Anybody else against liberal Gun Laws?

[samsingh]

the kind of liberal gun laws that allow any moron to own a gun at a second's notice? The type of liberal gun laws that the repugs support?

[MrBenchley]

1. Funny way of putting it....

But yeah, I am for sane gun laws and oppose the dishonest "gun rights" horseshit the GOP peddles...

[DoNotRefill]

2. I'm FOR liberal gun laws.

The government saying "you can't be trusted to exercise your rights" is generically a Repuke thing, not a Democratic thing.

[samsingh]

13. i may trust you with guns

but how can i trust the 70% of the public that believed shrub was doing a good job and that Saddam and 9-11 are linked?

[DoNotRefill]

19. because...

you HAVE to. Freedom requires it. If somebody does something stupid (criminal), OK, fine, prosecute them and take away their rights. DO NOT take away EVERYBODY's rights because of stupid criminal acts by a relative few. If somebody drinks and drives, take away their license, don't take EVERYBODY's license. Pretty simple.

[samsingh]

21. that's exactly what i'm saying

there are tests for driving, etc. There are rules. Many gun proponents argue for no controls or ridiculous controls.

[DoNotRefill]

22. There's no constitutional right to drive...

there IS a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. There also are restrictions for who can and cannot own guns, namely the felon prohibition. There are restrictions on other rights too, but you can still exercise them.

The issue comes in when reasonable restrictions on rights become unreasonable. I think some of the restrictions currently in place on guns are unreasonable. Others I think are reasonable, and have no problem with.

[samsingh]

27. the constitution provides the right to free speech

that appears to be curtailed in the past 2 years - but most of us are against what the repugs are doing in this.

Even in the best of times, you would not allow people to yell 'fire' in crowded theatres if there was not a fire.

i really believe that the second amendment can be interpreted in several ways, and the gun lobby has been very successful in making their interpretation sacrosanct - regardless of the innocent lives that are lost.

[DoNotRefill]

34. First Amendment abridgement goes back much further than 2 years...

some of it justified, some of it not justified. You don't have a free speech right to engage in fraud, because that hurts somebody. that's justified. You do have a right to free speech of a political nature provided that time and place requirements are met, and there's a permit for large gatherings. Banning certain kinds of political speech due to content is NOT justified.

The same is true of the Second Amendment. You can't shoot somebody "just because" since it hurts somebody. You can't carry a concealed weapon without a permit in most states.

The problem lies with the type of restrictions people are pushing for. I have no problem with common sense restrictions, like no felons with guns. I do NOT, however, consider things like mandatory registration to be "common sense" legislation, much less constitutional.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. I see no problem with the waiting period/background checks.

I can't imagine why anyone would need a gun 'in a hurry'.

[RoeBear]

6. How about...

...your ex-spouse has moved out of the house taking all the guns with him. He then says he's going to come and get you. Will a mandatory waiting period help or kill this woman?

Anyone else have examples of why a waiting period is dumb?

[samsingh]

14. would that not be a good time to call the police?

[DoNotRefill]

20. Sure...but...

they're under NO obligation to protect you if a crime has not yet been committed. Once a crime is committed, they arrest the guilty party. That's it.

[samsingh]

28. then maybe the ex-spouse

should not have access to so many weapons if there is a chance of imbalance.

[DoNotRefill]

35. The ex-spouse only needs one gun...

if he wants to shoot her. It doesn't really matter if he has one or fifty guns, does it?

[samsingh]

40. true, but if he wants to shoot her

and she has a gun at home or in her purse, it's not going to help her. Especially if he attacks first.

The argument here is interesting. He has a gun, but we can't guarantee his stability. She needs a gun to defend against the chance that he becomes unstable. Now we have two people with guns, and either could go off for whatever reason. They now have the power to kill many people or defend themselves. The people who get killed before any laws are invoked don't seem to matter.

[MrBenchley]

42. It's that splendid "RKBA logic"

"We must have guns to protect us from the people the gun industry must not be kept from arming....."

[Fescue4u]

46. Which is only superceed by the Anti-gun zelaots"

"Everyone is armed. We must start disarming people. So lets start with the innocent law abiding people first"

[MrBenchley]

48. "superceed"?

I rest my case....

[Fescue4u]

53. You are right.

Im a horrible typist hence I should have no rights under the constitution.

[MrBenchley]

58. Nope...

Just a horrible thinker trying to distort what the Constitution actually says....you and John AssKKKroft.

[DoNotRefill]

94. Or maybe...

she should arm herself, so that he doesn't just come over and beat her to death with a baseball bat.

[samsingh]

98. or maybe he might use her gun to harm her?

have you looked at all the reported gun accidents reported on this site? It seems to be an epidemic going out of control.

There are many ways that she can defend herself that don't involve guns. Self-defense lessons for example.

[DoNotRefill]

106. What do you call a black belt in Judo when confronted by...

an armed attacker?

Dead.

And for the last set of statistics out there, there were fewer than 800 accidental gun deaths in the entire US that year...hardly an epidemic considering the total population.

[samsingh]

107. actually i was referring to defense against a baseball bat

as mentioned in an earlier post.

[DoNotRefill]

116. If attacked....

your odds of being injured are 2.5 times as high if you resist with a weapon other than a gun or with no weapon at all as they are if you resist with a gun. And contrary to all the hype, your odds of being injured if you comply with your attacker are 50% higher than if you resist with a gun.

To sum up: the odds of being hurt in an attack are very good if you resist without a gun, lower if you don't resist, and lowest if you resist with a gun. These figures are from DoJ, not the NRA.

[samsingh]

118. isn't that assuming you are able to access the gun?

many of the actual cases involve unexpected attacks that end in massacres.

[DoNotRefill]

119. The figures for defense with a gun are predecated upon...

the victim actually having a gun at the time. If a gun owner was unarmed at the time, the gun owner would go in the other "non-gun" categories of resisting or not without a gun. If the victim had a gun but complied with the attacker, it would go into the "did not resist" category.

[slackmaster]

16. My favorite reason why waiting periods are dumb

I already own a gun. In fact I own more than two dozen firearms.

What possible purpose would be served by forcing me to wait (10 days in California) to get one more? If I was going to do something stupid in the heat of passion does anyone seriously think I'd go to a gun store and buy a brand new one for whatever evil purpose I had in mind?

:shrug:

[samsingh]

18. so are you saying that people should not be allowed

to own so many firearms because they might do something in the heat of passion? :)

[slackmaster]

25. I am totally baffled by your response

And people who know me never say they think I'm stupid, at least not to my face.

I'm saying there is no point in making someone who already owns one or more guns to wait in order to take delivery of another one.

[samsingh]

29. i don't see calling you stupid in my response at all

i'm baffled by the argument when people say there are already so many guns, or the guns are so powerful, what difference would further restrictions make.

We have to start somewhere.

[RoeBear]

32. "We have to start somewhere."

And that's what gunowners, Democratic and Republican alike, fear.

"We have to start somewhere."
So let's register guns.

"We have to start somewhere."
So let's limit gun purchases to one a month.

"We have to start somewhere."
So let's eliminate semi-automatic rifles.

"We have to start somewhere."
So let's get rid of 'junk' guns.

"We have to start somewhere."
The problem isn't starting somewhere, it's where does it end?

[samsingh]

41. in other words we fear guns being taken away

so let's not start anywhere.

and what about all the innocent people that are killed? who is going to take responsibility for stopping the bloodshed? i would love to see every law in the books applied 100% of the time and see if that reduces the violence.

[Fescue4u]

45. who is going to take responsibility for stopping

Uh..How about the people who commit the crimes?

Thats a place that I would start.

[samsingh]

99. we can lock criminals up after they commit a crime

but what about the damage they cause during the crime? we can't bring people back who have been slaughtered by firearms.

[1a2b3c]

90. Half the murders last year were commited without a gun

How do we stop that bloodshed?

[slackmaster]

60. I didn't say you called me stupid

I'm still scratching my head trying to make sense of your response.

i'm baffled by the argument when people say there are already so many guns, or the guns are so powerful, what difference would further restrictions make.

How about enforcing the restrictions we already have in place before considering additional ones?

[samsingh]

68. i remember a 60 Minutes report a few years ago

where someone was protesting a Bill to restrict specific types of assault rifles (that had been used to massacre some school children). He graphically demonstrated how another type of assualt rifle, that was perfectly legal, could pulverize a target that the banned gun would only damage. His argument: 'why bother making the smaller one illegal'.

my reaction: 'holy shit! Why was the more powerful assault rifle not included in the bill in the first place'

[slackmaster]

72. If power was the determining factor, deer rifles would be banned

A lot of people are under the mistaken assumption that "assault" type weapons are inherently more deadly or more powerful than sporting firearms. That's just not true. The definitions of "assault weapon" are written in two ways: Specific makes and models, and by presence of certain features. The laws have nothing to do with destructive potential, ballistics, etc.

[samsingh]

76. my reaction was based on what i saw

on 60 minutes. The bullet demolished the target. It's scary to think that such firearms can be purchased and used against innocent people at any time.

[slackmaster]

77. Or not

[samsingh]

83. the 'or not's are not the problem'

what do we do about the cases where people are being killed with such weapons? is there a collective responsibility?

[slackmaster]

84. Most of the people doing the killing are known violent criminals

If they were in jail they wouldn't be able to kill innocent people.

[samsingh]

100. just look at the reported gun deaths reported on this site

many of these are accidents or first time offenders that went over the edge.

[slackmaster]

108. That's because they are cherry-picked stories

A large majority of homicides in the US are criminals shooting other criminals.

[samsingh]

113. cherry-picked or not these are real people

who are being killed. Columbine, etc. are all real stories of people who were killed with guns. I use the movie Bowling for Columbine as an example because Moore researched his statements. it showed young children as the victim of guns.

also, criminals killing criminals does not make it okay. These are still gun related deaths.

[Fescue4u]

44. Your imagination is not the limit of my rights.

Why should what you can or not imagination does not limit my rights guaranteed under the constitution.

Btw, I can imagine a reason to need a gun in a hurry.

1) Your current firearm breaks and you don't have a replacement (admitted most pro-gun people have more than one..which is a further argument against waiting periods)

2) You are out of the area and wish to buy/purchase on the same day, rather than drive a long distance back.

3) A certain police officer(s) is aquited of beating a man named "King". As a result people are rioting and the rioting is spreading and getting closer and closer to your home or business.

Waiting period have never been proven to deter crime.
The primary purpose of a waiting period is to complicate the process of buying a gun, in hopes that fewer people will exercise that right.

[samsingh]

59. its all about fear

the reasons cited above are all about fear of this happening and that happening. But how can we reasonably guard against the proliferation of so many guns if people are buying them because they don't want to drive to get their existing gun(s)?

[Hrumph]

89. "Its [sic] all about fear"

Your reasons for wanting more unreasonable controls are all about fear of this happening and that happening.

You point to bad things that have happened because someone had a firearm. I submit that more bad things would happen if they were outlawed (or made prohibitively expensive or troublesom to purchase).

The only thing required to kill and mame is the willingness to do so. I can guarantee that the hypothetical maniac could kill just as many school kids with a machette (available for next to nothing from any hardware or farm implements store in the world) as he/she could with a firearm. Yes, it can be argued that firearms can make one more lethal at a longer range than hand weapons but they also tend to make everyone equally lethal.

For instance; In a country where private firearms ownership is prohibited, it's very easy for a stronger person to overwhelm or kill a weaker one. If you can be reasonably sure that your potential victim is unarmed, just about any weapon is sufficient. A knife, club, tire iron, brick or simply your greater size can put you at a tactical advantage. Firearms become less attractive to the criminal because of the increased penalties for their use. Hence, we see headlines that proclaim X percentage decrease in GUN CRIMES in countries that have banned their ownership. Never do we see similar decreases in the rates for agrivated assault, sexual assault or even murder.

[samsingh]

101. guns can kill many people

good point about the fear.

but countries that don't have liberal gun laws have far fewer violent deaths per capita.

[jody]

4. Do you have a link to the political group(s) supporting "liberal gun laws

that allow any moron to own a gun at a second's notice".

That's real powerful information to use against their candidates and I want to add their link to my set of bookmarks.

[MrBenchley]

5. Try the Republicans. Jody

Or any of the right wing gun loony groups....

[GOPFighter]

7. Ever argue with the gun zealots???

I've been active in the support of sane (IMO) gun control laws since 1974. A large number of those I've butted heads against fervently believe EVERY American should have the right to buy any gun they want, at a moments notice! You didn't know that? It's been my experience that the numbers of these zealots have increased over the years. They tend to belong to GOA and RKBA groups.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

12. I have

I have argued repeatedly with those zealots that argue that no American should ever be able to own a firearm, for any reason.

You know, they always claimed that theirs was the 'sane' position, when to me it was and is the utmost in insanity.

[samsingh]

15. many of the gun zealots are against liberals

yet ironically support liberal gun laws. this hypocrasy should be shoved in their faces all the time.

[1a2b3c]

24. Thats because

Many are conservatives and try to blame gun control on liberals, when in fact its the non-liberals of the democratic party who are to blame for most of the 'stupid' gun laws. Isnt DI FI part of the DNC?

[Fescue4u]

47. Each party is inconsisitent.

Generally...

Democrats encourage a liberal intepetation of the Bill Of rights, except when it comes to the 2nd ammendment, which is interpeted quite conservatively

Republicans encourage a conservative interperation of the Bill of rights except when it comes to the 2nd ammendment, which is intepeted quite liberally.

There are proably other inconsistencys as well, but that one is glaring is on topic.

[samsingh]

67. you are absolutely right

it's funny how this has worked out this way.

someone decides what i can smoke
what i can shoot
what i can say
and even how i can get sexually satisfied.

some things are argued to be protected by the Constitution, while others are not. But it really seems that most people passionately support the parts they personally support and only those. Otherwise, we would have seem the John Ashcrofts of the country jump up and defend the Dixie Chicks right to free speech.

[slackmaster]

8. I support only sensible, sane gun laws

And anyone who disagrees with my view of what is and is not reasonable is not a sensible person and/or must be insane.

...the kind of liberal gun laws that allow any moron to own a gun at a second's notice?

Good thing we haven't had that in this country (USA) since early 1968.

[samsingh]

17. funny that guns create such passion

this site is frequented by thoughtful socially conscience people and yet we all have diagrammatically opposite opinions to gun owership.

I would not give a car licence to someone who proves incompetant to drive. I would not give a job to someone who is not qualified for a job. I would not want people to be walking down the street with spears and axes. Yet, so many people say 'don't touch my guns' - as if they are things of such beauty and importance.

[slackmaster]

26. If only you had continued on with your original thought

Allow me to apply parallesm starting with the first part of your sentence:

I would not give a gun to someone who has proves untrustworthy with weapons.

Which is exactly the justification for the most important gun law we currently have in place, i.e. the Gun Control Act of 1968.

I have to ask one question: Why is it not being aggressively enforced? Why are convicted felons who attempt to buy guns from gun dealers not being arrested and prosecuted more often? Sure, hundreds of thousands of attempted purchases have been blocked by the Brady Law background checks. I think that's wonderful and I fully support the idea of background checks. But why are these people being allowed to "walk" in such large numbers? The prosecution rate is somewhere around 1%!

[samsingh]

30. the prosecution should be 100%

period.

[jody]

37. Your position is identical to Asscroft and his directions to minimize

plea bargins and maximize sentences.

[samsingh]

43. asscroft may apply that to other crimes

i'm only talking about gun crimes - not the person who steals a pizza or some nonviolent crimes.

[jody]

9. Below are statements from the Democratic and Republican platforms.

Strip away all the BS and they seem to make equivalent statements "ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners" versus "We defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms".

2000 Democratic Party Platform

QUOTE
Discipline, Character, and Safety. Education is not just about test scores, but about passing on our values to the next generation of American citizens. Our children and teachers deserve schools of safety and classrooms free of fear. We should have a zero-tolerance policy towards guns in schools. Each school should institute strict, firm, and fair discipline policies that are agreed upon on the first day of the school year at a meeting of teachers, parents, and students. We should expand the Family Leave Law to make sure parents can attend these meetings and all parent-teacher conferences without being scared they will lose their jobs.
AND
Strong and Sensible Gun Laws. A shocking level of gun violence on our streets and in our schools has shown America the need to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them - in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners. The Columbine tragedy struck America's heart, but in its wake Republicans have done nothing to keep guns away from those who should not have them.

Democrats believe that we should fight gun crime on all fronts - with stronger laws and stronger enforcement. That's why Democrats fought and passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent.

Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks, to protect our children. We should require a photo license I.D., a full background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun in America. We support more federal gun prosecutors, ATF agents and inspectors, and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime.
QUOTE



QUOTE
We defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and we affirm the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. Because self-defense is a basic human right, we will promote training in their safe usage, especially in federal programs for women and the elderly. A Republican administration will vigorously enforce current gun laws, neglected by the Democrats, especially by prosecuting dangerous offenders identified as felons in instant background checks. Although we support background checks to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals, we oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as a violation of the Second Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens. Through programs like Project Exile, we will hold criminals individually accountable for their actions by strong enforcement of federal and state firearm laws, especially when guns are used in violent or drug-related crimes. With a special emphasis upon school safety, we propose the crackdown on youth violence explained elsewhere in this platform.
UNQUOTE

[MrBenchley]

11. Jody, you said there was "anti-gun venom"

in the Democratic platform not a month ago....have you changed your mind?

By the way...tell us about that "Project Exile" thingy in the GOP's load of crap, and tell us how it differs from the new AshKKKroft proposal that you were trying unsuccessfully to hang on pro-gun-control Democrats.

[CO Liberal]

10. You Mean Laws That Ban Conservatives From Owning Guns?

:-)

[1a2b3c]

23. Umm.... I think i need a bit more clarification on what you think

liberal gun laws are. Does any moron mean any non convicted law abiding person who is not mentally ill? Are you saying only repugs support gun ownership?

[samsingh]

31. liberal gun laws means

(like shown in the Bowling for Columbine movie) that just about anyone can get an arsenal with less effort than it requires to get a drivers licence.

[1a2b3c]

33. They can?

Please explain. Do you mean a person to person sale of a firearm without a background check? Like you would if you bought a gun from a friend.

[MrBenchley]

39. Yeah they can

"Like you would if you bought a gun from a friend."
Or if you strolled into a gun show...

[1a2b3c]

91. Please quit with the gun show

I think this loophole needs fixed too. Lets drop the gun show loophole and quit jerking each other off and call it what it really is, the Person to Person Sales Loophole.

My fix: Make a background check open to the public at all police departments, free of charge or maybe a $1. Require that all firearms be sold with the free check system. You fail to do so, prosecute the person. This ends the "loophole" and no criminal would be able to get a gun without criminal help. If you ask me this is about the only good arguement anti-gunners have going for them.

[MrBenchley]

95. No, I'm not going to drop it

"I think this loophole needs fixed too. "
So what are you doing about it, other than moaning whenever anybody mentions it out loud?

[DoNotRefill]

117. thanks, but no thanks.

Sorry, 1a2b3c, but I disagree with you on this. Private individuals shouldn't be requird to get police approval before transferring a firearm. Why? Because many police departments would refuse to do so, cutting off the supply.

[DoNotRefill]

36. Where's that?

I live in a state with very liberal gun laws, and it's still much harder to get a gun than a driver's license.

[MrBenchley]

38. Gee, refill

Are you really trying to pretend there are background checks for all sales at gun shows?

[Liberal Classic]

49. Have you ever actually been to a gun show?

Are you really trying to pretend there are background checks for all sales at gun shows?

Since you're trying to pretend that background checks are not performed, I have the distinct impression that you have never actually purchased at a gun show. Try it some time. Depending on your state, the vendors will use the NICS, or they'll consult a prohibited person list maintained by your state. California is the largest state that does not use the federally-maintained list, instead they use their own.

[MrBenchley]

50. Who are you trying to kid?

"I have the distinct impression that you have never actually purchased at a gun show"
And I have the distinct impression that an RKBA "enthusiast" is trying to pretend there is no gun show loophole AGAIN.

[Romulus]

51. there is no loophole

that is only applicable at a gun show.

Ranting about "gun show loopholes" will only birth a "solution" that leaves the other 99% of the private sale loophole problem wide open.

And I have the distinct impression that an RKBA "enthusiast" is trying to pretend there is no gun show loophole AGAIN.

[MrBenchley]

55. Ri-i-i-i-ight...and Wayne LaPierre is Queen of the May

[slackmaster]

62. Appeal to ridicule

Do you have anything meaningful to contribute to the discussion?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

[MrBenchley]

70. Guess this means I'm right again

Funny you missed this while you were poking through that site....

"Headquartered near Hayden Lake, Idaho, Aryan Nations is a paramilitary hate group founded in the mid-1970s by Rev. Richard Girnt Butler, now 77 years old....Beam, who was David Duke's Texas KKK Grand Dragon in the 1970s, has served as the Aryan Nations Ambassador-at-Large. He recently purchased property in the northern Idaho panhandle not far from the Aryan Nations headquarters at Hayden Lake. He recently attended a gun rights rally whose sponsoring group, reports the Spokane Spokesman-Review, includes militia members and sympathizers, and was at the most recent Aryan Nations congress."

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/adl/paranoia-as-patriotism/aryan-nations.html

"Liberty Lobby, the largest, best-financed and most influential radical right organization in America, is a significant source of propaganda for the militia movement. ...In the past two years, The Spotlight has devoted dozens of features to conspiracy theories involving the Federal government. Many of these stories have involved militia groups directly, or have addressed the same issues which have preoccupied militia members, such as national gun control and international arms control efforts..."

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/adl/paranoia-as-patriotism/liberty-lobby.html

[slackmaster]

73. Good example of Guilt by Association

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html

Gee Benchley, you're cranking out fallacious arguments left and right today.

Of course that's nothing unusual for YOU, but it can be entertaining.

[MrBenchley]

78. Birds of a feather, slack....

Birds of a feather....

[slackmaster]

85. You're accusing me of being a KKK/Aryan Nations type person?

Is that it, Benchley?

If so I'd appreciate it if you'd just come out and say it.

[MrBenchley]

96. Gee, slack

You're the one who dragged out nizkor as some sort of authority...and now you want to bitch because of how accurately they've pegged the "gun rights" crowd.

Of course, you also claim there's no gun show loophole, and that right wing scum like this don't go to gun shows....

[slackmaster]

109. I've never said there is no gun show loophole

If you read my posts more carefully you'd see that I've always said the term "gun show loophole" is a misnomer; a deliberately deceptive propaganda term used by people who either don't understand the law as it stands now or who wish to bring all private transfers of personal firearms under government scrutiny.

If you want all private sales regulated just say so and I'll respectfully disagree with your opinion. Suggesting that the only place criminals can buy a gun from a private individual without a background check is at a gun show is duplicitous at best.

[MrBenchley]

111. Hahahahahahaha....

"the term "gun show loophole" is a misnomer; a deliberately deceptive propaganda term "
That the gun industry spends millions to keep propped wide open...

"Suggesting that the only place criminals can buy a gun from a private individual without a background check is at a gun show is duplicitous at best."
Which is why I don't say that...

[1a2b3c]

92. Hey Romulus

I think you might need to spell it out.

the gun show loophole extends beyond the gun shows.

[Liberal Classic]

52. By this you mean private sales that do not use NICS?

Since every gun show that I have attended uses the NICS, you must mean private sales. This is what you mean, don't you? If it is your position that all private sales should use the federal NICS or the state equivalent, then that's fine. I don't necessarily agree with that positions, but I can understand where you're coming from.

[MrBenchley]

56. I mean the gun show loophole

You know, the one the corrupt gun industry keeps open...

[slackmaster]

61. The gun industry does not have the power to make laws

Only Congress and the state legislatures can do that.

Nobody in the gun industry is trying to prevent NICS from being made available to private sellers. Why is Congress not doing anything about the private-party transfer loophole?

[MrBenchley]

Hand us another BIG laugh.....

"Why is Congress not doing anything about the private-party transfer loophole?"
Ask the nutcases like DeLay and Hatch....you know, the corrupt far right wing loonies who rant about gun rights....

[slackmaster]

74. Another Appeal to Ridicule

With a little Guilt by Association flavor. Nice touch.

[MrBenchley]

79. Another post that deserves it, slack....

[samsingh]

102. the gun lobby always resorts to ridicule

when they say that gun control supporters are just resorting to emotionalism when they refer to the innocent victims of guns.

[samsingh]

71. but the gun industry uses money

to influence or buy support from lawmakers.

[slackmaster]

75. OK, see if you can close the loop

And show that the gun industry has specifically targeted its contributions in a manner that would discourage making NICS available for private-party transfers.

I doubt that you can. There is no logical reason for the gun industry to oppose such a change in the law. There is no financial gain in having one's products misused by criminals.

[MrBenchley]

80. Who are you trying to kid, slack?

"I doubt that you can."
You doubt that the gun lobby has tried to keep the gun show loophole open with lies and blood money?

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel052102.asp

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/election/0831guns1.shtml

"Voters overwhelmingly approved Amendment 22, which requires background checks on all buyers at gun shows. Prior to the measure, private sellers were not required to conduct background checks.
But legislation proposed by Rep. Ray Rose (R-Montrose) would have revised the definition of gun-show premises to exclude the parking lot. It also would define a gun show as one that is publicly advertised, thus exempting private gatherings from conducting background checks.
During the hearing on the bill, Arnie Grossman of SAFE Colorado said Rose's legislation would "weaken, subvert, and once again open the gun-show loophole." "

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,556419,00.html

[CO Liberal]

81. The Gun Lobby Owns the Colorado Legislature

Because all the GOP legislators vote in lock-step.

[MrBenchley]

82. Meanwhile, the Colorado citizens voted

overwhelmingly to close the gun show loophole when they got a referendum in 2000...despite millions of dollars worth of idiotic "they're going to take your guns away!" hysteria from the gun industry.

So did the citizens of Oregon.

[slackmaster]

87. So you would consider a private gathering to be a "gun show"?

Just goes to show the disingenuousness of people who hoot and holler about the so-called "gun show loophole".

[MrBenchley]

97. Peddle it to someone who's dumb enough to buy it, slack

Try the loonies at highroadrage.com.....they'll swallow pretty much any hooey....

[slackmaster]

110. Appeal to ridicule

No attempt to address the issue at hand.

[MrBenchley]

112. And well deserved ridicule, at that

"No attempt to address the issue at hand."
What was that...you trying to pretend that the corrupt gun industry didn't try and fail to keep voters from closing the gun show loophole in Colorado by referendum....and then didn't try and fail to exempt gun sales in the parking lot from background checks?

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/election/0831guns1.shtml

[samsingh]

63. it is still all about what makes the gun ower comfortable

RANT ON (sorry i'm going on a rant here)

to hell with the innocent people that are killed or injured because so many guns are readily available. In some ways i just feel that this whole issue is a lost cause.

People love their guns more than they want to stop innocent people from getting destroyed. I'm not saying that gunowners want innocent people to be hurt or worse, but that this takes a second seat to their need to have convenient access to guns.

The 'right to bear arms' has taken on a literal translation with few controls. The day will come in the not too distant future when guns will be substantially more powerful and with highly explosive ammunition capable of destroying houses and buildings. What then? Do we still allow people to own these firearms as easily as they can obtain them today?

This is not something we can do anything about today. But this next generation of weapons will not only wreak havoc on human lives, but will destroy property and goods at an enormous cost to insurance companies, corporations, and individuals. Just like shrubs $87B price tag got noticed more than the 30,000 civilians that got killed in Iraq, the scenario just described will not be as easy to ignore or confuse with circular arguments.

[slackmaster]

64. I see no relationship between my guns and misuse of guns by others

Almost every account I read of criminal misuse of firearms involves someone who is prohibited from even possessing a gun committing another in a lifelong series of violent crimes. Incidents in which a previously upstanding citizen suddenly snaps and shoots someone in a fit of rage are rare.

BTW I keep my weapons securely locked up.

The day will come in the not too distant future when guns will be substantially more powerful and with highly explosive ammunition capable of destroying houses and buildings.

Such things already exist and are strictly regulated. They're called military weapons.

[samsingh]

66. there is no connection between your guns and those

used to commit crimes, however, the rules that allow you to have your guns also allow other, not so responsible, individuals to acquire or steal them.

Here's an example: Why am i restricted from drinking and driving? The chances of me doing something negligent if i have the legal limit in my system are small - and i would never be severely over the legal limit. However, there are many who would be significantly over if given a free pass. I am inconvenienced, but this will save some lives. If i want to drink i make alternate plans for my transportation. Given that the Constitution gives me freedom (and if there was enough money in it) should i argue for strict adherance and argue that if everyone was informed properly this problem would not exist?

some guns that are legal now can be classified as military weapons. if the purpose of the 'right to bear arms' is to resist tyranny, hand held military weapons may also be required by the militias. But this will lead to the problems described in my rant.

[Romulus]

65. why doesn't someone

strip away the whole argument over slug-throwing weapons by inventing a phaser or something (like in star trek) that would temporarily disable a person without killing them, with 100% effectiveness and without need for physical contact with that person.

The military is already working on low-frequency weapons for such a role against people, and EMP-type devices against electronics (the human body is a bio-electronic device - that's why the stun guns work).

Why not just apply that technology to the self-defense role and move this whole debate along?

[samsingh]

69. good try

but phasers can't be used to hunt. They would not provide the enjoyment of blowing an animal apart that so many hunters may enjoy.

also, introducing phasers does not satiate the need to own many different types of firearms that drives many collectors.

[Hrumph]

86. I find your insinuation

that a hunter is somehow inferior to others due to the fact that he's actually willing to kill his own food intellectually dishonest and just a little repugnant. Millions of pounds of meat are consumed every day yet, for some reason, it's nobler to get your meat from the supermarket than from the field.

What?

I have found that hunters are, in general, more acutely aware of the value of animals than the average schmoe on the street. Theodore Roosevelt was quite well known as a conservationist AND hunter.

As far as collectors go, you seem to believe that someone who collects firearms is, in some way, inferior to one who collects automobiles, stamps, rocks or jellybeans. Again, your pompous, self-righteous air is a bit insulting to everyone else's intelligence.

[samsingh]

103. good points but

i have a problem with many hunters who slaughter animals for sport to mount them as trophies. What is the sport in using a high powered rifle to kill a deer? This also leaves the deer's family without a parent.

Another question is the pain and suffering inflicted on the animal that is being hunted. The fear it feels. I have a problem with this.

[DoNotRefill]

88. "phasers can't be used to hunt."

Sure they can. Set them for "stun", then slit their throats. ;-)

[samsingh]

104. as Kirk said in the episode with the dueling computers

"we don't need to be barbarians today"

[Larry Gude]

54. Butting in...

Maryland state law.

If you buy a gun at a gun show you MUST have first received a Maryland Police Training Commission Firearms Safety Training Course Certificate of Completion

(15 minute video covering what you should already know, types of weapons, state law on approved uses of deadly force message fro mthe stae AG, safety rules etc...)

Then, you fill out a form, name address, SS et al and this goes to the State Police.

After they have done a background check on you, about a week or two, you can then go to the FFL (federal firearm liscensse) you have chosen to handle the weapon and pick up your handgun or assault rifle.

You cannot leave a gun show in Maryland with a restricted firearm.

If you are going to break the law with a firearm I would guess it is eaiser to get one illegally.

[MrBenchley]

57. The RKBA crowd

and the corrupt gun industry fought that law every step of the way...and are fighting hard to keep the loophole propped open nationally and in other states.

[samsingh]

114. an immunity bill for the gun industry

may can passed by Congress shortly.

[MrBenchley]

115. It will be shameful

when they do....

[1a2b3c]

93. Seems a bit overkill

If you buy a gun at a gun show you MUST have first received a Maryland Police Training Commission Firearms Safety Training Course Certificate of Completion

(15 minute video covering what you should already know, types of weapons, state law on approved uses of deadly force message fro mthe stae AG, safety rules etc...)

Then, you fill out a form, name address, SS et al and this goes to the State Police.

After they have done a background check on you, about a week or two, you can then go to the FFL (federal firearm liscensse) you have chosen to handle the weapon and pick up your handgun or assault rifle.

So they try and hassle you out of buying the gun instead of the free instant background check i was talking about. Interesting.

[samsingh]

105. Moore is so right about the countries love affair

with guns and the convenience people what to have in accessing them.