E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA bipartisan group of senators has reached a deal on a bill that would make it a federal crime to buy a gun for someone who isn't legally allowed to own one.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy announced the agreement on the Senate floor Monday evening.
Illegal gun “straw” purchases, made by a buyer on behalf of someone who cannot pass a background check, are often not prosecuted under current law, usually because conducting such a sale yields such a weak penalty.
The new compromise legislation would make the consequences for both straw buyers and sellers far more serious - to the tune of decades in jail.
"Instead of a slap on the wrist or treating this like a paperwork violation, these crimes under our bill would be punishable by up to 25 years in prison," Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said.
In broad strokes, cracking down on gun trafficking has wide support in both parties and isn't intensely controversial, as other potential gun control measures are. A bipartisan group of House members have already introduced a similar trafficking bill in that chamber.
The National Rifle Association appears to be reaching out to minorities in its fights against new gun laws. TheGrio.com's Earl Ofari Hutchinson responds to the ad.
The Senate legislation will include penalties for the straw purchaser as well as for the gun seller. Collins is a cosponsor, as is Republican Sen. Mark Kirk. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Richard Blumenthal, D- Conn., have also signed on.
The Senate Judiciary Committee will take up the trafficking bill on Thursday, when it also plans to consider three other pieces of gun control legislation: an assault weapons ban, a school safety measure and a bill to require background checks for all gun buyers.
With an assault weapons ban all but doomed to fail, the focus is still on the universal background check bill. Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Charles Schumer of New York have been negotiating with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., but those talks have mostly stalled over disagreements about whether to require that private sellers keep records of private gun sales.
“We’re working through all that and Tom will make a decision at the end where he is on the bill,” Manchin said Monday.
Coburn told reporters late Monday that he spoke by phone with President Barack Obama earlier in the day, but would not elaborate on the subject of their discussion.
Democrats have been circulating the potential background check bill to other Republican senators as they continue talking to Coburn. Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake have both been involved, as has Collins.
It's unlikely that they'll reach a deal before Thursday's planned Judiciary Committee markup, Democratic aides said Monday. If there’s no deal, the committee would take up a background check bill that Democrats wrote during the last Congress.
Manchin said he hoped to reach a deal before the committee meeting. “We’re trying. But if not, it’s not the end of the world,” he said.
Negotiations around background checks could then continue until the bill reaches the Senate floor. The National Rifle Association opposes universal background checks; Coburn has an "A" rating from that group.
Asked which Republican senators might emerge as a potential cosponsor if Coburn decides not to, Manchin told NBC News: “I think that anybody that comes from the gun culture, especially those that have had A ratings.”
Senate Democratic aides say the chamber is likely to consider gun legislation on the Senate floor during the first week of April.
This story was originally published on Mon Mar 4, 2013 6:22 PM EST
Leave a Comment:
We The People want a balance between our 2nd Amendment right AND SandyHook Babies's right to life.
This bipartisan deal is a good start. It's bipartisan...a balance between the 2 parties. Don't let it go to waste.
@Pig,
Balance.
Perfect.
I truly hope that We The People can find it.
Enough of the insanity.
Those babies deserve a vote.
If you believe this will do anything to prevent a mass killing you are dumber than a sack of hammers.
@just,
To throw up our hands and say that nothing can be done would be truly dumb.
We The People should be smarter than that.
Something MUST be done.
This is, perhaps, a start.
justablowhard
No reasons. No alternatives. Just criticism and insults. Well done. You represent gun owners admirably.
I just want to hear the excuse the NRA uses for being against background checks for all. They CLAIM to be for keeping menally unfit people from buying guns, but hello???? the only way to do THAT is for a background for all... SO easy to fix at least this loop hole. But the NRA won't be happy until grade schoolers can pack heat cause you know.... something COULD happen...
1.2 MILLION unborn would like a BALANCE in their lives
justablowhard: It s*cks, it will not prevent all wack-jobs, but in the long run it will make it harder to supply gangland killers.
It would not infringe on law abiding citizens rights to own guns.
Yeah, that's right...it won't work because people will still break the law, blah-blah-blah-blah...
So, by that reasoning we ought not to have any laws and descend into full anarchy, right?
This is a good start to the problem. It makes no sense to me that they can't agree on extensive background checks. I had to have fingerprints taken and my background checked for my job. You would think to own a lethal weapon you would need to do at least as much.
Hopefully this will be the start of smart legislation that will help curtail shootings like the one at Sandy Hook. I know it won't stop them but it will make fewer guns readily available to those who shouldn't own them in the first place.
We think justaplumber is dumb.
Sincerely,
A sack of hammers
So, the Government has finally decided to actually enforce the laws we already have.
About time.
Falsifying a form 4473 has ALWAYS been a Federal crime:
"I certify that my answers to Section A are true, correct, and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions,and Definitions on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering “yes” to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as afelony underFederal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to any of the questions11.b. through 11.k. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to question 11.l. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm, unless the person also answers “Yes” to question 12. I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I further understand that the repetitive purchase of firearms for the purpose of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal firearms license is a violation of law."
.
bipartisanship? it's a miracle...make-believe
It is BI-PARTISAN that the American people get the truth on:
"Fast and Furious"
WAITING...WAITing....waiting.
BTW: Enforce the CURRENT Federal laws concerning "guns". Guess that will go nowhere since the DHS and DOJ, et al, will not enforce Federal Immigration Laws.
"We The People want a balance between our 2nd Amendment right AND SandyHook Babies's right to life."
Balance of what and what? The 2 things you mentioned support each other, not counter each other.
Try again.
Puh-lease.......hilarious!
Steve-446003
1.2 MILLION unborn would like a BALANCE in their lives Really?
What would you do with them? Are you going to feed clothe and house them? Are you going to take care of their health, teeth, school? NO, you're not! You are the same party who cries about right to life, but once they are born, you could care less! You strip away, WIC, Food Stamps and even school lunches to pay for tax cuts for the already rich! People like you are such a joke! Stop trying to impose your lame beliefs on people who rely on their own conscience and Science to guide them. This is a discussion about gun control. That should be a no brainer for a right to lifer like you!
GOOD! Now get the bill passed for background checks, so we can know for sure who the "straw purchasers" are!
.
FORWARD! :-)
Well it's about time. Does anyone think even this small step would have happened without 2 months of constant outcry from people who are sick to death of people telling us more guns will prevent bullet holes in people?
"It is BI-PARTISAN that the American people get the truth on:
"Fast and Furious""
You mean that program that Bush started?? We have yet to get the truth about a whole lot of things that happened during the Bush administration.
What about the right to life of this baby?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx8nUWZ63w
How liberals can claim to 'care' and be so heartless is amazing...
How many guns got away under Bush?
Answer ZERO.
How many US Border Patrol Agents were murdered with 'GWB' guns??
Answer ZERO.
.
The 'Blame Bush for everything' game is stale.
Way stale.
.
.
Anyone who opposes this legislation is in favor of criminals getting guns from straw purchasers.
Oppose this legislation and help criminals arm themselves.
All I've ever heard is punish criminals, not law abiding citizens. Well, this sounds like a start. Better than doing nothing. Of course there's nothing that will satisfy the critics who are convinced that Obama is trying to disarm them so he can impose Sharia Law. The lunacy has to stop and common sense start.
Time served for average murderer ~14 years. Just buy a gun, or sell it illegally though and we'll put you in for 25. Why? Becuase people who had legal access to guns (even after this legislation passes) used them to commit an exceedingly rare crime.) They DA's and cops admittedly didn't enforce the last law that covered this same issue. All this will change is when they feel like enforcing it, they can really drop the hammer on someone now. Welcome to the police state.
Dey took r gunz! Rabble, Rabble!
You mean that program that Bush started?? We have yet to get the truth about a whole lot of things that happened during the Bush administration.
Bush didn't start that program. He stopped his while Obama was still Community Organizing. Obama & Holder tried to duplicate it & screwed it up big time. But why worry about FACTS. All hail Titty Baby Obama.
Doubtful it will do anything that is intended....get guns out of criminals hands...on top of that no one will ever know...these criminals just don;t cooperate with laws....
When someone named Steve is capable of carrying a child, someone named Stevie will get a seat at the adult table!
Take you male dominance, testosterone fueled shtick somewhere else, pal!
It's MY body and according to the LAW, I get to make the decisions which are best for me, NO amount of your impotent rage will change a thing, little buddy!
Curious to know how many unwanted children you have adopted who aren't lily white?
Better yet, just how many unwanted kids have you taken into your home, blowhard?
People need to wake up! Universal background checks do nothing, especially since criminals won't be taking them! Why should Law-Abiding citizens have to have a background check? This is all part of Obammy's way of taking guns from us! But then again, everyone knows what the word Militia means, right?
Dammit, this is it! They're coming for our guns! Today a bipartisan group comes to a deal on gun traficking, tomorrow 666 the Mark of the Beast, the comet Wormwood, and the Whore of Babylon singing "Born this Way/Candle in the Wind (with George Michael reprise)" at halftime on national TV!!
NO FREEDOM, NO PEACE! NO FREEDOM, NO PEACE!!
(But other than that, sounds like a decent start actually...)
I know that women of today don't acknowledge it, but someone named "Mr." had some involvement in the lives of EVERY 'precious baby'.
As I stated, and will re-iterate:
How liberals can claim to 'care' and be so heartless is amazing...
Two. A boy, 16 and a girl, 13. Got them when they were very young. Our young man is also a cancer survivor.
.
My daughter has adopted two shaken babies. In her case, both are minorities.
.
And to blazes with the baby inside you, right?
It's a baby, not a 'decision of convenience'.
.
@Steve,
How liberals can claim to 'care' and be so heartless is amazing...
You mean like Conservatives who want to force women to have children, do nothing for the "welfare/anchor babies" that
You know Feisty, I'll even send you some pictures of the kids and grandkids if you'd like.
Just to show you what an intolerant, biased soul you are.
.
.
Universal background check should be considered because in the long run, it can be effective. There are many unregistered guns out there, but it should not stop proper registration and ownership for the future as our population expands. There will be more guns sold as population grow, so it is a matter of time that we need to know who owns what.
"... everyone knows what the word Militia means, right?" wise crack such as those makes me concern about the safety of my kids when they are within the range of these yahoos, who thinks they know the definition of "Militia." If you don't have a rank, and you don't go to the meeting to have your weapons checked then you don't belong in a Militia. Militia is controlled by the local state governor. In another words, Militias are actually regiments... not a bunch of yahoos who goes out on the weekend shooting or dream of being on TV trying to overthrow the local/state/federal establishments.
Perhaps, someone named "Mr" should wrap his little junk up instead of being selfish!
I'm tired of people like YOU spreading their little swimmers in the name of "man-hood" lmao!
Please explain to us, why YOU as a poor excuse for a man, feel like it's a womens responsibilty to practice birth control?"
Smart women KNOW when to kill off the gene pools of @!$%#s like YOU!
Sure YOU did.. *winky wink*
Thank goodness for the anonymity of the internet or you would have nothing to spew about!
For instance, I've adopted 6 kids so YOU are still a slacker, dumbfux!
Nah... I'll take a pass, I've seen enough of the bogus photos in the picture frames from Ikea to last me a lifetime!
But, thanks for asking! ;o)))
@Steve,
Followup on my post 1:32 @ you (dang edit time ran out)...
Point is: How can you be pro-life (babies) and pro-death (guns) at the same time?
@Steve,
So you want to force women to have babies so that you can send them off to fight in senseless wars, is it?
I see. I learned in biology that the male's objective is to spread the DNA far and wide, while the female is supposed to be 'selective'.
It's funny that you seem to place all the blame on the male.
Doesn't it take two to tango?
My, you are feisty, aren't you?
Why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said that.
Perhaps you're re-living some traumatic past experience? Is this why you're so upset?
.
What a pathetic, desperate attempt to run away.
I will send you copies of the adoption papers Feisty.
And pictures of the kids too.
Now, why would you refuse this?
You see, I am walking the walk. In real life.
PS
My wife thinks you're too funny!
.
Why is it that people get so angry at the idea of allowing whatever they want, but seek to actively revoke the rights of others?
@wives fan: the Privacy Act says your mental health records are private to you and your pshrink. So if no information is available how would 100% background check stop any mentally deficient person from obtaining guns?
A fair question; you get a fair answer:
I believe that abortion should be legal, but discouraged. It was never envisioned as a form of 'post-coital birth control'.
As far as guns go, they're used every day to save lives and protect property.
Guns are simply tools.
Inanimate objects.
The media deliberately chooses to ignore this.
.
ththurd -
Universal background checks would be ineffective at best without complete and total registration. Firearms made today will be good for hundreds of years to come if taken care of properly. So, all 300 million currently unregistered firearms are currently subject to the loophole of the lack of registration. In other words, if the government doesn't know where a firearm is when universal background check laws are enacted, how can they ever know whether an unlawful transfer has been made?
Consider the scenario where you have two people. One has a firearm that the other one wants. They both agree to a face to face transfer, and "agree" that the firearm was transferred before any such laws came into affect. How could anyone prove that it didn't happen as they say it did?
By the way, federal registration of firearms (at least...officially) is illegal.
@Steve,
Guns are simply tools.
True enough. They are used everyday to destroy lives. That is what they were designed for.
Question is: What were we Humans designed for? To kill each other, or work with each other?
Stevie, your pity party of ones table is ready! Stuff your papers where they never again see sunlight! lol
Like I said, you keyboard warriors are cheap dime a dozen!
I realize it's painful to have your ass handed to YOU, but suck it up like a man who believes spreading his dysfunctional seeds, are a component in moving this country forward, still LMFAO @U Lttle man!
Ya know, I think this might actually be a good plan. I'm not a fan of a bunch of new laws that punish hunters and other law abiding gun owners - however, this might be a good plan. There already are background checks, but the ''loophole'' was these straw purchases - often done by 'helpful' folks for a $100 in their pocket. This will stop some percentage of these - it'll stop someone, somewhere, from participating in a straw sale - and yet I don't see how this will impact hunters or sportsmen. I kinda like it...
> wives fan I just want to hear the excuse the NRA uses for being against background checks for all.
Hi. Do you really want to know my concerns? I can tell you my personal concerns, if you really truly want to hear them? If that was a rhetoric question, then that's OK - but if you really do 'want to hear', then I'd be pleased to tell you how I feel. :)
Wow, where'd that come from?
See: #1.40
As stated in the story, this has been the law for a long time, now it has bigger teeth. Honestly, why would you want to buy a gun for someone who is a felon or otherwise can't own one? Now, when are they going to prosecute Holder?
How are you supposed to know who isn't supposed to have a gun? Is there a list somewhere?
TRANSLATION:
"I have lost control of myself and refuse to acknowledge facts when presented to me. I will now rant and make ad-hominem attacks while refusing to accept facts, in order to preserve my preconceived notions"
That, and make puerile gender-bias references.
.
A am sorry you feel this way. I am perfectly willing to provide you with factual information to authenticate my claim, but you won't accept it.
Why might that be?
.
.
You're either myopic or stupid.
I don't think you're stupid.
So, how about getting informed:
http://gunssavelives.net/
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/liquor-store-owner-in-kansas-holds-steak-knife-wielding-robber-at-gunpoint-until-police-arrive/
.
History tells us that it's quite a bit of both, actually.
Next summer, we start the centennial anniversary of the beginning of the Great War.
.
Perhaps you should bone up a bit on this?
.
Bullsh!t! They're used every day to kill people. What are the numbers since Newtown? Now how many in Canada, Great Britain, Japan, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Sweden have been killed by gun violence? All of those combined don't equal 10% of those killed in the US. There are no statistics that show how many lives have been saved. That's only a poor assumption spoon fed to you courtesy of the NRA who, btw, doesn't represent this gun owner in any way, shape or form. The NRA doesn't represent you either. You've been duped, just like you are by FOX and Friends. They kiss the ass of the gun manufacturers who are peeing their pants with laughter and lighting cigars with C notes.
THAT'S a breakthrough?
We have a long way to go before Democrats and Republicans achieve even average intelligence.
First of all you idiots that claim to be "we the people" clearly are not!
@Steve,
Wow, where'd that come from?
Came from the Right.
Got vaginal probes and war with Iran?
Steven B :::: Well phrased and a wonderful thing you and your honey have done.
Perhaps your values tell you it's perfectly normal to suck a baby into a sink, the same way you might toss out some spoiled milk in your fridge.
Here, let me help:
Just consider those poor souls killed in Newtown as "very-late-term abortions"
.
Feel better now?
.
You're too kind. It's a bit harder on us now that we're older but it provides us with a joy that comes from helping kids grow up with mores.
Our boy had a Wilms' tumor when he was an infant and endured a nephrectomy. He plays tennis now on the school varsity team.
Here's a place where we've had a lot of fun and support:
http://www.campjohnmarc.org/
so does this mean that all you gun control lovers are in favor of having charges brought against the federal government for illegally selling guns to the drug dealers and cartels in Mexico which also should have a pretty stiff charge for that whole selling and transporting weapons across an international border thing ? And also are you ready to have something done about the murder of somewhere around a million innocent babies a year in this country by abortion? I'll guess your answer probably is no to both issues,and if no is your answer, then that just shows how false your causes truly are .
And yet, for all of your stammering we in the US have more alcohol-related deaths, more automobile-related deaths and injuries and more drownings than the 15,000 gun homicides.
Those are the FACTS.
Steve
What is apparent is that you don't know the difference between a living child and an unborn fetus. That is the problem. Lack of education. The difference is, living children and unborn organisms. It's called Science. You should look into it. Otherwise, what a woman does with her body, is her business. Not yours. It is between her and her doctor. Not you and your politicians. Sandyhook children were mutilated by a gun and very much aware of what was happening to them. An unborn fetus feels nothing. No brain. No pain. It's that simple. Without a formed brain you cannot feel pain. It's impossible. Once again, it's called Science. You should look into it.
I'm a card carrying member of the NRA and I don't have a problem with a deal on a bill that would make it a federal crime to buy a gun for someone who isn't legally allowed to own one.
I am against other parts of the Bill thou like the so called assault weapons ban (there is no such thing as an assault weapon - It is a political term) and utter nonsense
But if you cannot buy a gun legally you should not own a gun
Wow this is going to do something. Well I guess it might do at least a little. The overall affect will be negligible. It gives a bone to all the gun control nuts out there at least. It doesn't hurt anyone, almost a waste of time. Gun control is not an issue. The national debt and economy will always be more of an issue until they can get it under control.
Nothing I enjoy more then watching a needle-dick have a VERY public meltdown!
YOU of all people accuse those who don't agree with your warped sense of humanity of the VERY same thing YOU, yourself are guilty of! LMFAO
Please, carry on and publish your kids adoption papers, little man!
Have YOU ever considered shutting the @!$%# UP prior to making an ass out of yourself?
Keep on digging, you are the BEST laugh I have had in years! ;o)))))
Good start. But how about a law that anyone caught using a gun while committing a crime has an automatic minimum of 20 years in jail with no parole? And , one saying that anyone caught with guns they have no legal right to possess has an automatic minimum of 15 years in jail with no parole?
Steven B, Give it up, These A-holes cannot think for themselves, I know it't tempting to try to reason with these people but it's no use. Thank you for trying but they don't care. One party Government is the only thing they are after and they won't rest until they get their way. Total left wing Dictator ship.
Steven B
oh dude, there is soooooooooooo much blame that Bush deserves, even his own party has disowned him. btw...ever find those WMD? soooo lame....
@Steve,
Ref your post #1.55,
Just consider those poor souls killed in Newtown as "very late term abortions"
You are one very sick person.
No law is enough without Wayne LaPierre serving time.
I think I'm going to start a blog. I'm thinking of calling it "Guns are Stupid".
Or maybe "Guns are a Stupid Assed Idea".
Or how about "The Only Thing Stupider Than Guns Are People Who Love Guns".
In the blog I can talk about all the really stupid nonsense that attends the whole - 2nd amendment/cold dead hands/guns don't kill people, people kill people - debate.
Richard C-458756
Seriously, you repubes are doing a great job of running your party into oblivion...you don't need any outside help for that...just keep on talking...
So? We want to do something about guns. You got a problem with that?
One of the problems is the current laws are not enforced
I'm against registration as that may lead to confiscation by a totalitarian government Left or Right in the future
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the US ensures such a totalitarian government will never happen and if you don't think a civilian uprising can bring down a government army just ask the President of Syria how's it going?
ybeeerm - "
"Bullsh!t! They're used every day to kill people."
Please note the following stories from just the last few days. Guns are used by law abiding citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones every day. You may not read about it because it doesn't support the causes championed by the media outlets you frequent. And please watch your language.
Store Owner Shoots 1 of 2 Armed Robbers in York, PA - The owner of La Familia Store in York, PA was facing an armed couple, a male and a female, brandishing a gun and demanding money. Their plans were foiled when the owner of the store produced his own gun and fired at the two suspects, who then fled. - Published: 03/04/2013
Liquor Store Owner in Kansas Holds Steak Knife Wielding Robber At Gunpoint Until Police Arrive - A man armed with a large steak knife entered a Topeka, KS liquor store, brandished the blade, and demanded money. The suspect quickly learned that he should not have brought a knife to a gunfight when the store owner produced a handgun - Published: 03/04/2013
Bank Robbery Suspect Shot in Face in by Gun Carrying Citizen - A suspect in Kansas City, MO walked into a bank brandished a weapon and demanded cash. The hold up attempt was quickly ended when a gun carrying private citizen produced his own weapon and shot the suspect in the face. - Published: 03/03/2013
Texas Resident Shoots Two Car Burglars Using Shotgun – Both Captured - A Texas resident went outside to investigate some noises outside of his apartment. He found two men tearing his vehicle apart and stealing parts and items from it. The resident, armed with a shotgun, shot both suspects, who were then captured by police. - Published: 03/01/2013
Maryland Resident Shoots Intruder Who Forced Their Way Into Home - A Maryland resident heard loud banging on their apartment door Thursday night. The resident armed themselves with a handgun and went to investigate. When they cracked the door to see what was going on, a man forced his way into the home. The homeowner shot the intruder once in the torso. - Published: 03/01/2013
Got Aspirin
You're comment is stupid
Tell you what we do away with all guns in USA Doesn't look like the criminals, the crazies, Iran. North Korea, Al-Quida, China , etc., etc. did away with theirs
@Feisty, since you accuse Steven B of having a needle-dick, I'm sure he would send you a picture of his manhood along with the adoption papers that he surely has. Steve, you are a good man, no matter what this waste of a woman (maybe it is a trannie, who knows nowadays?) says. "She" is probably eating her ding dongs and whoopie pies while she smokes whatever while typing this dribble. I'm sure she is used to getting penile pictures from men on the webcam site she most likely hosts.
Yeah ReasonableApproach? And my 10 lb Papillon kept a bum out of my house when I was home alone. He left.
She did it without a gun too.
I don't know, tastytots, sounds more like Stevie takes in waifs and strays so HE feels good, not to do anything in particular for the kid in question.
Steve: get over yourself. Real parents care about their kids challenged or not without wanting some kind of medal for it.
wives fan
Hmmmmmm, really?
Let's see.
So, despite having the back ground check done Loughner was still able to buy a gun.
More importantly as the article states,,,
The National Center for State Courts and SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, estimate that the NICS Index should contain more than 2 million disqualifying mental illness records, according to the Brady campaign.
This is compounded by this statistic from the National Institute of Mental Health.
Here’s the problem.
The National Center for State Courts and SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, estimate that the NICS Index should contain more than 2 million disqualifying mental illness records.
But the NIMH states we have about 57.7 million Americans that suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder.
So, do we just ignore the other 55.7 million Americans that suffer from mental illness? Or do we require all those 55.7 million other Americans are included.
And if that’s the case, do all 313 million Americans have to undergo mental health testing to find those 57.7 million mentally ill people? If so, who is going to be responsible for testing this massive amount of people?
What if someone is tested and found to be mentally competent and then goes out and still kills a group of people? Who is responsible? The shooter? The Psychiatrist/psychologist? The gun dealer?
I don’t think many people understand the enormity of the statement, “keeping mentally unfit people from buying guns.
But hello?????
Reasonable Approach
You are correct Some of these people live in a fantasy land the criminals and nut jobs will always find a way
The Human race is violent by nature (an evolutionary advantage) if you don't accept that their are predators and prey you are delusional and prey at best
And yet, for all of your dancing around the subject, you never answered my question. How many people in those other countries lost their lives to gun violence compared to the US? It's a simple question really. One that will prove my point. Using the car, alcohol and drowning comparisons are a joke and you know it.
Guns are used every day across the country and world to protect property and lives in banks and jewelry stores, on armored cars , etc. The potential for their existence and readiness prevents uncountable numbers of home break-ins and robberies every day. Those that oppose the right of the law-abiding to own and maintain guns in their homes should place a sign in their front yards advising that the home is a no gun zone and the owners refuse to have one. If that's how they feel they should put their money where their mouth is.
gary
This is not about banning guns. It is about preventing YOU from buying a gun legally and selling that gun to a criminal.
Maybe you could have a family member read the article to you so you know the subject of the discussion. Do you have any family members who can read?
Usually when you become surrounded by fools you move. Unfortunately, we are talking about national change. Where can you go now that people don't have so much time on their hands to try and control your life? I don't even own guns, I just want to be a free man.
Question: is the government or dealer allowed or required to keep records of the gun purchase so that they can trace guns possessed illegally to the person who bought them? If not, how can they enforce this law effectively?
@Fiesty, You, the avid defender of a childs rights. WOW-OH JOY. Now -- you want me to fill you in on being a HYPOCRIT LIKE YOU ARE: THEN --- READ ON.
Dont remember do you FIESTY sweetie. The comment you made concerning abortion and gun rights NOT THAT LONG AGO with another poster do you ??? You know, the one where you described the human fetus as ---I'LL QUOTE YOU: " NOTHING MORE THAN A BLOG OF CELLS", YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE HON. Yes, you the defender of ALL that is wrong and everything you want to be right! Yeah, so long as it conforms to (your) viewpoint and liberal brainwashing indoctrination --it's-- fine.
YOU HYPOCRIT, calling a human fetus "nothing more than a blog of cells. AND YET, directly above in YOUR POST , YOU HAVE THE ((((( NERVE ))))) TO ATTACK STEVE AND HIS VIEWPOINT "SAYING " HE HAS A WARPED SENSE OF HUMANITY" You're the Drama queen out here saying a fetus is nothing more than a blog of cells, then turn around and say steve is warped?????????????? NO,NO,NO.
Your the one that's WARPED Honey, and it's about time someone on this post told you so. Some defender you are pot calling kettle black. So like you say--- keep on spewing your liberal B.S. NOBODY GIVES A DAMN WHAT YOU SAY, OR CARES.
More liberal stupidity.
This law has been around for decades.
And NOW it's a big deal?
A bipartisan group of senators has reached a deal on a bill that would make it a federal crime to buy a gun for someone who isn't legally allowed to own one.
Well, get the distillery going again so we can run that moonshine! This just means the black market for guns will grow and swell in size. The point: Anyone who wants a gun can and will find a way to get ahold of them. There are millions upon millions of guns out there not being sold in a gun shop. At least this will make some think twice about their actions.
Steven B, you might as well forget trying to have a battle of wits with the Boozy RH - she's beyond hope (too much boozy & drugs in the 60's fried her brain; she got off the heroin , but can't get out of the bottle) and she has low IQ minions following her over the cliff.
FirstRead is an amusing little pond where she envisions herself as the big fish (which leads to other obvious attributes she possesses, but let's not degress). Liberal group-think in FR is pitifully amusing to observe, but also shows what happens when critical thinking skills are not only not applied, but willfully rejected.
no more nonsense - a fetus is NOT a child and is not viable at the point the termination of pregnancy is permitted. Plus, this thread is about gun control - not abortion. Can you stay on topic?
Comrade - your post shows that the person who has and is doing heavy drugs is you. Please seek help as you so clearly need it!
FISTY AIRHEAD:
SO how many baibes have you adopted since you are a liberal???????
NONE- oh okay.
HYPOCRITE. YOU MUST HAVE A DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO ATTITUDE.
Sit at the children's table and let the grow ups talk.
Most law abiding responsible gun owners know that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership are necessary. This is a start, but there must be put in place a ban on military style weapons and the extended clips that allow for the killing of as many babies as possible in as fast as a few minutes.
tonybeeerm,
Answering your question about the number of gun shot deaths in various countries won't prove your point any more than comparing swimming pool deaths in Beverly Hills to those in the Sahara desert will make a winning argument against swimming pools.
The violent crime statistic, if must stoop so low as to resort to statistics, is a much better indicator.
Seeking Sanity- Scientist consider a living organism anything that can reproduce, and gather nutrients. A fetus is a living organism. It just happens to become a lot more than a couple of cells. It has the potential to become a live free-thinking human being. It's bull crap that a fetus is not a child. I guess you can rationalize that if the word infanticide irritates your stomach. You are a liberal and supposedly really educated. Most claim to be. Scientists consider the fetus a living organism by definition. Why don't you?
Wives fan..
Not sure why you bring up the NRA, but since you have here is a response to your inaccurate post:
January 31st, 2013
"CNN's Anderson Cooper quoted LaPierre's 1999 testimony to Froman: "we think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show, no loopholes for anyone." (italics added)
Here is yet another obvious problem:I
"In his testimony Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, LaPierre said: "And when it comes to background checks, let's be honest. Background checks will never be universal because criminals will never submit to them." (italics added)
""I think the National Instant Check System, the way it's working now, is a failure because this administration is not prosecuting the people that they catch," he responded. "Twenty three states are not even putting the mental records of those adjudicated mentally incompetent into the system."
How about we just leave the blame where it belongs, on the criminals, and those that buy the guns for them. We ALL know they do not intend to follow any of the laws, let alone gun laws. They are not buying them from the NRA.
The hypocrisy of liberals. I used to laugh at the conservatives and their hypocrisy. Now I laugh at both and realize they are one in the same but just carry different color flags. How can anyone believe so righteously that only they are correct? Feisty and the Pig almost guarantee nausea amongst those on the fence. It won't be long until things shift once again.
your Congress in action.... big announcement of a breakthrough... that's simply a rewrite of an existing law...
our Government is a joke
@ SEEKING, Just trying to point out stupid, arrogant, ignorant, and hypocrit when i see it. She sums up all of the true characteristics of the 4 foregoing points quite well, thank you. BTW, I was on topic, MY TOPIC ---TOO HER POSTS. Definately-- not your agenda for what my posts should be about.
So do me, WHY HELL-- WHY NOT SAY IT--- ALL OF US A favor, quit being the typical liberal and tell me/us what we should or shouldn't do, what we should or shouldn't have, or what we should or shouldn't say. Most people if given opportunity have the ability to walk across the street without a liberal holding their hand to protect them, all people except for the likes of you libs that is, you want to be led, blinders and all. BRAINWASHED. SALUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Idiots.
FIESTY LIVES IN SUBURB OF CHICAGO
Great Example there on how any law works.
Start with jessie jr.
well the black market will grow that's for sure
Really? Just where will this black market get its guns from? I suppose you think that there is some illegal gun manufacturing operation out there? Facts are facts, strawpurchasing is the primary source of guns for the black market. Persons who can pass background checks go to states with lax gun laws and buy up cheap handguns and take them to places like Chicago and DC to off load them at a hefty profit.
Sure technically strawpurchasing has been illegal already, but given the state of gun laws it has been nearly impossible to prosecute and even in cases where they can the penalty of so lax as to make procecution meaningless.
Will this law make it impossible for criminals to get guns? No of course not. When there are already millions of guns out there already nothing will keep some of them from falling into the hands of criminals. But this type of law will make it harder for criminals to get guns by driving up the price of black market guns. Anything we can do to make life harder for criminals is a good thing in my book.
Also this law does nothing to infringe on the rights of law abiding and responsible citizens to own guns which is another good thing. Sounds like a win-win to me.
I generally agree with the idea of stiff penalties for straw purchase of firearms, but don't think the penalty should be greater than for actual murder.
William Spengler killed his grandmother with a hammer in 1980, spent less than 18 years in prison before being released in 1998. Then in December 2012 he ambushes and kills 2 firemen with an AR-15. The problem wasn't the gun, it was that a person who had been convicted of a gruesome murder with no extenuating circumstances was released back into society to kill again.
I don't know what the hell happened to feisty. This Steve guy has adopted kids, and she takes it as a personal attack, and goes all PMSy on him. WTF was THAT all about.
And, the science tells us that every life is really just a bunch of cells (unless you are a single cell orgnaism, then you are one cell), and thus, a fetus is life, whether you like it or not does NOT refute that fact. The idea that this other woman claims it can't be a life without a brain, is well, just plain stupid. If that was the case, she should have no problem chopping down trees, for they do not have a brain. They go on this attack that IT'S MY BODY, I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT WITH IT, means they want more and more people to have abortions, like its some kind of game.
And she then calls Steve a "pro lifer" as if it's a bad thing to be for life. WTF, these people have gone off the deep end. You really think men only think with their d*cks, and are clueless, then guess what, you have some freaking baby, AND DON'T YOU EVER ASK HIM FOR MONEY, for he has decided to abort himself from that responsibility, and it's his body, so respect him for wanting to make that choice.
Ooooh, one more gun law... :-P
Seriously. Can ANYONE show me one law, ONE STINKING LAW, of ANY KIND, that has EVER stopped a crime?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I didn't think so....
NONE of these additional laws will prevent anything other that inhibiting LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS RIGHTS.
dgeding- already we have seen the lunacy that has been created as soon as they started focusing on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. People have slammed gub shops across the country and there are year-long waits for some types of weaponry. The same black market for guns will undoubtedly amplify in kind as laws are enacted- especially once they pass laws banning weapons, people will seek and find what they are after via alternative means.
dgeding
You really think that people have to buy guns when they can make it and not even have serial numbers on them. There is many that have the ability to make guns and different types of guns they don't need to buy guns to make it. So the black market will flourish and they can make any type any one wants and even in their garages.. You think this will stop them, money to be made making guns so not only the gun ban nuts but the government loses big time.. Just people gearing up their tools and machines to make them.. So all you gun ban nut jobs lose.
dgeding
you figure at least minimum 100000 machinist out there who all can make guns and 100000 people that are mechanical engineers and you have many who have metals knowledge and fabrication knowledge and you think that will stop any of them to make guns. If the US starts taking the rights of the people away these people will make guns and lots of them..
I own many many guns, but I'm fine with some form of qualification. However I do have one question...
How can you deem someone too unstable to own a firearm, and still allow them to reproduce?
Or to vote?
dgeding,
One more thing if they knew that they can make 2000 dollars on a gun sale they will do it. You figure 5 guns in a week that is 10000 dollars a week or 40000 dollars a month.
Roc1960, Fiesty lives in a Republican stronghold to boot! She (it?) must like the trappings of her predominate Republican neighborhood. Fiesty who wrote to Steve," Curious to know how many unwanted children you have adopted who aren't Lily white"? I got it,"why don't you walk the talk and move to a predominately Democrat neighborhood like say 79th & Cottage Grove"? Fiesty also added this awful barb to Steve,ouch!,"Better yet,how many unwanted kids have you taken into your own home"? Well Fiesty once you are settled in to your new digs on the SouthSide you can adopt as many neighborhood kids you can! Think of it, you'd be,"The Red Headed Step Mom"!
Is this news article about abortions, adoptions, one-upmanship posturing, arguing how many grandkids you claim you might have, the inadequate shape of your penis, or, "Bipartisan group reaches deal on gun trafficking"?
Just a suggestion: Stay on topic.
WTF??? So if I wanted to sell one of my AK's (NOT) and I ask the person that is going to buy it if they are A-OK to buy and they say sure...Than how can you hold me as breaking any law???
The government BS is getting WAY out of hand. Clean up your own house before you come stinking up mine. How about lets pass a law that puts the POS's in DC behind bars for corruption of office...and make it a minimum of 100 years!!! Or better yet death!!!
It seems like we can always find "facts" to strengthen our position for or against background checks. Anti - gun folks may not realize ANY act of registration involves the government getting your name on a list. Some of you already saw what these "lists" do - look at the maps published in New York that listed all the gun owners in that area. Once you're on a list, the government can, if they choose, determine you shouldn't own a gun, come to your house and confiscate them. You trust the government? Look back at the Second World War, when the US government rounded up all people of Japanese descent, took their homes, all their possessions, and LOCKED THEM UP IN INTERMENT CAMPS! You might be of German descent. Or Russian. Or Chinese. Or Iranian. Your turn might be just around the corner.
Americans spend too much of their time saying, "oh, it'll never happen to me". And they just don't realize that criminals will ALWAYS get their guns, no matter how many laws are put out there. Mexican cartels will just start selling guns as well as drugs to us. They, as has been said before, don't realize we ALREADY have laws that prohibit "assault weapons" (which, by the way, are rifles that shoot one bullet for each pull of the trigger, and can be switched to fire three consecutive bullets for one pull of the trigger). There are also laws prohibiting someone selling a gun to someone who cannot have one. The size of a clip means nothing - there are professional gun competitions, where the shooters can change a clip within the time it takes to shoot ONE bullet. And they probably haven't heard of a "speed loader" for revolvers - a device that holds six bullets in a circle, allowing speed loading in the blink of an eye. I've watched them many times, and laugh when I think of these politicians, who don't know anything about the firing of any gun, making laws pertaining to guns. They are pulling the wool over your eyes, folks - jerking you around, and you all fall for it, hook, line and sinker. Tell your congressmen (if you can get them to listen) to stop all this foolishness with guns, homosexuals, illegals, and start figuring out ways to get this country financially back on track. Putting Americans back to work, I think, should be an absolute priority, along with cutting the government's ridiculous spending, not all this other nonsense. Didn't I just read today, that our government is giving Egypt millions and millions of our money - THAT WE DON'T HAVE? We borrow from China, then give it to Egypt? Does that really sound like good management to you? Stop insulting each other, and start looking at the government.
Hey Feisty, how are those tough gun laws working in Chicago?
sandy hook 20 kids dead blah blah blah , kids , babies ,guns, blah ,blah, blah, ASSAULT WEAPONS BLAH, BLAH BLAH . where was all the uproar when the A.T.F killed 23 little kids in Waco, Texas.
Pig."those 20 babies"
If it's a woman's right to KILL her unborn baby, then it's our right to protect ourselves against Liberals who try to take our 2nd Amendment right!
Without seeing the actual wording, this is clearly a terrible law. The effect of it is to require federal background checks on all transactions, including private sales! So, all the fight against giving the feds total control over weapons is just given to them if this is passed. Why? Notice that the article makes no mention of this "compromise" bill saying anything about someone "knowingly" buying a gun for someone who they knowingly knows can't pass a background check. The article says the staw man and seller will be liable. That means the seller is responsible for what happens to the guns regardless of whether they knew what the buyer was going to do with it. Meaning, that all gun manufacturers can ultimately be held liable if a gun falls into the wrong hands. Is that the intent of the law? Apparently not, at least from the point of view of the so-called gun rights advocates who are agreeing to this. But, we all know that laws are passed all the time where intent on one side isn't the same as the intent on the other side. Heck, just look at Obamacare. A number of dems have come out and said this is the road to single payer socialized medicine. They know that a lot of the law will drive insurer out of business. In fact, they are counting on it. It wouldn't be surprising for the gun control advocates to intend the same thing, destruction of the 2nd Amendment.
So, don't be fooled by the sales pitch, this is the devil in disguise, and a poor disguise at that.
This compromised agreement on a bill is just great! Who is going to be qualified to own a gun much less hold a "concealed weapons permit"? I need to see a complete list of any rules or regulations that would restrict any citizen from lawfully owning a weapon before I, personally, would or could endorse. Without a clear up-front definition of "mentally unfit" to own or posses an arm, our government can declare that any citizen is unfit to qualify to be armed under the Constitution, per the 2nd. I'm not OK with that. Hey America: Only you can give up your Bill of Rights & Constitution, be wise while you decide your future.
Finally!! Now they are done! This bill is all that's needed. Now they can give out long prison sentences when the subhuman's brother, sister, father, mother, aunt, uncle, cousin, or neighbor drives to another state to buy a gun for them. This is great news! I have been saying this for years. And the rest of us can keep all are guns, magazines and ammo with no further interference. And the gun violence should drop in those liberal snakepits of Chicago and DC. Everybody wins! Yay!
[quote]wives fan
I just want to hear the excuse the NRA uses for being against background checks for all. They CLAIM to be for keeping menally unfit people from buying guns, but hello???? the only way to do THAT is for a background for all... SO easy to fix at least this loop hole. But the NRA won't be happy until grade schoolers can pack heat cause you know.... something COULD happen...[/quote]
Background checks for all go on throughout the country. You are believing the lie that they are not.
What we are against is universal background checks. Universal background checks is not what you think or want it to be. It's gun registration, which leads to gun confiscation.
Once guns are taken away, freedom of speech will follow, then your right to vote. After all that, your right to choose will be taken away.
Its already against the law to sell a gun to someone who cannot legally possess one, I'd bet the farm that its classified as a felony to do so. I wonder what they snuck into the new law that will infringe on our rights? Sounds to me like this wasn't a case about the need for a new law but enforcement of an existing law, and judges (nearly always liberal one at that) who give out a slap on the wrist instead of the deserved maximum in cases such as this.
SeekingSanity
Are you also willing to submit to a background check at Walmart for the purchase of knives (hunting, steak, and butter), baseball bats, chainsaws, guitar strings, rope, box cutters, propane tanks, bleach, etc.? Because all of those become lethal weapons when they are used as such. Don't give me the b.s. about "guns are intended to kill," intent comes from a person's action, not an inanimate object's inaction.
[quote]THERESA-532036
Steve
What is apparent is that you don't know the difference between a living child and an unborn fetus. That is the problem. Lack of education. The difference is, living children and unborn organisms. It's called Science. You should look into it. Otherwise, what a woman does with her body, is her business. Not yours. It is between her and her doctor. Not you and your politicians. Sandyhook children were mutilated by a gun and very much aware of what was happening to them. An unborn fetus feels nothing. No brain. No pain. It's that simple. Without a formed brain you cannot feel pain. It's impossible. Once again, it's called Science. You should look into it.[/quote]
With a comment like that, your brain must not be fully formed. An unbord baby is not an organism, it is a human being. An unborn baby DOES feel pain in the womb.
Oh Feisty, how nice it is to see someone get under your skin so much. Great job, Steven B!
Before I was married, I had plenty of women ask me to wear a condom if I didn't already plan on it; some even had them in their purse. Maybe they were thinking more clearly than I. See there, men and women can be equally responsible PRIOR to creating a child (or blob of cells, as you prefer).
If would be inappropriate for me to say, "I'm tired of little hoes lying on their backs and then blaming the man."
No one is saying that. It should be up to the giver AND the receiver, equally. You're all about equality, right? So take some effing responsibility for that equality!
These blowhards, Dems, Rinos, etc... in the Senate would be better served spending their time in trying to create a budget. They haven't in almost 4 years and we want these clowns meddling with the Second Amendment? Pulease...
Steve B, Ignore Feisty, she is a paid shill for Newsvine.
If she isn't, then why is she so often the first poster on so many articles, Newsvine must send them to her first for comment, before publishing.
How can she make so many nasty personal attacks at other posters, without getting banned?
Our Department of Homeland "Security" has just purchased 2200 light tanks complete with gun turrets for use on American soil. Add this to the 1.5 billion bullets they have recently purchased. Why do they need these items? Short answer: to use against Americans or they expect an invasion from either Canada or Mexico.
Now the Democratic Party seeks to disarm and infringe upon the inalienable rights of law abiding American citizens with unnecessary and unhelpful legislation while standing on the graves of children. No legislation they are proposing would have prevented a single incident of shooting in America.
Someone was telling me about a fringe liberal group that wants everyone to drive with a five point harness and a helmet. Why because automobile accidents are thee number one killer in America.
Put ur helmet on
Johntho,
A steal toed boot would have done the same. Your problem is you're fine with people being killed you've just got an issue with the number. Forget about going after the cause. Let's just stick a bucket on the floor. The leak's not too bad.
I don't think anyone should oppose the stiff penalties for anyone trafficking in guns. As a staunch support of the 2nd Amendment, I think it's a good idea. Any law to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally impaired is good. But banning assault weapons is not the answer.
I wonder how many gun deaths might be reduced if we had a public health system that provided psychiatric care?, I wonder how many deaths could be reduced by legalizing drugs? We did not become a nation of alcoholics after prohibition was lifted, so it follows we will not become a nation of drug addicts either. The murder rate in Chicago is based on drug lord territories much as it was based on the same principal back in the bootlegging 30's. There's ways of reducing the gun related deaths in this country without enacting new draconian laws. How about enforcing in full the laws on the books and increasing the penalties for commision of crimes using a firearm. To my mind a convenience store robbery at gun point is an act of domestic terrorism, our 2nd amendment provides us with a right to own weapons for self prrotection and hunting, to abuse those rights is a treasonable act, at least in my mind it is.
Yea, the agreed on a law already on the books?
Piggy wants the babies to have a say or vote, but only have piggy has decided it was allowed to live in the first place.
Weird how you can have absolutely no belief system except what feels good at the moment.
Slippery slope (thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose) – asserting that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact/event that should not happen, thus the first step should not happen. While this fallacy is a popular one, it is, in its essence, an appeal to probability fallacy. (e.g if person x does y then z would (probably) occur, leading to q, leading to w, leading to e.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Many of the so called militia members are not what our Founding Fathers envisioned. Most of them just hate, while many more just cling to their big screen TV's, Bull Poop values and guns.
Still many of them are uneducated white men who think that carrying an assault rifle will make them bigger men. However, they would be no match against our Nation’s Federal Agents and Military.
Road - while I agree with you in theory, in reality, universal background checks is worth absolutely nothing without hitting some stops farther along that slippery slope.
This bill sounds like common sense not a stroke of genius. We need more common sense laws like limiting capacity rounds to say 5. If you cannot take down a deer or elk with 5 shots, take your gun and throw it into the fire pit, that is where it belongs.
Red - what if you face multiple intruders? When's the last time someone was in a defensive shoot, and said "Man, I wish I hadn't brought all this extra ammo and large capacity magazines."
@ WitchKing. Thank you for your good post.
^this. This is common sense legislation, there should be NOBODY who is reasonable against this legislation. This particular portion should pass the Senate and House with 95% "yes" votes, but unfortunately I doubt the House will even consider it.
Even as a liberal, I am against the "assault weapons ban." Not because I think it's a bad idea (on the contrary, I think it's a GOOD idea), but rather because it's a small-ticket item that doesn't have a lot of support, it expends political capital, assault weapons count for a very small percent of gun violence, and it dilutes and prevents other gun legislation (like the aforementioned "straw" purchasing punishments above) from being enacted and taking effect.
There are bigger fish to fry. Straw purchases, background checks, and firearm registration are far more valuable tools in our gun violence problem. Forget the "assault weapons ban."
It's actually downright sad that this even NEEDS to be said. One would think this is common sense, but in the current gun control debate it's been all black and white, and ANY mention of increasing gun restrictions get shot down by the NRA leadership (not all members, mind you) as an assault on the 2nd amendment (yes, even crackdowns on straw purchases and expanded background checks).
It's actually refreshing to see some folks out there who are "pro-gun" yet still have functioning brain cells. Good stuff WitchKing.
Feisty says:
AND:
AND:
AND:
.
.
.
.
Because we all know that mass murderers, and thugs and gangbangers get other people to buy guns for them instead of stealing them from houses while legal gun owners are at work. Our Justice (?) Department is the only entity getting guns for unlawful users.
Redrover, the 2nd Ammendment has nothing to do with hunting, it's about protection. If you limit magazine size, that only affects law abiding citizens, not law breakers (or do you propose that law enforcement goes door to door to collect all magazines over 5 rounds ?)
Did anybody think maybe this law is being passed to stop Attorney General Holder and President Obama from selling their guns illegally? Sting!
steven, it is simple because personal attack against people that believe something different than you are encouraged (starts at the top PBO).
Ok to play devils advocate here, so it's your body and you get to do what you want with it, no arguement there, shouldn't that also mean you take responsibility for it as well? i.e. not having a baby not being able to afford it and thus your body collects welfare to feed said body that is yours? And with that attitude of a male not being responsible just because we can't have babies, I think it's been well proven the last 30 years of lost fathers and seeing how today's kids are, that they are pretty damn important, where is your's fiesty, chained in the basement somewhere?
So I'm curious with all those great decision making single, feminist women out there with 5 kids by 5 different dad's and on welfare, should I really feel sorry for that person, I'd rather support the mom and dad or mom/mom, dad/dad whatever family unit that needs help to get back on there feet for a few months while they try to find work.
So when does a woman's body become the property of the gov't or the people that support it, I suppose it would be to much to ask to sterilze a man or woman that keeps having kids and has no job, would you be ok with that, same as abortion really. Remeber the money from the gov't is all of our money, it's our taxes, it's not the gov'ts money. So should I get a say on how that kid is raised as well?
I agree with a woman's right to choice, I also agree in the constitution and the rights that our founding fathers wrote up for us in the constitution which also means, it's everyone's right to have babies, even if they are too dumb to know better, part of that constitution is also the right to bear arms, you can't just take any one thing from the constitution and say you like this part or that part and dump the rest. You take it all or none, there is no inbetween. Just like my right of free speech talking to you now, and your right to respond back to me. We don't have to agree, but and probably won't on a lot of issues, but at least I give you that right, unlike people like yourself who try and force their beliefs on others, did I do that here, did I try to force a belief on you NO I didn't, will you come back with someone that will? I've read a lot of your posts, most likely calling me a moron and a right wing nutjob, which I am neither.
This nothing but a "dog and pony show".
"Look people, we're doing something about gun violence, we're chipping away the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns for protection"
But after forty years and $ 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS...... just how is that war on drugs going anyway????
Want to end gun violence, put drug dealers and gang members in front of a firing squad..... and you'll see the crime rate drop faster than a hooker's underwear during Navy Fleet Week.
And if violent movies and video games don't doesn't lead to gun violence..... then why in hell were smoking adds taken off TV? Why can't beer distributors sponsor school score boards?
What's really funny is the liberals screaming about "those poor children getting killed by gun violence...." have no problem with getting an abortion.
And the new 'vine format is still a piece of crap.
@ Steve B, You are a good man and arguing with these brainless liberals about issues that they have no clue about is pointless. Their chain-of-thought follows no logic or reason; their ideas and beliefs are based purely on emotion that deceives and warps their minds into believing things that aren't true and thus throws their entire world perspective out of alignment with what the rest of us know as reality, as the truth. Their ignorance blinds them from this truth; they are so far removed from reality that they are reduced to slinging insults at the rest of us for the good that we do because they know we are much better than they. Keep doing what you do Steve and don't let them discourage you. Theresa532036, FiestyRedHead, BaliBob, and the rest of you, may God have mercy on your souls, I will continue praying for you all. Fiesty, you revealed some very interesting things about yourself in this thread; I now have a much better understanding of what kind of person you are; you will reject everything that is true and good as long as it pleases you in the short term (then again, you wouldn't recognize it if it walked up and punched you in the face). Some of us choose to take the high ground, the path less traveld... "Two roads diverged in the wood and I, I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference." Which road will you take?
Thank you Steve for being patient with Feisty and her attacks. You've shown with a little bit of humor and facts that you were right about your position. She, on the other hand, couldn't even get out a rational point without a tirade of name calling and worthless comments . I could imagine she was pounding on her keyboard so fast she probably broke it.
To me, you and your wife should be commended for adopting two kids and raising them to be productive members of society. Congratulations.
Pigotry---Answer me this moon doggie, how is this going to help when you already do not enforce the laws as they currently stand? You left digit brain monsters are so caught up in the idiocy of government is good you sell your souls for it everyday. There are laws already, we have guidance already, it is called the bill of rights and the only people who think it needs to be changed are people like you who feel they are smarter than the people who wrote it. As far as balance you can take and put balance where the sun is never seen. I am tired of your socialist live in a commune and be happy together ideology.
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL---Ah there is nothing like waking up in the morning to the self loathing you present in your posts. I find it indeed confusing how you take any argument and end up doing the same thing by changing the subject and then attacking the messenger all the while claiming to how you are saving the world yet not really doing anything. Today you attacked someone who has taken action in the area of human development and attacked them. So let me say this and make it clear as to how I feel about that, when you decide to get off your fat A and actually do something to help someone else then you can talk until then stifle it you putz.
Feisty, you know some of us who don't agree with murder (abortion) are still glad your mother decided you should live to have the right to voice your opinion, but be careful Steve has his right too. Remember that little man was you father and your mother didn't stop him.
Feisty - proof of a Hypocrite -
"It's MY body and according to the LAW, I get to make the decisions which are best for me, NO amount of your impotent rage will change a thing, little buddy!"
But if you replace body with Gun, somehow the whole argument changes?
Steven B and Feisty. Thanks for the epic battles. I feel like I have a little slice of each side of a Congress that can't listen right here!
What's sad is I understand the values you two are representing, yet if you both actually want results in the causes you seem to so vehemently support, you both better let someone who can actually work out those results take the wheel. I'm not saying it is me. But I can definitely say it isn't either one of you.
JOB1.."no match against our Fed. Agents & Military"
Nutless puss, you want to suppress our 2nd Amendment right? Why don't YOU go to your neighbor's home and try to take their guns? Because you are a sissy, coward, & savage like our savage President....
Lee this come and take my guns, will make murders of a lot of responsible gun owners. If the government wants your guns and they want me to take them all I need is a couple of Apache's or Longbow's and A1 Abram's! I guarantee, I wont be prying them from anybodies dead fists, you'll be to busy cleaning the crap out of your pop gun pants. That is how the Government will take you guns if they want them. Now if you want to die for them go ahead, but it won't be pretty, this isn't the 1700's.
Bubba...
No balls! So you want an Apache? A1 Abram's? Why not just be a man (not a savage) and go get the guns yourself? Scared of those uneducated white men? No balls! Savage!!!!
This is addressed to Feisty Redhead.
Regarding your comment to Steve, as follows:
First, that was both inappropriate and uncalled for. You basically accused him of lying about adopting childen with no proof he was lying. Then, when he offered proof you not only refused to examine the evidence but became totally offensive. Since when is throwing out insults "handing someone their ass" in a debate??? You should be ashamed of yourself, you have become a caricature and the very thing conservatives accuse liberals of being: insulting, condescending and BLIND! Not to mention your numerous violations of the Newsvine Code of Honor - and I feel I have no choice but to report every one of your retorts to Steve as a violation. Think about it next time, okay?
bubba
You agree with the Supreme Court when they uphold your right to bear arms.
You disagree with the Supreme Court when they uphold abortion rights.
Both are Constitutional rights. You believe in the Constitution when it supports your beliefs and not when it says you are wrong.
You say that taking your guns (which is not even suggested in this article) will make murders of a lot of responsible gun owners. What is responsible about being a murderer?
You have a selfish point of view, bubba.
Unfortunately to get the full effect of my reply you would have to see me rolling my eyes when I read your post. Let's get one thing straight it is perfectly legal to buy parts and and assemble them into a fully functional firearm without a serial number. You will be able to use said weapon for your own personal use without registering it. However, if you manufacture firearms for sale you are required to have a class 10 FFL. The reason no one tries to make guns illegally is because unlike strawpurchasing manufacturing guns and selling them without an FFL carries real prison time.
Are you aware of the level of overhead that would be required to manufacture a firearm that someone would be willing to pay money for? No one is going to pay thousands for a zip gun. It doesn't matter if you are making one or a hundred you need the same equipment and facilities. If the black market has to rely on illegally made guns to meet the demand, then firearms will be priced outside the reach of your common criminal.
Feisty for god d@mned sure shouldn't own a gun. I hope she's on someone's mental database somewhere! I don't even know the crazy (wo)man and even I'M embarrassed for her.
And by "savage" he means ... well we all know what he means. Just in case some of you are having trouble following along.
It appears that the Feisty one has decided to retreat.
Poor dear, she got quite a drubbing....
.
This is a good start. Now how about the Senate confirming the director of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms so that we can fully enforce the laws. That is what the gun lobby wants isn't it, "enforce the laws we already have on the books." Will the NRA tell McConnell to drop the filibuster for the new ATF director and allow that agency to be fully staffed?
Well, that would be "violatin' R 2nd Amenment Ryts" wouldn't it?
The gun nuts crowd will do anything, say anything to keep as many weapons being sold as possible.
One more death won't matter, to them.
Or to you, as long as the "bad, bad gun" wasn't the tool involved.
Otherwise, you'd be up in arms about the drownings, traffic deaths and alcohol-related deaths; all of which exceed firearms homicide.
.
Still get in your 4 wheeled killing machine everyday Dirp?
Good start? How is this going to prevent a criminal from obtaining a gun illegally? Are you democrats all so dumb? Republicans gave you a bone that is irrelevant and you took it! Ahahaha...
Steven B....mark p.....you guys know how stupid you sound....right?
Thanks for bringing up perhaps the most flawed of all arguments from the gun lobby, mark.
Due to decades of regulating automobile safety, deaths per million miles traveled are less than 1/10th what they once were.
I appreciate your making a common sense analogy in favor of reasonable gun regulations, something supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/
updated 6/25/2005 1:09:32 PM ET
Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U.S. government study suggested Thursday.
Steve
I guess when you don't want to discuss any gun responsibilities you just change the subject to "other ways people can die" ....... as if that contributes to the conversation.
Alcohol isn't produced for the purpose of killing. Autos are not produced for the purpose of killing. Hell, even cigarettes are not produced for the purpose of killing, yet you idiots love to compare them with guns. If you want to keep comparing them, then lets regulate guns like we do cars. You must complete a training course (like drivers training) take a 300 question test (like in drivers training) get a license, register each and every weapon (just like you have to with cars) have insurance on each and every weapon, again just like cars. Every 4 years you must renew your license, and each year update your weapons registration.
Do you nuts still want to compare guns to cars??? I don't think so.
And this has what to do with regulating the sale of guns to criminals? There is no such thing as the perfect fix for anything, but if you never try, nothing will ever change. Do you advocate giving up on controlling pedophiles, murderers, drunk drivers, etc.? Why not just throw all the laws out, since it is obvious that some people will never obey the law? That is the dumbest argument on the planet.
We should definitely do something to provide more and better rehab for addicts, but failing that, should we just give up all attempts to help cure addiction? Should we just shoot all addicts on sight? There are certainly enough guns to accomplish that solution. Of course, those families who love someone with an addiction problem (which is pretty much every family in the country) might take exception to this solution.
.
I am responsible with my guns. Enforce the laws we already have, like the "news of a new law" bullsh!t you're reading today in NBC.
Stop trying to bother me with your bans and restrictions.
The trouble with gun banners is they're easily exposed to the harsh light to TRUTH when confronted with things that do more damage than firearms.
That goes double for the imbeciles who fail to acknowledge the good things that firearms can help to do.
"Stop trying to bother me with your bans and restrictions"
No, I'm sorry Stevie, we shan't.
See, with those other things "that do more damage than firearms," we take a rational look at what we need to do to reduce the risk. And laws are written, and the risk is reduced.
We are going to do that with guns too. I can't think of anything that offends me more than a mental midget like you who gets awfully excited about cell division being interrupted by contraceptives or abortion, but you just don't give a damn about those little children that were slaughtered.
By a GUN!
Steve
Anyone who buys a gun legally and sells it to a criminal is not acting responsibly. Get it?
This is not about a ban. Get it?
You're ignorant of the facts:
Straight from the Mouth of a U.S. Government Attorney
The U.S. government argues in federal court (U.S. v. Emerson information page) that there is absolutely no right of an individual to own firearms!
Well, here's a fact for you to digest:
"You're not going to get criminals to stop using guns".
And, you're not going to get MY guns either.
How does that make you feel?
.
He won't get it. You may as well tell a brick. You can't fix stupid, you can only hope to contain it.
"And, you're not going to get MY guns either."
So typical from an NRA cry baby! "WAAAAAAH don't take my pretty toy! It makes me feel important, and I have no other way to FEEL important, I'll hold my breath til I turn PURPLE!"
I am so tired of this crap from NRA nuts. I can't remember a time in the last 15 years when these morons haven't been screaming bloody hell over some politician or other coming personally to take their pretty toys!
No one is talking about that idiot. Do try to keep up with the conversation.
God, you guys are perverse. And stupid.
Straw Purchases been illegal for years, enforce the law, Fine.
Background Checks Fine.
Without registration as some wish to slide in as part of Background Check ( Wives Fan that's the part the NRA is really against)
But fix the system in place before you add even more checks
Mental Illness even if diagnosed and receiving treatment does not show on Background Check.
Call in a check:
Put on Hold for over an hour
Receive A message that All Systems Down.
Told to await a call back, (up to three days, then if the store is Not called back the Gun May Be Sold anyhow)
Inaccurate Denials.
Etc Etc Etc
As evidenced by your deliberate refusal to acknowledge facts:
Straight from the Mouth of a U.S. Government Attorney
The U.S. government argues in federal court (U.S. v. Emerson information page) that there is absolutely no right of an individual to own firearms!
@airtime
Actually guns are about as regulated as cars except for the insurance. You do have to take a concealed carry class or for hunting, hunter's safety. Granted if you want to open carry you can just buy a gun, but with all those other things you still have your background checks. All the guns are registered. Ever bought a gun before? I hate to say this but making more regulations won't affect gun violence in the slightest. Criminals will still use guns or any other weapon in a lawless manner. That is why they are called criminals. Criminals couldn't care less about the law. They understand the consequences, even if it is death, it still doesn't stop them. What can you threaten a criminal worse than death? Torture? Can't do that it is against the Geneva Convention, and against the laws of this country. More laws do not equal safer neighborhoods. Take Chicago for example, it has one of the most stringent gun regulations in the country, but it is number 1 in Homicides. Why is that? Criminals don't obey laws. Simple. Got that?
Steven B
seriously dude...I bet someday, we'll be reading the news about YOU on here...another whack job with a gun...
Yep.
roc
You say that: "Straw Purchases been illegal for years, enforce the law,"
This is about getting an ENFORCEABLE FEDERAL LAW to replace the weaker laws.
It is also about making penalties stiffer so that "law abiding citizens" who buy guns legally and sell them to criminals will be discouraged from doing so and severely punished if they do.
That's because they're all geared up. They've been waiting for this to happen. Their prophecies have told them the Great, Evil Kenyan is coming for their guns so he can strip them of their rights, dignity and property and then make them all live under Sharia Law. It must be hell living life so frightened of everything. Seriously, I don't know how they get anything done.
The news will go something like this crisk196. Today Steven B protected the life of chrisk196 when he ran to his aid brandishing a handgun while the muggers who had been beating crisk196 senseless ran off. End of story.
The difference in the story if the situation was reversed.
crisk196 watched helplessly as Steven B was beaten to death as crisk196 nervously voided his bladder on himself. Moral of the story crisk196 only cares about himself and his selfish agenda.
Always the fantasy from the gun nuts. That they are just the guy needed to take out the bad guy.
Except life isn't fantasy and most gun nuts are the biggest cowards around.
A CONVICTED FELON CARRYING a GUN with SERIAL NUMBERS FILED OFF
PARDONED BY OBAMA RECENTLY
Now how is that for enforcing gun laws in place to Deter Felons from possessing a Gun?
All for it Don!
Enforce the Laws in place!
guess the black market will do really good now
If this law passes than it will be YET ANOTHER infringement on the rights of others. They take rights away from one person and give them to another, which is totally against the American ideal, which is ignorant and stupid.
There are plenty of people out there with low level crimes that have redeemed themselves and aren't allowed to protect themselves because of a general ban that serves no benefit to anyone.
NONE OF THE MAJOR ATTACKS RECENTLY WERE COMMITTED BY PEOPLE WHO GOT OTHERS TO BUY THEIR GUNS FOR THEM. As a matter of fact, there isn't a case against this at all.
You want this law passed...well in order to maintain legitimacy than you need to get rid of obsolete protectionist laws that disallow low level offenders from owning firearms. Non violent offenders don't deserve to lose rights because of gangster douches and crazy idiots.
Don't voluntarily give in to the police state!
Seeing the title I thought at first that they had reached an agreement about the money. Silly me.
Airthief.
You can purchase a car without a license.No background check required. You can have a hundred DUIs and it isn't a factor. You can possess it on your property without registration or insurance. If you have the cash, it's yours. Maybe if you are buying it on credit, they may do a credit check, but if your credit is good, whether or not you have a license or are a criminal, it makes no difference. But if you want to legally take it out on the street, that's another story.
Buying a gun is not so easy. And if you want to take it out on the street it gets more complicated. If you are a felon or otherwise restricted person, you may not legally own a gun. Although there are a couple exceptions involving open carry, most state have pretty significant licensing requirements to carry your gun outside your home. Besides background checks, every one I know requires the permit holder to be fingerprinted. Many also require specific training.
But criminals aren't phased by laws against what they do. Unfortunately, only the law abiding are impacted by most gun laws. The more restrictive you make these laws, the more difficult you make it on law abiding citizens. Every time we do this, we just up the advantage of the criminal.
You can not make legal straw purchases. It is a federal crime to make a straw purchase. You can't go to another state and legally purchase guns there. You must be a resident of the state where you make the purchase. You can arrange for a transfer between FFL dealers, but ultimately you make the purchase through the FFL dealer in your state only.
You can not buy and sell guns for profit unless you are a licensed FFL dealer. You can not legally sell a weapon privately to someone restricted from purchasing a gun. To do so is already a federal crime. There is no such thing as a private gun dealer. This is illegal. They can and do prosecute these cases occasionally, but they are difficult to prove unless you conduct a sting. When you see videos showing private sellers at gun shows bragging about how many guns they sell or telling someone they don't care if he can pass a background check, these guys are committing federal crimes. It would be easy to convict these guys if they made an effort. I have no problem with going after these guys who are already breaking existing laws.
There is no federal registration of guns, nor should there be. In fact federal registration is prohibited by federal law. The federal government has no business knowing who legally possesses a gun. There are about 100,000 man on woman rapes reported annually in the US. Studies have indicated that about 60% of all rapes don't get reported. You might be surprised to know that about 9% or reported rapes or attempted rapes involve male victims. 99% of all rapists are male. Should we register every man's DNA to combat these crimes, whether law abiding or known criminals? Should we carefully examine and record all properties of his "weapon" to help identify it? Maybe we should tattoo serial numbers on them? Should we give every man a mental evaluation and take his "weapon" away if he can't pass it? Maybe we should just chemically neuter any male who can't pass a psych test? Should your sexual partners be registered to be sure you aren't having some form of illegal sex? Maybe establish a waiting period to prevent you from having sex before you were checked and your partner is registered? And when you get right down to it we probably shouldn't discriminate against men. We should probably register everybody's DNA because it would greatly help to solve all kinds of crimes and help keep innocent people from being wrongly convicted. Makes sense, doesn't it? Maybe we should ban Viagra as it is similar to a high capacity magazine. If any suggestions like these were seriously suggested, even though it might be an effective way to reduce these crimes, everyone would be complaining it is a direct invasion of privacy for law abiding citizens. You might think that, your not a rapist or pedophile, why should you be sexually registered? Well, if you possess the "weapon" you could become a sexual criminal. All this sounds crazy because if you aren't committing any sexual crimes, the federal government has no business with this information. If you are a law abiding citizen, they have no business knowing about your guns either. The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional right, but it doesn't say anything about having a right to have sex.
I am sure that for non-gun owners it is pretty easy to restrict someone else's rights or to not even understand or relate to it. But just because it is a right you choose not to exercise, doesn't make it any less important. I'm not a minority, gay or a women. Their rights have no direct impact on me one way or another. But I will defend their rights nonetheless.
Our individual rights should be important to all of us, even if we aren't personally impacted by a particular one. I find it hard to grasp why so many of the anti-gun crowd are from the left. Our right to defend ourselves against a more powerful foe wishing to do us harm, just seems so fundamental to me. The gun is a great equalizer. The framers of the Constitution recognized that.
I must reserve judgement on this new proposal, which sounds a lot like just reinforcing already existing law. I want to read it first before I give it a thumbs up or down. So called "assault weapons" are no different than many other guns. To ban these is a bad step. If we can justify that, we can easily justify banning most all guns. Bans are never a good way to make laws anyway. Although "universal background checks" sounds simple enough on the surface, it becomes very problematic in practice. The whole point of having licensed firearms dealers is to put a civilian between gun owners and the government. In exchange for providing them a way to conduct a profitable business, they have strict requirements about keep records of all sales and transfers. They provide a means to track weapons used in crimes, but they keep law abiding citizens' information about gun ownership out of the hands of government. There are only two ways to effectively institute universal background checks. One is to institute federal registration. We don't want or need that. The second is to put the same record keeping requirements that dealers have, on individual gun owners. At that point there is no purpose for licensed dealers and therefore the benefits they enjoy of direct wholesale purchasing across state lines and sales for profit should then be given to any individual who can pass the background check. Licensed dealers have special privileges and with that comes special requirements. Pass those requirements up to individual owners and you need to pass on the privileges too. To do otherwise would be discriminating against them. I struggle with those who seem so supportive of something they really don't even remotely understand.
@roc1960 re post #2.27
I found 2 whole sites that make that claim and they were either written by the same person (both sites are written in the same style and do things like capitalize the Presidents middle name like it is supposed to mean something) or a copy and paste job.
You need to find better sources if you are going to post things that you claim are true.
I wouldn't be surprised if they were your own sites and this is just a way to get people to do a search and find them.
If they are your sites, here is something for your next article Barrack HUSSEIN Obama performs 30 abortions personally every week!.
Since you are a fan of spreading untruths and all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/01/obama-pardons_n_2792703.html
I, too, am responsible with my guns. The only time I used firearms to take another life was when the government sent me to a desert and said, "shoot those people with rags on their heads." You really want to prevent gun deaths? Start pushing for a minimum enlistment age of 25. Many young kids might think differently about joining the military before turning 25. I know I was easily influenced when I was 18.
Crime and violence is a problem within an individual and their decision making. Laws won't prevent an individual that is determined to commit crimes from preventing crimes. Laws are used to punish, not to prevent. If that weren't the case, no one would ever commit a crime.
Great post 1NewDay
That document which protects us from tyrants, the Constitution, specifically outlines our right to "keep and bear arms" and that right "shall not be infringed".
Until the opponents of our inalienable rights recognize that fact then no one will ever take them seriously and they are unfit for conversation on this matter.
@Simple Theory
Here is the thing... Keep your musket and blunderbuss. In fact, buy as many of them as you want to. Bazookas, granades, AK-47s and M-16 rifles are completely unnecessary. If you want to continue whining like a little female dog, go for it. But, at least try to stay on topic. No one wants to
shorten the size of your penis... err... cut your penis off by taking away the thngs that make you a full person. We just want to make sure that those guns that are out there available to anyone are not high powered enough to kill a bunch of kids/teachers or a bunch of people looking to see a movie.THAT is the real argument. But, I am sure, you will continue whining because that is what your bufoons like to do.
newdayDAWNING...RETURNED
WOW how asinine that statement is many of those guns nuts as you say are veterans and have been to war. Have you or are you just a blowhard who knows it all??
Wait, so if I own a gun that you don't like, and I have it locked up so nobody can steal it and I have never broken any law with it, you want to take it from me.
But it is OK for you to have a car and break all sort of laws that put people in danger?
This is really funny.... we have spent forty years and $ 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS on the "War on Drugs" and drugs are still on the streets, drug dealers are more violent than ever.... gangs are better armed than most militaries in the world...... and we want to attack gun owners that have been law abiding?????
Back Ground checks? I have no problem since my prior security clearance (which took eight months to do)also required to "pee in the bottle every three months.... for the eight years that I had it. So what else do you want to know, that isn't already on file in some agency or another??
Trained to use the weapons you own? No problem, I trained with my M-16/AR-15 for twenty-four years. And yes I have a concealed permit, and I choose when or where I decide to carry. I "own" an AR-15 and if it becomes illegal to own.... I already have notarized papers saying that I sold it a relative and he died a week later...... must of had it buried in his coffin with him...
The real funny thing is the way liberals are screaming about protecting kids, have no problem getting an abortion.
Have a nice day..... and the "new" vine still is crap.
So here's a question: Would there be a knowledge requirement in the new law? Would the government have to prove that you knew the person you transferred the weapon to was not allowed to possess it? How would anybody be expected to know if someone is not allowed to possess it? Would the government have to prove you intended to transfer it to the person who's not allowed to possess it when the purchase was made? Would the government have to prove the gun was voluntarily transferred to the person who wasn't allowed to possess it? (One would certainly think so.) If so, then all you have to do is report a theft and make it look reasonably good. The devil is in the details, people. This law is not as simple as it sounds, yet people will spend decades in federal prison for violating it?
Even the likes of nbc has conceded the so-called assault weapons ban won't happen. What this means is the anti gun minions will try to chip around the edges of the 2nd amendment getting any crumbs they can.
They'll put a lot of effort into what they call a universal background check which is in reality a national registry for all guns, widely considered a necessary prelude to eventual gun confiscation. This too will fail because too many people see it for what it is..
What's left for the Feinstein's of the world is implementing of a few inconsequential measures such as increasing of penalties for certain gun law violations already on the books.
Finally, regarding those states that rushed to pass draconian and unconstitutional anti gun laws, it remains to be seen what happens to these state legislators at the next election. If history is any judge, they'll be looking for another line of work.
The NRA came out in opposition to ALL of the proposed gun laws and executive orders that followed the Sandy Hood tragedy. ALL OF THEM!
The NRA used to support universal background checks ..... now they are opposed!
The NRA and its members are lackeys and dupes for the gun manufacturers. They will oppose ANY legislation that might possibly result in fewer guns being sold.
The NRA and its members are accomplices in most of the firearm murders committed in the United States.
Aussie
Story on Obama Pardons Right here with MSNBC
Don
I will correct you again. NRA backed the background check Law when enacted and still do. As with many other things many in our government are trying to "Slip" in registration as PART OF A BACKGROUND CHECK.
The Registration part they oppose (New Changes) not the background checks.
A little research is in order Don.
"Registration" allows a gun to be tracked back to the owner so that those "law abiding citizens" who buy guns for criminals can be convicted and sent to jail where they belong. Why do you have a problem with that unless you are a criminal? Are you a criminal, roc?
@Roc1860,
You posted:
Well, that isn't accurate. In 1974 Larry Wayne Thornton of Forsyth, Ga was convicted of possessing an unregistered, altered shotgun without a serial number. He was given 4 years probation at the time.
Now the thing is that if a shotgun is sawed off to a barrel length of less than 18" and/or a total length of less than 28" it becomes a special weapon covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934. This is the same law that covers machine guns. The weapon is not necessarily illegal, provided it is registered under the NFA and the tax is paid.
It is perfectly legal to saw down a shotgun provided that it stays within the length limitations and still retains the serial numbers. I have not been able to find the exact details of Mr. Thorton's case, but the fact that he was given 4 years probation suggests that he likely had no criminal intent in possessing that weapon 40 years ago. For a long time prior to legally manufactured short barrelled shotguns factory produced within the legal limits, many people in fact did trim down a shotgun for a home defense weapon.
The measurement of the barrel length is tricky business. It is measured from within the barrel back to the face of the action. It is easy to get wrong. If it is 18.0 inches, it is legal. If it is 17.999, it is a potential felony unless registered as a special weapon under NFA. Likewise if the barrel is of legal length, but shortening of the stock takes is below the 28" total length limit, it is again a potential felony to possess, if not registered and taxed under NFA. If the gun's serial numbers are altered or made unreadable in the process, even if of legal lengths, it is an illegal weapon.
For all we know, Mr. Thorton could have called police to his home for some attempted break in or assault and police found him in possession of his illegal weapon. (This kind of thing has happened before, more times than you might think.) Again, the fact that he was given probation suggests he may have got caught in a technicality.
Once Mr. Thorton got his felony conviction almost 40 years ago, regardless of whether it was just technically a felony, he was then stigmatized for life and had a number of restrictions placed upon him which include things like never being able to legally possess a gun again, keeping him from conducting any kind of business with a government entity, and depending on the state laws, job restriction and keeping him from being able to vote.
We don't know for sure, but I think it is reasonably safe to assume that Mr. Thorton has had a clean record for the last 40 years and is most likely a senior now. Does he deserve to carry this stigma, attached 40 years ago, with him to his grave?
We do not know the details, but it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Thorton was not robbing a liquor store, and has been in and out of jail all his life, and lives each day addicted to drugs. It doesn't make sense that he would be pardoned under such circumstances. Odds are that Mr. Thorton made a mistake 40 years ago and was still paying for it today. Considering the charges and the sentence, it may very well have been an unintentional mistake. We don't know, but it is even possible that in 1974 in Georgia, there may be some other reasons that Mr. Thorton was charged with a felony while others with a similar offense might have gotten charged with a misdemeanor or had the charges dropped. We don't know, but it is plausible.
Some may view this pardon as somehow being hypocritical on the part of the President. I don't think so. I think the President is indeed for "reasonable" gun laws and "reasonable" enforcement of them. I don't agree with the position he has previously stated about "assault weapons", however, he has somewhat backed down from this. He is not an "anti-gun nut" as some have described him, but clearly is concerned about gun violence. The same could be said of "pro-gun nuts". I think most all Americans are concerned about gun related violence, but we all have different ideas of how best to deal with the issue. I also think that for most of us, we would like to have "reasonable" solutions that don't infringe on a person's rights. But I also think the definition of "reasonable" is widely varied and some have no problem with trampling on other's rights.
Writing "reasonable" gun laws is a slippery slope, if you are willing to recognize the 2nd Amendment as providing a right to keep and bear arms. But if you are comfortable with trashing that right, it is far easier. My problem with many proposing all kinds of restrictions, is that many don't want to recognize that 2nd Amendment right and are far too willing to trash it. I suppose that is easy to do if you don't exercise that right. I just ask that my liberal friends, who are usually pretty big on protecting the rights of others, (even when those rights don't directly impact them), kindly remember that the 2nd Amendment does provide rights to individuals regarding guns. Even though you may choose to not exercise those rights, please consider those who do. And if you can not bring yourself to recognize the 2nd Amendment as a personal right, please keep your thoughts to yourself. Or more bluntly, kindly STFU, because you are debating something else altogether.
So its not a crime to alter a gun ie filing serial numbers?
To posses such a gun.
Wait that's a felony!
Hence convicted Felon!
Oh it was unintentional well OK then
But its OK if Obama says its OK?
Why would one file off serial numbers on a gun?
@Don,
You said:
Although, that could be a purpose, we currently have very well thought out and hotly debated rules which require manufacturers and licensed dealer to maintain sales records. When a crime is committed and a weapon is recovered, those records can be legally obtained to trace the ownership of the weapon. Sometimes this leads to a dead end as can happen when a gun is stolen or it changes hands multiple times thereafter or the serial number has been obliterated. In the recent upstate New York shooting ambush of firefighters, the gun was traced to the women who originally bought it for the ex-con who committed the crimes. She is being prosecuted.
The current system actually does work reasonably well although it may take some time. But there are cases where the gun is untraceable. If it is stolen, no one knows who may have it. If it has no readable serial number, obviously, it can't be traced. Despite what you might believe from watching too many CSIs, this is actually quite easy and I won't suggest how. If someone is going to make a business of knowingly selling guns to criminals, the serial numbers are not a significant hurdle.
The problem with registering guns with the government is that a list of owners can too easily be abused. That is why the system is designed as it is. It is specifically designed to put private citizens and businesses in between the owners and the government. If a crime has been committed and a weapon has been identified, the government then has a right to access this information. There are far too many examples of gun owner lists being exploited for other purposes. The classic example is confiscation, but there are many more.
Are you willing and anxious to have your DNA registered so we can link a crime to you and put you in jail where you belong? If you are not a criminal, you should have no problem with this, right? Try passing that law and see how far it goes.
You will not sell registration because too many intelligent people see it as an invasion of privacy and will never buy into it.
@Roc,
I clearly stated that it was illegal to possess a gun with altered or removed serial numbers. I didn't say it was OK.
In addition, if a gun is converted to a class 3 weapon covered under the NFA, legally, the original serial number is no longer valid. A new identification number, (serial number), will be issued and that must be permanently affixed to the new class 3 weapon. If it was converted and not registered, it obviously didn't have the newly issued serial number, because it was never issued. If it was originally manufactured class 3 weapon, its original serial number would be valid.
As I said, we don't know the finer details of his case. I did not suggest that the man was innocent of the charges against him. I didn't call you names, only attempted to clear up the innacuracy of your post.
Unless you are blinded by some underlying hatred of Obama, have you not noticed that we are on the same side of the gun rights debate?
There is no doubt that the man was indeed a convicted felon. The President chose to give him a pardon. He is not required to give a reason. It is a privilege that the President has and many Presidents before him have issued similar pardons. In fact the most recent other President G W Bush pardoned 3 people convicted of gun related felonies including one convicted in 1978 of possession of a gun with obliterated serial numbers.
Lighten up and don't alienate an ally. What President did or didn't do has little to do with this debate other than maybe indicating he is a bit more reasonable than you think.
Stay on topic and know that I have voted up a number of your intelligent comments on the gun rights issues, but don't try to make it about Obama when the issue is far bigger and more complex than that.
I understand that this is an issue which can evoke some emotional responses. I can overlook our differences of opinion on the President, so let's just agree to disagree on that topic. I'll just add that if you want your comments to have a positive impact on those who see it differently, stay on topic and don't give them an excuse to write you off as some kind of whacko gun nut with political motivations.
If those of us with differing politics can not find common ground that we can agree on, we have no hope. The debate about gun rights no doubt has a lot of politics associated with it, but if we can separate that, maybe we can make some worthwhile headway.
The reason I put "registration" in quotes is because what is proposed is not actual registration .... it is just termed registration by opponents.
Don,
Do you have a link to the text of the bills? I don't believe any has actually been written and hence the debate on the topic.
One concept I have heard requires owners to maintain records just like the FFL licensed dealers. Sounds simple enough, but it isn't really. And if you are going to make owners keep records like FLL dealers than why have dealers? Why have the restrictions placed on individuals that are now reserved for dealers? You might as well then allow "private" dealers. This gets messy in practice. Far and away, most responsible owner who may sell a gun, know who the sold it to and often keep a bill of sale. But it is a different story to require them to do so. What other private transaction has similar requirements? Can the ATF then ask at any time to see your records like with FFL dealers? Is there the possibility of this being abused if any citizen can request a background check on somebody? How do you assure it doesn't get abused? Current background checks get destroyed withing 24 hours. (supposedly). If you link a background check to an individual seller and or buyer in the government records, you are creating a quasi registration.
There are potential problems with this that may not be obvious unless you are intimately knowledgeable about how the current system works.
On the surface, I think the basic concept sounds good until you try to figure out how it works. I posted such a concern when the idea of universal background checks was first thrown out there, and lo and behold, that is exactly where we now learn that the stumbling block exists.
I see lots of potential problems with this. I would have to see the language of the bill before I gave my support to it. This why I struggle with the validity of a poll that asks people if they support something which they really know nothing about. 92% support this but not even 2% remotely understand what they are supporting. But the media and others are selling this like it doesn't matter what is in the details.
But I suppose I'm different from a lot of people and it probably comes from the engineer in me. I am one of the few Americans who actually read and studied the Affordable Health Care Act. It ain't perfect by any means, but I saw nothing in it that infringed on anybody's rights. The SC agreed but said that it did somewhat infringe on states' rights. So they told the states that even though they had to pay through federal taxes to fund the system, they didn't have to accept the deal to expand Medicaid. They said that technically they could refuse, even though doing so would be stupid.
I'll just remind you that there was a lot of crazy polling data about AHCA with the opinions of people who had no clue what it entailed.
As to this bill about "straw purchases", again I'll wait to see how it is written. Sounds a lot like they are just re-affirming already existing law, but maybe making some mandatory charges associated with it. I am not sure that approach is always a good idea. The current law has an intent component to it, which I believe is a good idea because it doesn't necessarily convict otherwise innocent people on a technicality.
I do appreciate your civil reply clarifying what you meant. BTW, are you ready to give up your DNA to government registration? I am guessing not, even though it would make sense from the standpoint of reducing crime or at least making prosecution easier. I do sincerly hope that helps you understand where many of us are at when we talk about gun registration. It isn't exactly the same, but it really isn't so different either.
When you buy a gun, the serial number would be recorded. This is different from actual firearm registration which would require gun owners to present arms they already own to have the serial numbers recorded.
I think you analogy to DNA registration is off the mark.
Don,
This has been done since the Gun Control Actof 1968 (GCA). FFL dealers maintain these records. The 1968 is the basis of most current federal gun law with a few additions subsequently. These built on the NFA of 1934 which is still active, but the GCA is the most extensive.
Within almost no time of the GCA being enacted the ATF conducted numerous abuses of the provisions. It was interpreted that the ATF was attempting to drive FFL dealers out of business.
In 1986 the Firearms Owners Protection Act was passed by Congress to address so of this. Among its provisions were some limitations on how often routine inspections could be conducted. However, there were exceptions permit if any violations were found and follow-up inspections were allowed. Additionally, at the last minute before the bill passed, some amendments were added including one which essentially banned any machine guns after that date. The guns already regulated under NFA, about 175,000, would be the last ones ever allowed. Those weapons have been "grandfathered" but the idea was that these would eventually "dry up" over time. Charlie Rangal pulled a bait and switch, substituting this amendment, now known as the Hughes amendment, for another which was about easing some restrictions on interstate transfers of weapons and ammunition. The bill was passed with the machine gun ban in it and signed by Reagan.
The key components in the bill that in theory provided some improvement of guns rights was the limitations of abusive enforcement by the ATF and this provision which specifically bans government registration.
Despite this, the ATF maintains an enormous amount of records in its Firearms tracing system. Multiple sales are recorded. "Suspect" and crime related gun records are included. Additionally, any records from a FFL dealer who has gone out of business have been added to the system. The ATF has reported receiving "several hundred million" records this way since 1968.
In recent times, a number of FFL dealers have annonymously reported case of ATF agents inspecting and copying all their records. How true this is may be questionable at best. However, it stands to reason that large dealers would be cautious of filing formal complaints jepeordizing their license. It has been suggested that some secret provisions of the Patriot Act allow skirting of the rules regarding these records. Is that possible? Probably. Ever hear of National security letters? They are real but you commit a crime if you acknowledge one.
When the system was designed originally, it was specifically designed to not be a registration in the hands of government. Registration has been a sensitive topic since day one. It has been used in virtually every case of a government banning and confiscating weapons.
Some will argue that a data base of guns and their owners is not registration. Through the history of gun regulations starting in the 1930 it is clear that some form of registration, or let's call it a master list of guns and their owners, has always been the goal. Despite provisions in the legislation to prohibit such registration, government authorities have in fact created such databases but deny that they constitute registration. The ATF databases are not supposed to be accessible to anyone outside the agency and specific information as it relates to crimes can be requested by other authorities. Some suggest that is how they protect us from registration. After 911, the ATF was put under the direct authority of the Justice Department.
Can you understand why many in Congress have tried to keep the ATF under tight control?
Arguably, the one missing piece is gun sales between private individuals. The GCA of 1968 is pretty clear about the restrictions placed on these sales. Virtually every restriction that is imposed on the FFL dealer applies legally to private sales. The only exceptions are the background checks added by the Brady Bill and the record keeping requirements. That is the only thing that stands in the way of a 100% master list of guns and gun owners, or registration.
I am not a government conspiracy nut nor do I buy into the idea of a master plot to circumvent the 2nd Amendment. I also do not buy into the idea that we have a right to own guns for the specific purpose of overthrowing the government. But it should be absolutely clear that a number of politicians as well as US citizens believe that the holy grail is the elimination of all firearms, despite what the Constitution says. I am sure you have read thousands of posts over the last couple months proposing exactly that. If you are left leaning, I am sure you are well aware of many who would gladly circumvent other aspects of the Constitution. I believe that almost exclusively, that comes from the far right. However, the gun thing comes from the far left. I am 100% Progressive and a staunch supporter of individual rights. It is those individual rights that separate us from a majority rules, mob mentality as a system of government. These individual rights are very dangerous thing to be messing with.
Freedom isn't free. We have to expect that some will abuse freedom, but when we do things like make laws to prevent the abuse of freedom, aren't we in fact restricting freedom itself? Trying to prevent abuse through laws is far different than having a justice system to deal with the abuse when it occurs. Turning law abiding citizens into criminals by enacting laws to limit their behavior so that what was legal yesterday, is a crime today, is bad government.
This recent upsurge in demand for more gun laws has been sparked by the tragic incident at Sandy Hook. But we all know that nothing we are talking about, even remotely works to prevent another such occurrence. Gun violence in America is a real problem. But in the big picture, it is very far down on the list. Crimes occur because there are people who don't respect laws or other individuals' freedoms. New laws, will not change this. It is the wrong approach to changing minds, which is really the key to prevention. People become victims of crime and abuse when they can not defend themselves. The framers of the Constitution recognized this. They did not create a new nation by outlawing the abusive practices of the British government. They gained that freedom and created a new nation because they defended themselves.
Registering DNA is in fact on the mark, whether it is done by demanding you provide a sample or using some other means to surreptitiously acquire the information. DNA is farily new technology but I think you might be surprised just how many DNA databases already exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_DNA_database
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/us/19DNA.html
One of the ways they are getting our DNA is through urine samples. Have you noticed that every time you are required to give a sample, you give two vials? One for the drug test, one for your DNA. I think that some of the blood drawn for blood tests also go for DNA testing. That's why there are so many DNA databases and they are so large.
husker
That does not happen .... it would be illegal. But ain't conspiracy theories fun?
I don't think the government is taking DNA that way. But as far as legality, I think a lot depends on what the release that you have to sign, actually says.
I read awhile back that some insurance companies were collecting DNA information in a physical. It makes sense because these days there are some genes that are directly linked to some diseases. They'd like to know what kind of risk you are.
I have little doubt that as the price of a DNA test keeps going down, there will be some applications for commercial databases. We unintentionally leave our DNA all over the place just like we do our fingerprints. Same goes for our images on cameras. It isn't an invasion of your privacy because no one took it from you. You left it in a public place. It's only a matter of time. I have little doubt that DNA has been collected by law enforcement surreptitiously to do some behind the scenes investigation. If the see something that looks promising they can come up with some other reason to petition a judge to make you submit an official sample. Private detectives are using it now too. Everybody who has served in the military for some time now has their DNA on file. Read this story from 1998.
http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=41418
I'm not a government conspiracy nut, but I know full well that some politicians and officials can get a bit "over zealous". It will happen, whether we know it or not.
Every journey starts with a single step. This is the single step needed to get sensible gun control legislation passed. I am pleased at bipartisan support. Too bad we can't get more such cooperation in other things.
If you want sensible gun control legislation, you have to get rid of a bunch of stupid gun control laws on the book now. That would be a good first single step.
This is another irrelevant law aimed at, really, no one!
jimbozo
Put Jim down as one who favors making it as easy as possible for criminals to have guns. That is as stupid as failing to make any attempt to combat heart disease because people die of cancer.
jimbozo- "want gun control legislation? Get rid of gun control legislation"
Makes sense...
You will see bipartisan support after some idiot shoots up a few dozen Congressmen...........THAT will be different!!
No, you see they are armed, or have armed security.
Good enough for them, good enough for me and you.
AirThief... apparently you can't read. When you grow up and learn how to read, we can discuss adult topics.
I hope some of those congress people aren't armed , we could have a shoot-out in congress , then again -----.
get ready black market lots of people coming your way
it really needs to start being called it's true name....Sandy Hoax!...You've been duped!
Here's the only gun control that works..............
Proper stance.
Sight alignment
Sight picture.
Breathe.
Squeeze.
A bipartisan group of senators has reached a deal on a bill that would make it a federal crime to buy a gun for someone who isn't legally allowed to own one.
Wow, you would have thought that this was already in place, this a no brainier.
Yeah, you would think so, but we are talking about the NRA, and I don't think brains and NRA go together in a sentence.
It is already against the law.
http://www.dontlie.org/
It may be technically "illegal" but the law, as it is written, is not enforceable.
This law makes ALL of the parties to the straw buyer sale responsible, not just the ultimate buyer.
It IS the law already.
#1.11
Yes it is already law. More laws that don't get enforced will do nothing. I guess it makes Libs feel all warm and fuzzy inside to have another law on the books.
How is it "not enforceable"? If someone lies on form 4473 how would the FFL know it? The ultimate buyer is not the only one who has broken the law. Buying a firearm from an FFL under false pretenses is against the law.
"NICS"
Google it.
jdmbo
Are you opposed to the legislation? ...... in favor? ....... or did you just want to rant about "Libs"?
wonder how much pork barrel crap is attached to this bill?
I'm in favor of the law that was already in place. We don't need another repeat law. Democrats on Newsvine think that this is such a great law but they don't understand the laws already on the books. This law is just more fluff from the government.
Steve, there are plenty of items on a form 4473 that NICS will not catch. For instance items: #11. a, e, i, j, and k.
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
Yes, people will lie.
It is a federal crime to do so.
Anyone caught must be prosecuted.
.
Agreed Steve. Sadly it does not seem to be very high on either the DOJ or the ATF agenda. You know they only have so much money and need to focus on the big fish (wink, wink). More laws that also will not be enforced will do little.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/31/us-usa-guns-congress-prosecutions-idUSBRE90U00F20130131
Gun Control Laws wont stop a criminal from using a gun!
They are committing a crime when using the gun so do you actually think that it bothers a criminal using a gun to commit a crime that they may be breaking a Gun Control Law Also?
How about Use a Gun to commit a Crime DO SOME TIME PERIOD NO EXCEPTIONS!
dirp,
A little Research Needed there.
@ Alaska Girl,
"Yeah, you would think so, but we are talking about the NRA, and I don't think brains and NRA go together in a sentence."
Liberals and brains were just put together in a sentence to save you. But we know it as an oxymoron.
Next
Lets be honest here. This proposed change in law is an attempt to get everyone to look at the shiny new thing so they will forget the rotten old thing...the broken economy and national debt.
Typical political posturing to convince you they did something of actual worth on Capitol Hill today. Yeah right!
Next
roc
This law, in case you did not notice is about people who sell guns to criminals to "DO SOME TIME PERIOD NO EXCEPTIONS!"
Someone who sells guns to criminals is a criminal. Why would you oppose a law that would punish both?
Don
The Law Has been in place FOR YEARS, I have Nothing Against it OK?
Point is this is NOT a new Law.
Tougher Enforcement AND Penalties FINE WITH ME.
ALSO you missed my last point I was referring more so to say committing Armed Robbery Etc. LETS STIFFEN UP THOSE PENALTIES so they are not back on the streets in a year or so!
Any time a child dies a violent death, the media and the politicians and the idiotic masses want to ram through another law making it more illegal to do something that is already illegal and already carries severe penalties. Still the root of the problem-- the NRA, which "represents" only a fraction of the gun owners in America-- is left alone to dictate gun policites for the rest of the nation.
Oh, and all you gun nuts might want to consider that the president of the NRA was denied admission into the military during the Vietnam War because he has a history of mental illness....
Don,
You are correct the original purchaser and the person the weapon is sold to are both committing a crime. The problem I've got with this re-write is it now makes the FFL dealer a party to the crime. I don't have an issue with this if the FFL knew the weapon was being being purchased by a "straw-man", but what if he doesn't. Is it a crime to sell someone a weapon if you didn't know that it was a "straw purchase"? Now every FFL will have to call in a mind-reader before completing a sale. That's the issue I've got with this. I have absolutely no issue with throwing the scumbag that does the "straw purchase" in jail for a long time, but not necessarily the FFL involved, unless he is truly involved in the whole thing.
So we have a law that we didn't enforce and we now replace it with the same law, with new harsher penalties. Wow I feel much safer. Oh are we going to bother to enforce this one either? Maybe after a few years of not bothering to enforce this one because we don't have enough lawyers on the government payroll or whatever we should up it to life in prison. Just rhetoric until you actually prosecute someone for breaking the law.
Sigh....another law that won't be enforced...just to soothe the egos of Senators to say "see what we did!". And the foul-mouthed Fiesty "hits and runs" one more time.
Oh yeah, that's the ticket! they turn Murderers lose now days. What makes anybody believe they will ENFORCE it?
Obozo has the DOJ enforce only the laws he wants.
What a joke!
justafool
Another thoughtless insult from an obviously biased do-nothing who would rather resort tired, unoriginal middle-school style name-calling (Obozo) than offer any constructive idea.
I didn't know we were turning murderers loose (correct word). If you are talking about the likes of say Casey Anthony then even though in my opinion she was as guilty as sin, she was not convicted of murder, and in this country, we do not hold people in jail once they've been tried and found not guilty. I know, crazy isn't it? (snark).
Please, do provide some credible sources for your allegation that we turn murderers "lose now days".
When Justnuts is probably referring to is his reverent hope that the killer, George Zimmerman, will be let go.
The government turns murders loose everyday through plea bargaining, good behavior releases, and botched trials. If you don't believe this is happening you are very naive...
hockeyguy
Don't you think it would be a good idea if we made it difficult for that released murderer to get a gun through a straw purchaser?
we are going to agree with this as long as obama and holder understands this law is also for them.
Alaska girl::: you need to get your head out of the bucket of sand you're in! Just last week in Wi. a convicted killer felon from Il. was was pulled over for a traffic stop,in the vehicle was contraband and a loaded gun. That officer never expected that from a traffic stop.
That's idiotic Michael. If someone is convicted of murder(1st 2nd 3rd), it would all depend on the severity and what that state imposes on a guilty verdict. I would imagine that the guy in question had served his time. We also have this funny thing that when a person has completed his/her time in prison, we release them. I know! Again, crazy isn't it?
Alaskagirl
Do a little research and find out just how fast someone convicted of a Crime, Yes Shooting someone is back out on the streets!
don
There is a law on the books now to prevent straw purchase, been there for YEARS!
roc
Read the article. The changes are intended to make penalties much stiffer.
Law is the Same
Penalties are Changed!
@ Don, So, the criminal doesn't get the gun from a straw purchaser. So, he walks around the corner and meets up with an illegal alien, you know, 1 of the 11 Million or so granted amnesty and passes to stay here, and get a gun from him/her. Tell me the difference will ya. POINT: Acriminal is Still going to get the guns, straw purchasers or no straw purchasers. You wont stop anything from happening and neither will the government. Lets talk about doing something about all these mentally Ill sacks of rocks walking around out there, instead of this nonsense.
The laws can and should be fully enforced. No real conecction to cabinet appointments. The hard working men and women of the ATF may find it easier to do the job with one less manager to get in the way while the nominee is fully vetted. We the people want our rights protected. Sany Hook killed far less children than Obama drone strikes, so appearently the children are not the real issue to people like Pigotry.
In-Sane
There was no straw sale that contributed to the Sandy Hook slaughter, but straw sales certainly are a major source of guns of all types for criminals. The issue is gun violence by people who should never be allowed to possess a gun ..... this law would help keep those people from having guns. Do you have a problem with that?
I guess drone strikes have something to do with criminals in the United States getting guns from not-yet-indicted "law abiding citizens", but I don't know what that would be.
Sane, we are engaged in a war, how you can forget that I don't know, and when engaged in war there is this thing called "collateral damage". Now I'm not saying that I am happy about it, because any child killed by a gun or other weapon, is indeed a tragedy, but when in war there are tragic results. It cannot be helped. The Drone strikes by and large have served us well in targeting terrorists and even better at serving us with less boots on the ground. Or, do you prefer that we have more of our men and women killed in combat?
The post of ATF Director is vitally important to the task of regulating the manufacture and sale of guns. The Director is the one who goes before Congress, testifies on the activities and requests laws or money to get agents to enforce existing laws. An "acting Director" does not have the same authority as a Director. The Senate can reject a nominee, but the NRA's continued insistence of not even letting someone into the job is pure obstruction intended to prevent the agency from doing its job.
well i don't see that at all when you have a president and attorney general selling guns to the cartels that kill our border patrolmen, i know who gives a @!$%#, how about Benghazi, how about other places that we don't know about yet. it's all apart of tyranny with obama administration, we had this law in place years ago, but again no one cared to in force it. not the prison time but the illegal and felon owning them. that kid did couldn't buy a gun, he stoled those guns killed his mother, stoled her car. maybe we can't buy a car either for the felon, or illegal. you can look at this alot of different ways, it all comes out as another step to take more rights away. stop releasing people i njail for a murder offense. don't let illegals out of jail just because obama said we don't have the money, stop sending the money to help your regime then over the mideast. impeach.
Not well educated, are you Michael?
Newdaydawning
Careful there the same could be said about you?
"Could there the same be said about you?"
Nope, sorry, I write in complete sentences, with proper punctuation and I don't engage in conspiracy theories. But, thanks for asking.
Newday dawn
#2.17 Would make your teacher Proud!
Newday dawn
How about #2.12
That one really would make your teacher proud!
Hmmm What color is that Kettle for those that call.........................?
Micheal,
Impeach the President? Even Senator John McCain would disagree with you on your prejudicial, knee-jerk demand for impeachment.
John McCain Shoots Down Obama Impeachment Question At Town Hall
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) defended President Barack Obama at a Phoenix town hall Wednesday when a constituent asked him why Congress had not impeached the president.
"I do not believe that the President has committed impeachable offenses -- that's high crimes," McCain said in response to a woman named Angelica. While McCain received scattered applause for his answer, Angelica received significantly more cheers from the audience for her question.
"But I would remind you, and I hate to remind you, I really dislike reminding you -- the president just was reelected by a majority of the American people," he added.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/mccain-dismisses-obama-impeachment-question/
------------------------------
But I digress. Back to commenting on the topic of this news article, I have a question:
What would you do to identify criminals that will use firearms to commit felonies?
(The NRA's recent track record on flip-flopping on their supporting background checks one day, then opposing it the next day, proves they will be arbitrarily and publicly against your suggestions, no matter what you propose).
rradiko
Before you make Flip Flip accusations do some research first!
HEY EVERYBODY The NRA SUPPORTS BACKGROUND CHECKS WHEN IMPLEMENTED YEARS AGO and STILL DO!
AS with political Agendas some are trying to make mandatory registration AS PART OF THE BACKGROUND CHECK!
NRA SUPPORTS BACKGROUND CHECKS NOT THE SLIPPED IN REGISTRATION PART.
OKAY NRA HATERS CLEAR ON THAT ONE NOW?
This has bipartisan support because it addresses wrongdoers. It is not some misguided attempt to demonize hardware and deprive law-abiding citizens of their constitutional rights. Reasonable bills like this can always pass easily as long as they are not designed to be a "first step" toward abrogation of the peoples' rights.
Kannin Thank you, common sense.
This has bipartisan support because it addresses wrongdoers. It is not some misguided attempt to demonize hardware and deprive law-abiding citizens of their constitutional rights.
And the fact it already is the law.
Just with harsher penalties.
"THEY'RE GONNA TAKE AWAY MY GUNS. HAVE TO KILL THEM ALL FIRST. IT'S MY INALIENABLE RIGHT THEY WANT TO VIOLATE." - Uttered by a long-distance caller claiming to zealously support the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, on late night conservative talk radio, KFI AM, Los Angeles.
..sadly, this seems to be the mindset of some Tea Party members that hoard lethal weapons and ammo. Not all, but a vocal minority of them.
rradiko
Ever actually listen to your beloved Fienstien?
It is a start. Now, send to the House and hopefully they will pass it. Lets see how long it will take to get to the President.
Same Law has been on the Books For Years already.
Nothing NEW HERE.
roc
You keep saying that, but you haven't yet bothered to read the damn article
The intention is to replace a weak law with a strong law.
Don
Have read the article what your missing is the enforcement. Law wasn't "weak", it wasn't enforced.
This is the equivalent of saying assault and battery is illegal but we don't bother with it since you only get 10 years in jail. Now were upping it to twenty-five years in jail, but who's to say their going to enforce that.
Read the damn article. The penalties were so weak that they often did not bother to prosecute. With stiffer penalties the law will not be worth enforcing.
Try a little reserch. Do you know what the penalty was?
Up to 250,000 dollar fine and ten years in jail. That was what was so weak?
You could make it the death penalty, if you don't prosecute some one it doesn't matter what it is.
Same reasoning- well lets not prosecute anything less than a ten year prison term. It's just a slap on the wrist.
There needs to be severe penalties for KNOWINGLY violating gun laws. There should also be the ability to be lenient when the need arises.
Bipartisanship---that means the Democrats gave into the Republicans.
@60's.
It's been the GOP and their NRA contributors that have kept progress from being made on this issue. So finally the GOP used common sense and relented.
Yet, this HAS BEEN THE LAW for quite some time.
Don't you feel foolish?
.
60's Vet
Really Now?
Steven B
Read the article. The current law is TOO WEAK. The reason it is too weak is because the NRA likes gun laws to be weak.
Don
I dont recall anything in the article about the NRA liking Week straw purchase law?
Don current law:
So a quarter million and ten years in jail was to weak, not worth enforcing? That somehow sounded like a "slap on the wrist or treating this like a paperwork violation". But some how 25 years in jail is now the magic number to get DOJ of it's backside.
roc
The NRA came out in opposition to ALL of the proposed gun laws and executive orders that followed the Sandy Hood tragedy. ALL OF THEM!
The NRA used to support universal background checks ..... now they are opposed!
The NRA and its members are lackeys and dupes for the gun manufacturers. They will oppose ANY legislation that might possibly result in fewer guns being sold.
The NRA and its members are accomplices in most of the firearm murders committed in the United States.
Of course the NRA likes weak straw purchasing laws. That should go without saying, considering over 90% of their funding comes from gun manufacturers. The NRA is nothing but a gun manufacture lobby.
Realistic you are so far from Realism
90% of NRA Funding from manufactures is only in your little NRA HATE WORLD.
Research First.
roc
90% was a bit of an exaggeration, but the majority of NRA funds do come from the gun manufacturers and sellers.
This Is How The Gun Industry Funds The NRA - Business Insider
www.businessinsider.com › gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1
To..roc"""
Well...
National Rifle Association Receives Millions of Dollars From Gun Industry "Corporate Partners" New VPC Report Reveals
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Organized Corporate Solicitation Program Disproves Longstanding NRA Claim That It's Independent of Gun Industry
Washington, DC--The National Rifle Association (NRA) receives millions of dollars directly from domestic and foreign gun manufacturers and other members of the firearms industry through an organized corporate outreach program according to a new report issued today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC).
The report, Blood Money: How the Gun Industry Bankrolls the NRA, reveals that since 2005 contributions from gun industry "corporate partners" to the NRA total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million. Total donations to the NRA from all "corporate partners"--both gun industry and non-gun industry--for the same time period total between $19.8 million and $52.6 million. The vast majority of funds--74 percent--contributed to the NRA from “corporate partners” come from members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products.
http://www.vpc.org/press/1104blood.htm
...and what did the National Rifle Association do today?
They finalized a deal that will have them sponsor the April 13th Sprint Cup race at Texas Motor Speedway. That's right, the NRA 500!!!
NRA...NASCAR...Texas...tell me that's not the formula for only the greatest "redneck" joke EVER!!!
Dumb faking rednecks,,welcome to the GOP. Dam you,people are stupid
^^^Speaking of stupid....
He heard Stupid & answered.
B M is here tonight I see.
Da Noid,
Brewery's Sponsor Baseball/Football Stadiums
So by your logic then there is nothing worse then some Drunken Sports Fan at a Game.
Oh How American, Baseball National Pastime promoting Some Drunken Fan.
Then That Fan Drives Home
OK With You?
Both parties are failing the American people
Something we didn't know.
Well if it wasn't for legal gun owners and dealers ..where would the crims be getting them from in the first place..
Gee, I dunno....where do you suppose all that booze came from during Prohibition?
.
Holder?
"Amunaka
Well if it wasn't for legal gun owners and dealers ..where would the crims be getting them from in the first place.."
Same place that anyone gets anything illegal. For example, illegal drugs cross the border all the time. Illegal immigrants cross the border all the time to work for cash and other human trafficking. You should see the pattern by now.
I would never sell a weapon that has been registered to me to anyone other than a dealer, since I wouldn't want that traced back to me as a street sale, but that is just me. I also only purchase new, so I don't have to worry where it has been or how it was used, for the same reasons. Also, if I were ever to be robbed of my weapons, those would be the first items to report stolen. Just plain old common sense.
Okay ...where am I wrong...
Amunaka,
Are you that stupid, omg. You need to talk to Eric holder and get a job. It is obvious you don't have one now!
To..tired """
Wasn't Fast and Furious an investigation into how the NRA was funneling guns to the Mexican drug lords ..and Holder got a little to close for for them ...you do know who broke the story .. Mike of the Sipsey Street Irregulars ...and their affiliation with the NRA....right
Careful Amunaka
You just may be proving Tired of the BS Point.
The question is where do terrorists get guns? Insurgents? Drug lords? Gangs? Rebels? The list goes on and on. You simply can't get rid of all the guns in the world. It's proven you can't get rid of mortors, rocketlaunchers, IED's, missiles, etc, etc. If you have money and are willing to pay for it you can definitely get it. You've never been to the black market? It is ridiculously easy to get ANYTHING you want.
How Well has this country stopped the Flow of Heroine and Cocaine from entering?
I can even find a Cuban cigar.
Do any of you gun nuts/2nd Amendment misinterpreters ever stop to think that maybe we should be making it harder for criminals to get guns instead of easier? If the anwser is yes, than stop bitchin about tougher gun regulations. It's too damn easy for them to get guns as it is right now...thanks to the NRA.
Looks like you're the one who can't read a simple clause. Seems the SCOTUS as side pretty much with us who believe guns aren't the boogey man. We have been all for making it harder for criminals to get guns. If you were a member of the NRA you would see the proposals they have come up with and would like to see passed. So instead of throwing false accusations try a little research first. Were not upset about this law, we just think it's funny that it already was the law. The problem is until someone ENFORCES it, it is not worth the paper it is written on.
Article: The bill would make it a federal crime to buy a gun for someone who isn't legally allowed to own one.
Oh well. Someone can just buy a gun for themselves or for someone legally allowed to own a gun and sell it to someone else for cash. He and the other person can share the profits.
If the gun was used in a crime. The person that it was registered to can say, it was stolen. Or a criminal will just still the guns, use them to commit a crime and return them to the rightful owners.
Good thinking Bipartisan Group.
Hey, maybe that's why we need to tighten up the laws on background checks...you know, what the NRA DOESN'T want?
Larry-nc,
You are right, this law is nothing but a show, it will be very easy to get around. Anyone who can pass a background check who wants to buy a gun for someone who can't ("a straw man purchase") can just report the gun stolen, then it doesn't come back on them. Even simpler, someone who wants an unregistered gun can just get it from a non-dealer, or steal it, or borrow it. There are zillions of unregistered guns and people are not going to register them because a law is passed, because they know the next step is confiscation. As the saying goes, "Those who cannot remember history, are condemned to repeat it", and only the fools have forgotten Hitler. The Jews haven't; the creed of Jews for the Preservation of Gun Ownership" is "NEVER AGAIN!"
da noid
By Your Posts you have NO IDEA what the NRA wants or Doesn't Want!
DaNoid thanks for the best luagh.
You can "tighten up the laws on background checks" all you want if you are "someone legally allowed to own a gun" then it doesn't matter.
The NRA would like to see the NICS background check system that they championed brought up to speed. Even federal agencies, as well as many states, haven't been turning over records meant to determine who can buy guns.
Will it stop the giving of guns to the Mexican ddrug lords ?
Of course some gun nuts will be against this common sense measure that WILL save lives and put more criminals behind bars. Guns trump human lives in the world of the gun nut. Guns are their obsession,their life and their number 1 priority. Gun nut philosophy: we don't need any stinken gun laws. Shoot them if you got them.
"For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know."
And Anthony has no idea the same law has been on the books for YEARS.
NOTHING NEW
But a Warm Fuzzy Feeling.
This re-write of the law is like wetting yourself when you're wearing black pants. No one notices, but you have a warm feeling.
Is there anything wrong with enforcing the laws already on the books?
Tony this has been the law for a long time. What they say was a slap on the wrist and paper work violation is up to a $250,000 dollar fine and ten years in prison. Now somehow up to twenty five years is going to be the magic number? It could be life or even the death penalty if you don't enforce it what difference does it make?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of putting them in jail. My problem is why weren't they already? That is was a slap on the wrist ...yada yada yada... Please.
This is as bad as Biden saying: We 'don't have the time' to prosecute gun buyers who lie on background checks.
Out of more than 76,000 firearms purchases denied by the federal instant check system, only 62 were referred for prosecution and only 44 were actually prosecuted. Proposing more gun control laws – while failing to enforce the thousands we already have – is not a serious solution to reducing crime. Or in this case changing the penalty for something if you don't bother to prosecute.
This is the equivalent of saying something is illegal. Then not even arresting someone for it. Then
saying well the laws don't work we need new ones or harsher penalties to deter people.
What if that illegal thing was stealing or worse rape? Would a simple "We 'don't have the time'" cut it then? But it is somehow OK when felons, you know the people that commit the crimes, try to buy a gun so they can go to work. Then to say well the law doesn't work we need another or longer sentences.
Leaves me with two simple questions. If you didn't enforce the first set of laws, are you going to
the second set? Who is this second set directed towards, since criminals don't obey laws (kind of the definition of criminal)?
What actually deters people is them seeing the other guy go to jail for it. Murder can be the death penalty but if you never even bother to arrest perpatraitors for it,then i guess its open season.
I agree very severe penalties for ANY and all weapons violations. Life in prison for any felon in possession of a weapon.
Anthonyvet,,,, you and I have disagreed on most everything,,,,,,
""I agree very severe penalties for ANY and all weapons violations. Life in prison for any felon in possession of a weapon.""
Right on the money,,,, I support that totally. Remember, I am that "right wing gun nut" If we could figure out how to get your suggestion to actually work I would stand beside you anytime to support it.
life for gun violation but 10 for murder and life for possession of large amount of Pot....the prisons are already full people...wtf
maybe a firing squad instead.
Bipartisan support? So next time Obama gives a speech on guns, will he praise republicans or blast them again? Hmmmm
No, he won't blast them. VP Biden is the one who is in favor of shot guns. They're a blast.
Really, how difficult can it be to demand that guns are registered? You register your car and boat, when you sell it you transfer ownership and send it to the state to let them know someone else has it now. Just do the same thing with guns, this isn't reinventing the wheel. No jack booted GI men are going to come and take your long hard thing that you fear so much. This whole argument is much ado about nothing!
Oh, Auntie Em, but if they register all the guns the the black helicopters will know exactly where to go to confiscate all the guns when it comes time for them to unleash the full fury of their evil plans to end the Second Amendment!!!
*snark off*
Good point, we should not have to register our cars and boats.
William,
Can you please tell me what paragraph of our constitution gives you the right to own a car or boat? I can for the right to own a weapon.
No where in the constitution does it mention a weapon oh clever one. It says the right to keep and bear arms, which could mean a knife or a crossbow!
As a vet I took an oath,to protect America,if these gun nuts violate Americans and threaten them,we will take these tuds out,,no problem
B M
Empty Threat thats all.
The oath is:
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
I know since I took it. Until such time as you pass an amendment to get rid of the second amendment it is part of that Constitution. The very same Constitution that you are suppose to be protecting. Try and get the basics right.
Would you PLEASE tell me,....and the United States who our ENEMIES are ? I honestly believe that our President does NOT know,....nor does the Congress nor the Justice Department. Nor does the State Department, nor the Defense Department.
LOL this is about the best the prohibitionist can hope for
Gun nuts will be taken care of by us vets who took an oath to protect America
LOL we are shaking
Some of us actually know how to use weapons,and have dealt with miltia losers before,,Waco was fun.
those people in Oklahoma City thought Waco was awesome too.
This tool is calling other people gun nuts while his user name is Bulletman357. Hmmm
another keyboard warrior....wooooo we are so scared...dip
Its just B M
"Gun nuts will be taken care of by us vets who took an oath to protect America".
Semper Fi.
I took my oath to defend the US Constitution against all enemies. That includes the second amendment.
I think you will find that you will also be "taking care of" the majority of your fellow veterans, as most of them oppose you in this issue.
Bm doubt you served in the boy scouts. Waco was not an army or guard event but I like to see how you put yourself there as a "vet" to burn a bunch of kids. You truly are pathetic.
Hey BM, want to try and take my guns. Btw, I'm a vet too.
Finally a common sense measure that will help with the influx of weapons in the hands of criminals. I'm guessing 99% of all Americans would support this measure. A few gun nuts and the NRA will be against this of course.
Every state in the union has had laws like this on their books for years.
Not this "gun nut, NRA member" I support it totally!!!!!
Tony The Phony Vet and his idiotic posts are a drain on society.
I personally am very sick and tired of term"gun nut" it's as offensive and degrading as n***er. As a veteran who swore an oath to defend our constitution and this nation, as well as your right to free speech, I prefer gun owner, or firearms enthusiast. you liberal douchebag. Everyone who owns a gun or uses one is not a "nut" that sounds like profiling to me. pretty convient for some who wants to see things only through their own point of view.
that's the Liberal way... smear, slander, name-calling... lie, misdirect, obfuscate...whatever will achieve their twisted goals.... the NRA is 5 million law-abiding citizens defending the 2nd Amemdment, but to Libtards it's the Nazi Party... something to be feared and reviled as much as resurrection of personal accountability... something they vehemently abhor... the "why can't we have background check?" asked innocently is really a "first we do background checks, then the register, then we confiscate"... always look at their end game... in this case we've seen the end game.... it's places like Dachau, Treblinka, and Auschwitz...
Is that the best you can do?
agree... really whats this bill gonna do? we didnt have these type of people 30 years ago and guns were easy to get!! theres a clue and it didnt take a group of people to come up with it
To..Fed"""
Yet here you be to "smear, slander, name-calling... lie, misdirect, obfuscate..."" on a daily basis ...so you saying if the jews were armed the Holocaust wouldn't have happened ..and do you really believe their going to to come and take your gun away ...gimme a break ...you know that will Never happen ...and if you believe you have to arm yourself to protect yourself from your government then you are an anti government anti American radical ..no different than the 60's anti government radicals who thought the same... same package different bow...
And for this hitler nazi gun grabbing ..thing try again
After their WWI loss germany was disarmed ..laws on gun control came about in 1928...before hitler took power then again in 1938 that was less restrictive than the 1928 law ...mostly created just to bar jews from owning any kind of fire arms ....
Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945
by William L. Pierce
A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that the National Socialist government of Germany under Adolf Hitler did not permit the private ownership of firearms. Totalitarian governments, they have been taught in their high school civics classes, do not trust their citizens and do not dare permit them to keep firearms. Thus, one often hears the statement, "You know, the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was outlaw firearms," or, "The first thing Hitler did in Germany was round up all the guns."
One can understand why many American gun owners want to believe this. They see in the current effort of their own government to take away their right to keep and bear arms a limitation of an essential element of their freedom and a move toward tyranny, and they want to characterize the gun-grabbers in the most negative way they can.
(snip)
Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany in 1928, five years before the National Socialists gained power. Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933.
Five years later his government got around to rewriting the gun law enacted a decade earlier by his predecessors, substantially in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years; and provisions restricting the amount of ammunition or the number of firearms an individual could own were dropped).
Hitler's government may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but the National Socialists had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. Again, the firearms law enacted by Hitler's government enhanced the rights of Germans to keep and bear arms; no new restrictions were added, and many pre-existing restrictions were relaxed or eliminated.
At the end of the Second World War, American GIs in the occupying force were astounded to discover how many German civilians owned private firearms.
http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html
@Amunaka
While factually correct there are realities also. Much like here many of the gun laws were based on interpretation. We have the second amendment but it was illegal to own in Chicago or DC. Try to get a permit to carry in LA, San Francisco, NYC or Boston? Much like here there is the law and the applied use of it. If you were a member of the National Socialist Party you could get your weapons with no problem. Much like if you're the friends with the chief of police where I live but if not it is up to his discretion to issue you a permit or not. Also if you keep going you will see laws that out right prevented Jews from owning guns. Noticed you stopped at 1933 law, keep going till the 1938 when Hitler was in power. The best part:
So who are the trust worthy ones and who are not? That is the crux of it.
Spoken like someone who does not know the subject matter. 'Finally a common sense measure". Thanks for the laugh. IT HAS BEEN THE LAW SINCE 1968.
The NRA has never had a problem with this law, go make up some other false claims.
Biggie -
I think the current law is not that a straw purchase is illegal, but that committing perjury on a federal form is illegal. Perjury occurs regardless of if the true recipient can own the firearm or not. Regardless of the legal status of the true recipient, if the buyer states "Yes" on the 4473 when asked "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) on this form?", when they are buying it at the behest of someone else, they are guilty of making false statements on a federal form. I think this law just adds a new component to that charge, in that if you purchase it for someone that cannot legally own it or pass a background check, you are also guilty of a new charge called "straw purchasing". Though I agree with you, that this is really more of a feel-good law, and the earlier law should suffice, if they would simply just enforce it.
Z
Thank you very much for the clarification. The article did not explain why the current law is insufficient and you cleared that up.
Indeed: Balance. A good start. A positive thing. A bill that only a raving lunatic could oppose.
Or someone who actually knows existing gun laws.
Seems to me if we didn't have Liberal raving lunatics on psychotripic drugs, we woudn't have mass shootings....
This may well be the dumbest, most intellectually dishonest comment I've seen on this site -- and that's saying a lot!
It is a start. What frightens me is the new technology of making a gun from a 3D printer.
3-d printers are very expensive and you still need good gun barrel steel.
If you're rich to buy a 3D printer, you're probably rich enough to own powerful guns if not a lot of regular ones.
Imagine those that sit bare ass on a 3 D printer?
I have held the product from a 3D printer and it isn't nearly as ominous as television shows portray. The printer sprays a thin glue-like substance that results in a model that's fairly easy to handle but it's way too weak to survive anything near the discharge of a gun cartridge. I would be more concerned about the people who are going to try it.
Manufacturing firearms without the proper licensing is illegal. Have any idea how many small machine shops there are in this country. Each one could build a gun. They don't because without the licenses you go to jail till your very old. Same holds true for a 3D printer. Also it is not as easy as just putting a picture of a gun down and one pops out.
Biggie 24.5
You said:
Manufacturing of a firearm(s) for your personal use is perfectly legal.
Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a "firearm" as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.
It becomes illegal if one were to manufacture them with the intent to sell them without the necessary licensing. How difficult is it to make a functional firearm? It does require one to acquire a bit of expertise but it's not all that difficult.
You are correct. Usually when talking manufacturing you are making more than one and thus to sell. When making one for self normally referred to as building. Some places have AR parties where you can finish a 80% lower so that it is you who built it. Also some states I believe have separate laws against. But that is a little out of the scope here.
One man doesn't run this Country... and that's a good thing! So when are more Americans going to start holding all we give power accountable? If we want results then the People have to stand together to hold those that get to decide for us all in check. It's not about Party it's about the People!