my throat and it is somewhat difficult to be polite as they often tell me that I am going to Hell. I usually simply point out that it is not their job to judge.

I wasn't raised to be religious as my father was Agnostic and I never was taken to church. My mother, however, was a Christian and attempted to teach me lessons from the Bible.

My son in law and daughter were married by a lesbian preacher who I found to be a fascinating and very intelligent individual during our short encounter. I would have loved to attend the services she ran but at the time I lived over 100 miles away from her church.

I found the prayer the lady in the pew next to you very humorous.

[iverglas]

103. you kinda missed the point again

The individual in question is an ugly right-winger. If she wants to call herself a Democrat and Democrats are cool with that, not my concern.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

102. no, of course I didn't; I'M A LIAR

If you had wanted to ask who cared that I outshot a CCW holder with a fake gun shooting pellets at an amusement park, there wouldn't have been much I could say. Why would you care?

But no, you say I'm lying. Or, oh, excuse me, were you saying something else? G'head, pretend your post means something else.

Funny how some people get away with saying such things ... me, I say I can't believe someone is so thick because, guess what, I DON'T BELIEVE IT, but guess which speech gets suppressed ...

Now, why you WOULD care enough about my hugh school phys ed archery prowess to claim I'm lying about it, I have no clue.

[spin]

112. I tried archery for a while and I sucked at it ...

My aunt won archery championships in Pennsylvania.

I have never figured out why I was so bad as shooting a handgun is somewhat similar to shooting a bow.

Oh well, I enjoyed the effort.

[spin]

70. If I limited my posting to only liberal publications on the issue of gun control ...

I wouldn't be able to find many articles that supported RKBA.

Hopefully that will change in the future. In my opinion as Democrats we have far more important issues to focus on. We should never be wasting our time trying to push for foolish "feel good" laws such as another assault weapons ban let alone a system to register all firearms. When we do, we end up shooting ourselves in the foot.

One of the reasons that we ended up with eight years of stupidity under Bush the Junior was Al Gore's stand on gun control.

Why Democrats dumped gun control
Wednesday, Apr 18, 2007 08:00 ET

Democrats have been turning away from gun control ever since Al Gore's run for the presidency. The then-vice president and his advisors had tried to out-gun-control liberal challenger Bill Bradley during the Democratic primaries. Campaigning against George W. Bush in the general election, Gore decided to quiet his criticism of the NRA and mute his support for gun control to build support in battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan where support for gun rights runs high. In the wake of Gore's loss, many Democrats blamed the defeat on previous pro-gun control positions Gore had taken, and pulled the party further back from where it had been on the issue.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/04/18/dems_and_guns

Democrats' shift on gun control means stricter laws are unlikely


Saturday, January 15, 2011

***snip***

Democrats championed gun control in the 1980s and '90s. But many backed away after the 2000 election, when Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore's support for tighter gun laws likely cost him votes in key rural areas. The result has been an effective truce on guns, one that let the assault weapons ban expire in 2004, and has even seen key Democrats emerge as some of the gun lobby's leading allies.

The truce is believed to have served President Barack Obama well during his campaign for the White House. In 2008, gun control -- once a barrier for Democrats seeking votes in states like Virginia, Indiana or Nevada -- hardly registered as a top topic.

That strategy is likely to carry into the 2012 election. After the conservative-led rout in November, Democrats running in red states -- and there are many in the Senate -- will be eager to burnish their conservative credentials and hesitant to bump against the powerful National Rifle Association.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11015/1118214-84.stm#ixzz1UBVJoisM

Any attempt by the Democratic Party to require gun registration would result in another possible disaster for Democrats in 2012. If our economy hasn't improved by that time we will probably lose the Senate and if the Republicans can find a reasonable candidate Obama may be a one term president. We definitely do not need to alienate 80 million gun owners and cause them to show up at the polls to vote for Tea Party candidates.

Just the mention of gun registration causes the gun owners I know to go berserk!

And even you seem to see problems with the gun registration system in Canada.

I commented:

That registry really works well in Canada, didn't it? ...

and you replied with was at best a waffle:

Yes, it does ... did ... whatever. As well as it can be expected to work. Without a prohibition on possession of firearms and more varieties of semi-automatic rifles, it's not going to work as well as it could. Jerks and murderers are still getting their hands on too many of them, in various ways.

What I personally fear is that the economy will not have improved significantly by the 2012 election and the Tea Baggers will gain enough power to push a balanced budget amendment through Congress and send it to the states for ratification. It's unlikely that such an amendment would pass but if it did it would be a disaster.

The Republican party is bad enough but we definitely do not want the Tea Party to gain more control of it. They are dangerous as they do not seem to understand compromise. It's their way or else.

[iverglas]

74. ... "I wouldn't be able to find many articles that supported RKBA."

Life's just a funny thing, isn't it?

If I limited my sources for opinion against women's reproductive rights to right-wing ones, I wouldn't find much support either.

(Note that I'm ignoring the "RKBA" nonsense in your comment and responding as if it said what your first post was about: gun militancy.)

You quote:

In the wake of Gore's loss, many Democrats blamed the defeat on previous pro-gun control positions Gore had taken, and pulled the party further back from where it had been on the issue.

Thank goodness Bill Clinton wasn't that fuzzy-headed, eh?


I commented:
That registry really works well in Canada, didn't it? ...
and you replied with was at best a waffle:
Yes, it does ... did ... whatever.

Yeeee. That was grammatical waffle. You said "works ... didn't it". I was replying both ways. Yes it does, yes it did. All bases covered, no waffles.

The firearms registry doesn't work to keep handguns and semi-automatic rifles out of the hands of people who use them to commit crimes and cause harm as well as it could if the comparatively small number of people who are permitted to own them, who either commit the crimes / cause the harm themselves or lose their firearms to the people who do, weren't permitted to.

That's a matter of the law, not the registry. The registry is doing just fine at preventing intentional transfers to people like that. Or are you aware of a lot of straw purchases of firearms happening in Canada? The RCMP would like to know, if you are.


One of the reasons that we ended up with eight years of stupidity under Bush the Junior was Al Gore's stand on gun control.

It doesn't matter how often it's said, I won't be buying it. A big reason you ended up with eight years of a whole hell of a lot worse than stupidity was THE NRA.

The main reason you ended up with Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew was an insufficiently celebrated Democrat named George P. Mahoney, an early modern gun militant. Google may help you if you have missed discussions of him here.

Again, I apologize that the link here is dead and the material does not appear elsewhere:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x85761

George P. Mahoney is the guy to whom you owe Spiro Agnew -- Agnew having been the "moderate" Republican who defeated the vicious right-wing racist anti-gun control Democrat for the position of Governor of Maryland.

"Your home is your castle", and you're entitled to a bunch o' guns to defend it from all those unwhite people trying to move into the neighbourhood.

This seems to be a case of the myth overtaking the reality, as has become increasingly common in the Internet age. Not much out there to counteract the "racist roots of gun control" nonsense and misrepresentations and spin. Here's a bit of a primer:
http://www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.guns.htm

... the 1966 Maryland gubenatorial race: that year, the Democratic primary was won by a Dixiecrat, George P. Mahoney, when the liberal vote was split between two different candidates. Mahoney ran on an unmistakably racist, pro-gun, anti-open-housing (pro-racial-discrimination) platform: "your home is your castle, protect it!" Sen. Tydings of Maryland was at that time an important gun-control advocate, and this was one of the first important signs of the future power (and racist roots) of the pro-gun movement, which before this time had not been a major factor in politics.

Ironic, ain't it?

A Democrat losing to a Republican <Agnew> because the Democrat was more racist and more of a gun loon* than the Republican.

How can that be? Isn't it gun control that loses elections for Democrats???

(* I trust I am not required to edit old posts to remove references to a right-wing piece of racist shit as a gun loon.)

[spin]

79. Strange that you mentioned Bill Clinton ...

Even he admitted that gun control hurt Al Gore. He also blamed the NRA.

New Gun Control Politics: A Whimper, Not a Bang
March 12, 2001

"Gun control," lamented Steve Cobble, director of Campaign for a Progressive Future, a liberal political action committee, "has become the shorthand for why Democrats don't do well."

Even President Clinton, a staunch advocate of gun control, offered what for gun control advocates was surely a dispiriting post-election assessment of the rifle association's strength. "They probably had more to do than anyone else in the fact we didn't win the House this time, and they hurt Al Gore," he said.emphasis added

***snip***

Accepted wisdom in Washington holds that opponents of gun control are the most motivated single-issue voting bloc in the country. And the 4 million member rifle association remains years ahead of its rivals in the techniques of mobilizing those voters. "Until we're as organized as the N.R.A., we're not going to get anything done," said Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat who is a leading gun control proponent.
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20010312monday.html

Let me mention that Al Gore probably did win the election against Bush the Junior but the Supreme Court didn't agree. However, had Gore got just a few thousand more votes in Florida, he would have been the uncontested winner and we wouldn't have went through the recount fiasco.

There are only 4 million members in the NRA, but there are 80 million guns owners across the nation. While it is true that the NRA is very effective, let me assure you that many gun owners are one issue voters and the NRA and its propaganda have only a little to do with their vote. They show up at the polls to vote against any politician who supports draconian gun control. Some gun owners love their hobby and have thousands of dollars invested in their firearms. Let a candidate make a statement about registering firearms or another assault weapons ban or a foolish scheme like requiring firearms to micro stamp ammo and in many areas of this nation, he faces a hard uphill battle. It doesn't take the NRA to point out the candidate's position. All it takes is one campaign commercial that can be viewed as threatening the rights of gun owners.

I imagine that it's great fun to live in Canada and give Americans advice on how to control firearms. Unfortunately if the Democratic Party follows your suggestions, the political reality is that many close elections will be lost.

If the Canadian gun registry is such a great success why is there such a good possibility that it will be revoked this fall? Let me guess ... you will blame the NRA. Those 4 million members in the U.S. caused the Conservatives in Canada to soundly defeat the Liberals over the issue of the gun registration system.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[spin]

93. Thanks for the insult when you called me "thick" ...

I may be "thick" but I fear I understand American politics far more than you do.

[iverglas]

100. thanks for not telling the truth about what I said

But hey, as long as you get it deleted, you can say anything you want, eh?

[spin]

105. Just in passing, I had nothing to do with the deletion. (n/t)

[iverglas]

107. thank you; apologies for the assumption

Actually if I'd been paying attention I would not have thought that.

Nonetheless, I did not say what you said I said.

[iverglas]

101. so let's try the truthiness again

You say:

Even President Clinton, a staunch advocate of gun control, offered what for gun control advocates was surely a dispiriting post-election assessment of the rifle association's strength. "They probably had more to do than anyone else in the fact we didn't win the House this time, and they hurt Al Gore," he said.

Now, parse that, eh?

What is "they"?

Gun control? Do you think so?

How about: it's a pronoun referring to the collective noun that immediately precedes it: the rifle association.

And yet you say:

Strange that you mentioned Bill Clinton ...
Even he admitted that gun control hurt Al Gore. He also blamed the NRA.

Since you decided to get my post deleted rather than meet the challenge, I'll just have to issue it again.

Find ONE instance in which Bill Clinton blamed GUN CONTROL for anything.

Here are some instances in which he did NOT blame gun control for anything ... shall I repost these daily?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=443127&mesg_id=444464

"Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners. ... Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong."

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946. ... The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen."

"After the election I had to face the fact that ... supporters of responsible gun legislation ... simply could not protect their friends in Congress from the NRA. The gun lobby outspent, outorganized,
outfought, and outdemagogued them."

"I had grown up in the hunting culture in which its influence was greatest and had seen the devastating impact the NRA had had on the '94 congressional elections."

- Excerpts from Bill Clinton's book, "My Life".

Not "gun control". The gun lobby. And the NRA in particular.

Outdemagogued them. Bill's no fool, really.


And just for your future reference: when I say I can't believe something, I MEAN I CAN'T BELIEVE SOMETHING.

But maybe if I say "I can't believe the earth is flat", you will accuse me of saying the earth is flat ... and find some way to get it deleted.

[spin]

109. First let me explain ...

I NEVER alert on a post and I really don't mind what anyone says. Nothing you said in that post struck me as offensive. While I have no idea why your post was deleted, I also do NOT criticize the decisions of the Mods.

Now on to your post ...

The reality is that our party has started to realize that the gun control issue has caused us to lose close races. Many Democrats do love to blame the NRA for election losses and there is no doubt that they are very effective at lobbying.

The NRA has 4 million members and while that sounds like a lot, there are 80 million gun owners in the United States. When you consider that a one year membership in the NRA costs only $35 you would expect that far more gun owners would be members. The cost of a membership is only the cost of a couple of boxes of ammo.

So why doesn't the NRA have more members? It could be because once you join your mailbox is filled with fund raising literature from the NRA-ILA. Many gun owners that I know got so fed up with this that they canceled their membership. I just throw into file 13 unopened. (Actually now I throw it into a trash can with other literature trying to sell me life or car insurance and my daughter rips it all up and turns the shreds into paper logs for our fireplace.)

Gun owners do not need the NRA to beat a drum to get them to the polls to vote against politicians who favor another assault ban, gun registration or any other "feel good" gun control scheme that targets honest owners rather then criminals. Many gun owners have thousands of dollars invested in their firearms and enjoy shooting as a hobby. Other gun owners have concealed carry permits which they value highly. A large number of hunters have discovered how accurate and versatile weapons that could be labeled "assault weapons" are.

While in some larger urban areas of the United states, such as San Fransisco, Chicago, or New York City a politician can win elections and support strong new gun control measures, this is not true in many other areas.

Many prominent Democrats in our nation support RKBA. I'll just mention one, Bill Richardson the former governor of New Mexico.

William Blaine "Bill" Richardson III (born November 15, 1947) is an American politician, who served as the 30th Governor of New Mexico from 2003 to 2011. Before being elected governor, Richardson served in the Clinton administration as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and Energy Secretary. Richardson has also served as a U.S. Congressman, chairman of the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and chairman of the Democratic Governors Association. On December 3, 2008, then-President-elect Barack Obama designated Richardson for appointment to the cabinet-level position of Commerce Secretary.<1> On January 4, 2009, Richardson announced his decision to withdraw his nomination because of an investigation into improper business dealings in New Mexico.<2><3><4> In August 2009, federal prosecutors dropped the pending investigation against the governor, and there has been speculation in the media about Richardson's career, as his second and final term as New Mexico governor has concluded.<5>

***snip***

In 2003, Richardson backed and signed legislation creating a permit system for New Mexicans to carry concealed handguns. He applied for and received a concealed weapons permit, though by his own admission he seldom carries a gun.<29> emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson

I know and talk to a lot of gun owners and they often agree with the position the Democratic Party has on many issues. Unfortunately a high percentage refuse to even consider voting for a candidate for Congress that they fear may threaten their hobby and the money they have invested in it.

Currently the Tea Party is gaining control of the Republican Party. I don't want to see more Republicans elected, let alone Tea Party Republicans. Many Democrats who are running for office realize that alienating a high percentage of the voters who will show up at the polls is a bad idea. In order to regain control of the house, we need to drop the issue of gun control and concentrate on the far more important issues our nation faces.

We need to have to find a way to get companies to create jobs and to restore consumer confidence in order to rebuild our crumbling economy. We can't do that if the Tea Party is running the House or maybe both the House and the Senate. If that happens, we may end up with the incredibly foolish idea of an amendment to balance the budget.

It is possible to propose improvements to current gun laws such as imputing names of those who should not be able to purchase firearms into the NICS background check system on a more timely basis and we need to enforce existing law. Proposing ideas such as gun registration could easy be political suicide.

[SteveM]

71. "Pull the rug out from the NRA!?" Hell, you'll install new wall-to-wall carpet for them.

[jpak]

39. The GOP/NRA is down with Mexican Drug Cartels

they lovs them some gunrunning and murder

douchebags

yup

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. The ATF is down with making bulk gun buyers go on road trips....

...buying one semi-automatic rifle per stop.

We now know at least one overly credulous poster here has bought into this bit of security theater...

[PavePusher]

46. Never mind the footpads....

just watch the damn puppet show, you fucking serfs...

[holdencaufield]

54. What is the Carbon Footprint Impact ...

... of this new requirement?

That's a lot of extra miles on the Ford F-150.

[ileus]

117. sounds like reason to expand it to 50 states.....camel nose meet tent.

[spin]

73. Nope. The management of the ATF is down with Mexican Drug Cartels ...

as you say, "they lovs them some gunrunning and murder."

I would quote your insult but to be fair, many ATF agents on the street do good work. The management is the problem.

But the story on the ATF operation "Fast and Furious" gets bigger day by day. It's beginning to look like the scandal will reach much higher than the ATF.

[rl6214]

99. Fixed it for your

The ATF is down with Mexican Drug Cartels

they lovs them some gunrunning and murder

douchebags

yup