Background checks at gun shows?

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I know lets start a campaign and call it "The War on Weapons"!
We can throw billions of dollars at it and teach it in schools. We'll enact tough legislation that will put you behind bars for the most minor offenses and fill the prisons to overcapacity. Surely that will teach these criminals that they should follow the law.

Sound familiar?

Why is it an all or nothing proposition? Can't we just have sane laws that make sense and try to minimize the amount of guns that fall into the hands of criminals?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I know lets start a campaign and call it "The War on Weapons"!
We can throw billions of dollars at it and teach it in schools. We'll enact tough legislation that will put you behind bars for the most minor offenses and fill the prisons to overcapacity. Surely that will teach these criminals that they should follow the law.

Sound familiar?

Why is it an all or nothing proposition? Can't we just have sane laws that make sense and try to minimize the amount of guns that fall into the hands of criminals?

It's kinda useless to debate with some of the guys here. The argument I keep seeing is:

- It won't do anything, so there's no point. Wait so we shouldn't set rules in our homes because our children won't follow them anyway? So maybe there should be rules with teeth.

- This infringes on our rights. Ok, now no one's asking to take our guns away. Some are suggesting a documented process with traceability. I believe the argument is for the documentation and background process in general. You can throw out things like cost in terms of a policy implementation argument, but what about the argument against the check as a principle?

- 60 minutes is biased, so it means nothing at all.

- Crime rates in the US are lower than in Mexico. But Mexico is only one example. Why do people like to cherry pick? Take modernized nations at the same level of the US and do a widespread comparison. Same goes with the whole Fairfax county deal. BTW, I should throw out San Jose, CA is the safest BIG city. Wait that's in CA?

I'd like to see some more sensible arguments thrown out here.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I know lets start a campaign and call it "The War on Weapons"!
We can throw billions of dollars at it and teach it in schools. We'll enact tough legislation that will put you behind bars for the most minor offenses and fill the prisons to overcapacity. Surely that will teach these criminals that they should follow the law.

Sound familiar?

Why is it an all or nothing proposition? Can't we just have sane laws that make sense and try to minimize the amount of guns that fall into the hands of criminals?

While that sounds good in an ideal world Jules, unfortunately you are not dealing with sane people on the far left, because there are many members of Congress who have stated on record that their ultimate goal is the complete ban of all private possession of firearms. Prominent members. Since that is what we are up against, there is no choice but to fight tooth and nail against any little "sane" piece of firearms legislation. The slippery slope argument, is overused, tired, and very. very real.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I know lets start a campaign and call it "The War on Weapons"!
We can throw billions of dollars at it and teach it in schools. We'll enact tough legislation that will put you behind bars for the most minor offenses and fill the prisons to overcapacity. Surely that will teach these criminals that they should follow the law.

Sound familiar?

Why is it an all or nothing proposition? Can't we just have sane laws that make sense and try to minimize the amount of guns that fall into the hands of criminals?

While that sounds good in an ideal world Jules, unfortunately you are not dealing with sane people on the far left, because there are many members of Congress who have stated on record that their ultimate goal is the complete ban of all private possession of firearms. Prominent members. Since that is what we are up against, there is no choice but to fight tooth and nail against any little "sane" piece of firearms legislation. The slippery slope argument, is overused, tired, and very. very real.

Who has said that?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
If it's the law, then why wouldn't law abiding citizens comply? I am a law abiding gun owner and there is no way in hell I'd ever sell one of my guns without going through the proper channels.

Because it costs money.

It's the law that you have to keep track of and report all internet purchases you make for which sales tax is not collected. Do you do that? Do you calculate how much you owe and send it in with your yearly state income tax returns? Or, because it's an extra hassle and costs money, do you ignore that law knowing that there's no possible way for it to be practically enforced?

How about when you're on an out-of-state trip and buy an item in another state that you plan to use in CA? Do you file the forms to pay use tax on that? You're legally required to. Even if you fall under the exemption for the "first $800 per person of tangible personal property hand carried" into the state, you are still required to file declaration paperwork for it even though you owe no tax.

I'm betting that you don't. But there's no way for the State of California to know that you don't.

If people cannot be bothered to do something that simple, what makes you think that there is anything more than sporadic, at best, compliance with the law requiring that all firearms transactions go through an FFL?

Like I said, open the NICS to private individuals and allow them to use it free of charge and then you stand a reasonable chance of people complying with the law. I'm not against the idea, I'm against an implementation that is less convenient, worse for the environment (because it requires more driving), and all but designed to discourage non-compliance.

ZV

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Who has said that?

Senator Obama for one.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I know lets start a campaign and call it "The War on Weapons"!
We can throw billions of dollars at it and teach it in schools. We'll enact tough legislation that will put you behind bars for the most minor offenses and fill the prisons to overcapacity. Surely that will teach these criminals that they should follow the law.

Sound familiar?

Why is it an all or nothing proposition? Can't we just have sane laws that make sense and try to minimize the amount of guns that fall into the hands of criminals?

The only way to reduce the number of guns falling into the hands of criminals is to get rid of all guns, anything short of that is just pissin' in the wind. For me getting rid of all guns is not an option.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
And deal with the risk of the buyer not following through.

Huh? He's paying me cash for my gun, why would he not follow through?

The buyer isn't going to give you the cash before the waiting period ends. He'll pay for it at the time he picks it up. Unless he's an idiot. The FFL doesn't want to be bothered with the buyer deciding that the FFL scratched the gun or some other BS claim and backing out. Then he has the buyer and the seller pissed and has the hassle of dealing with potential small court claims from unscrupulous buyers/sellers.

And deal with the risk of the buyer bouncing a check.

The business is only collecting for the transfer fee...not the price of the gun.

And you really don't think there aren't idiots out there who would hassle the FFL even though it's not his fault?

And deal with the hassle of the buyer trying to return the item.

Another non-issue, the transaction is between the two private parties, the FFL doesn't have anything to do with it other than filing the paperwork with the BATF and holding the weapon until the end of the waiting period.

See previous answer. It's guaranteed that there will be increased hassle.

And deal with the increased paperwork and BATFE audits.

They already do this and it takes less than 15 minutes to fill out the paperwork and they're getting paid for it.

Yup, 15 minutes. And then several years of meticulous record keeping and reconciliations. I guarantee that it costs more than the $40 by the time all is said and done.

And deal with potential legal issues if the firearm is defective.

This is a non-issue, it's not their gun, they are just the mediator

Really? You're sure that there's no possibility at all that the seller would try to blame the defect on the way the FFL handled the firearm during the holding period? Some idiot will sell an unsafe firearm through an FFL, another idiot will buy it, not have it checked, and injure himself. The first idiot will say the firearm was fine and will blame the FFL for damaging the firearm during the waiting period. It's virtually guaranteed.

Even ignoring all of those disincentives for FFLs to perform transfers, there is still the issue of compliance that I brought up.

I still say that a superior solution is to open the NICS to individuals.

ZV

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
If it's the law, then why wouldn't law abiding citizens comply? I am a law abiding gun owner and there is no way in hell I'd ever sell one of my guns without going through the proper channels.

Because it costs money.

It's the law that you have to keep track of and report all internet purchases you make for which sales tax is not collected. Do you do that? Do you calculate how much you owe and send it in with your yearly state income tax returns? Or, because it's an extra hassle and costs money, do you ignore that law knowing that there's no possible way for it to be practically enforced?

How about when you're on an out-of-state trip and buy an item in another state that you plan to use in CA? Do you file the forms to pay use tax on that? You're legally required to. Even if you fall under the exemption for the "first $800 per person of tangible personal property hand carried" into the state, you are still required to file declaration paperwork for it even though you owe no tax.

I'm betting that you don't. But there's no way for the State of California to know that you don't.

If people cannot be bothered to do something that simple, what makes you think that there is anything more than sporadic, at best, compliance with the law requiring that all firearms transactions go through an FFL?

Like I said, open the NICS to private individuals and allow them to use it free of charge and then you stand a reasonable chance of people complying with the law. I'm not against the idea, I'm against an implementation that is less convenient, worse for the environment (because it requires more driving), and all but designed to discourage non-compliance.

ZV

You're comparing apples to oranges.

A gun is something that is registered to you. Why do you think they put serial numbers on them and keep records of when they are transferred and to whom? It's more like a car actually. Would you sell a car and not fill out the paperwork to transfer legal responsibility out of your name with the DMV? Yeah, I didn't think so.

I'd be fine with making the process easier for private party transfers but I still think we need criminal background checks for ALL firearms transfers.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
If it's the law, then why wouldn't law abiding citizens comply? I am a law abiding gun owner and there is no way in hell I'd ever sell one of my guns without going through the proper channels.

Because it costs money.

It's the law that you have to keep track of and report all internet purchases you make for which sales tax is not collected. Do you do that? Do you calculate how much you owe and send it in with your yearly state income tax returns? Or, because it's an extra hassle and costs money, do you ignore that law knowing that there's no possible way for it to be practically enforced?

How about when you're on an out-of-state trip and buy an item in another state that you plan to use in CA? Do you file the forms to pay use tax on that? You're legally required to. Even if you fall under the exemption for the "first $800 per person of tangible personal property hand carried" into the state, you are still required to file declaration paperwork for it even though you owe no tax.

I'm betting that you don't. But there's no way for the State of California to know that you don't.

If people cannot be bothered to do something that simple, what makes you think that there is anything more than sporadic, at best, compliance with the law requiring that all firearms transactions go through an FFL?

Like I said, open the NICS to private individuals and allow them to use it free of charge and then you stand a reasonable chance of people complying with the law. I'm not against the idea, I'm against an implementation that is less convenient, worse for the environment (because it requires more driving), and all but designed to discourage non-compliance.

ZV

You're comparing apples to oranges.

A gun is something that is registered to you. Why do you think they put serial numbers on them and keep records of when they are transferred and to whom? It's more like a car actually. Would you sell a car and not fill out the paperwork to transfer legal responsibility out of your name with the DMV? Yeah, I didn't think so.

I'd be fine with making the process easier for private party transfers but I still think we need criminal background checks for ALL firearms transfers.

Just as a matter of correction, firearms aren't registered (other than NFA items). The paperwork ends once it is sold by the dealer.

Cars don't have to be registered either. I've sold them for cash and just signed the title. Cars only have to be registered if being used on public roads. Otherwise, the state/county doesn't registration/tax don't matter.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
If it's the law, then why wouldn't law abiding citizens comply? I am a law abiding gun owner and there is no way in hell I'd ever sell one of my guns without going through the proper channels.

Because it costs money.

It's the law that you have to keep track of and report all internet purchases you make for which sales tax is not collected. Do you do that? Do you calculate how much you owe and send it in with your yearly state income tax returns? Or, because it's an extra hassle and costs money, do you ignore that law knowing that there's no possible way for it to be practically enforced?

How about when you're on an out-of-state trip and buy an item in another state that you plan to use in CA? Do you file the forms to pay use tax on that? You're legally required to. Even if you fall under the exemption for the "first $800 per person of tangible personal property hand carried" into the state, you are still required to file declaration paperwork for it even though you owe no tax.

I'm betting that you don't. But there's no way for the State of California to know that you don't.

If people cannot be bothered to do something that simple, what makes you think that there is anything more than sporadic, at best, compliance with the law requiring that all firearms transactions go through an FFL?

Like I said, open the NICS to private individuals and allow them to use it free of charge and then you stand a reasonable chance of people complying with the law. I'm not against the idea, I'm against an implementation that is less convenient, worse for the environment (because it requires more driving), and all but designed to discourage non-compliance.

ZV

You're comparing apples to oranges.

A gun is something that is registered to you. Why do you think they put serial numbers on them and keep records of when they are transferred and to whom? It's more like a car actually. Would you sell a car and not fill out the paperwork to transfer legal responsibility out of your name with the DMV? Yeah, I didn't think so.

I'd be fine with making the process easier for private party transfers but I still think we need criminal background checks for ALL firearms transfers.

Why do you think we need criminal background checks for all firearm transfers? Do you want it because you believe it will reduce crime, or would it be acceptable to just reduce gun crime even if it caused an increase in other forms of crime? Or, is crime not a consideration at all, do you just want the government to have more oversight?

And finally as a response to an earlier posting

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.)...

 

[Jschmuck2]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Who has said that?

Senator Obama for one.

Can you show me the quote please?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: palehorse
One thing to keep in mind -- in some states, any private seller of a gun may be liable for any crimes that gun is later involved in if there wasn't a proper trail of paperwork covering the sale. That is why it's always smarter to sell your guns through a local FFL holder, even if it involves a small fee to cover the background check and paperwork.

That said, you could buy a gun anywhere in this country if you have the street smarts to pull it off, regardless of any "loopholes" or laws created to prevent you from doing so -- which is why so many people think that it's pointless to close the "loophole."

Personally, if they close the private sales "loophole," I couldn't care less. I buy all of my guns through shops and/or FFL-holding brokers who always do the background checks.

And what happens when you want to sell one of your guns? You'll have to contract it through a FFL holder and give him a cut. For selling your old gun to a friend? That's just BS, are we not innocent until proven guilty?

Like I said, I don't care either way. I live in VA and still buy/sell all of my guns through FFL holders... it's a little bit of CYA that I simply don't mind one bit.

I do understand and see your point, but if the State votes to close the loophole, then I really couldn't care less. Now, if the Federal government tries to overstep their boundaries on this issue, I would have a big problem with that... this is the Commonealth's business. Period.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Who has said that?

Senator Obama for one.

Can you show me the quote please?

It's difficult to catch him flat out saying it because he's a crafty little fucker. You can start here.

http://www.nraila.org/OBAMA/

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
A gun is something that is registered to you. Why do you think they put serial numbers on them and keep records of when they are transferred and to whom? It's more like a car actually. Would you sell a car and not fill out the paperwork to transfer legal responsibility out of your name with the DMV?

I've known several people who sold cars without filling out any paperwork. Racecars are often left un-titled and it is perfectly legal. In fact, the very first car I bought I bought without a title. It hadn't been registered for years and the plates were long expired and the title lost. I simply had the owner sign a receipt and then I went to the DMV and had a new title issued in my name. No hassle.

My computer has a serial number. So does my TV. And my DVD player. That's hardly an indication that they are meant to be registered.

Firearms are not registered to their owners. There is no national database of firearms and no governmental tracking of who owns what type of firearms or how many they own. The forms are kept by the retailer and, if the retailer goes out of business, the forms are destroyed. The 4473 form is strictly for tracking behaviour of the FFL, it is not used for purposes of registering firearms to their owners.

ZV

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I know lets start a campaign and call it "The War on Weapons"!
We can throw billions of dollars at it and teach it in schools. We'll enact tough legislation that will put you behind bars for the most minor offenses and fill the prisons to overcapacity. Surely that will teach these criminals that they should follow the law.

Sound familiar?

Why is it an all or nothing proposition? Can't we just have sane laws that make sense and try to minimize the amount of guns that fall into the hands of criminals?

While that sounds good in an ideal world Jules, unfortunately you are not dealing with sane people on the far left, because there are many members of Congress who have stated on record that their ultimate goal is the complete ban of all private possession of firearms. Prominent members. Since that is what we are up against, there is no choice but to fight tooth and nail against any little "sane" piece of firearms legislation. The slippery slope argument, is overused, tired, and very. very real.

Who has said that?

California Senator Diane Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

more to follow...

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I know lets start a campaign and call it "The War on Weapons"!
We can throw billions of dollars at it and teach it in schools. We'll enact tough legislation that will put you behind bars for the most minor offenses and fill the prisons to overcapacity. Surely that will teach these criminals that they should follow the law.

Sound familiar?

Why is it an all or nothing proposition? Can't we just have sane laws that make sense and try to minimize the amount of guns that fall into the hands of criminals?

While that sounds good in an ideal world Jules, unfortunately you are not dealing with sane people on the far left, because there are many members of Congress who have stated on record that their ultimate goal is the complete ban of all private possession of firearms. Prominent members. Since that is what we are up against, there is no choice but to fight tooth and nail against any little "sane" piece of firearms legislation. The slippery slope argument, is overused, tired, and very. very real.

Who has said that?

California Senator Diane Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

more to follow...

Except that quote had to deal with assault weapons not with all firearms.... This is once again irrelevant to the topic of background checks.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
A gun is something that is registered to you. Why do you think they put serial numbers on them and keep records of when they are transferred and to whom? It's more like a car actually. Would you sell a car and not fill out the paperwork to transfer legal responsibility out of your name with the DMV?

I've known several people who sold cars without filling out any paperwork. Racecars are often left un-titled and it is perfectly legal. In fact, the very first car I bought I bought without a title. It hadn't been registered for years and the plates were long expired and the title lost. I simply had the owner sign a receipt and then I went to the DMV and had a new title issued in my name. No hassle.

My computer has a serial number. So does my TV. And my DVD player. That's hardly an indication that they are meant to be registered.

Firearms are not registered to their owners. There is no national database of firearms and no governmental tracking of who owns what type of firearms or how many they own. The forms are kept by the retailer and, if the retailer goes out of business, the forms are destroyed. The 4473 form is strictly for tracking behaviour of the FFL, it is not used for purposes of registering firearms to their owners.

ZV

Hmm, I wonder how my friend who had his car stolen with his gun in the trunk had the gun traced back to him 10+ years later after the gun was recovered by police...Maybe he owned the only Sig P230 in Los Angeles?

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
A gun is something that is registered to you. Why do you think they put serial numbers on them and keep records of when they are transferred and to whom? It's more like a car actually. Would you sell a car and not fill out the paperwork to transfer legal responsibility out of your name with the DMV?

I've known several people who sold cars without filling out any paperwork. Racecars are often left un-titled and it is perfectly legal. In fact, the very first car I bought I bought without a title. It hadn't been registered for years and the plates were long expired and the title lost. I simply had the owner sign a receipt and then I went to the DMV and had a new title issued in my name. No hassle.

My computer has a serial number. So does my TV. And my DVD player. That's hardly an indication that they are meant to be registered.

Firearms are not registered to their owners. There is no national database of firearms and no governmental tracking of who owns what type of firearms or how many they own. The forms are kept by the retailer and, if the retailer goes out of business, the forms are destroyed. The 4473 form is strictly for tracking behaviour of the FFL, it is not used for purposes of registering firearms to their owners.

ZV

Hmm, I wonder how my friend who had his car stolen with his gun in the trunk had the gun traced back to him 10+ years later after the gun was recovered by police...Maybe he owned the only Sig P230 in Los Angeles?

PD submits a trace to the ATF.

ATF goes to the manufacturer with the serial number. Mfg says which distributor it went to. ATF gets the paperwork showing the store the distributor sold it to. ATF goes to the store and pulls the 4473 for the sale of it and gets the address and finds the owner.

While there is no registration in that they know what you buy, the 4473 itself is pretty much registration.

As evidenced in...

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I know lets start a campaign and call it "The War on Weapons"!
We can throw billions of dollars at it and teach it in schools. We'll enact tough legislation that will put you behind bars for the most minor offenses and fill the prisons to overcapacity. Surely that will teach these criminals that they should follow the law.

Sound familiar?

Why is it an all or nothing proposition? Can't we just have sane laws that make sense and try to minimize the amount of guns that fall into the hands of criminals?

While that sounds good in an ideal world Jules, unfortunately you are not dealing with sane people on the far left, because there are many members of Congress who have stated on record that their ultimate goal is the complete ban of all private possession of firearms. Prominent members. Since that is what we are up against, there is no choice but to fight tooth and nail against any little "sane" piece of firearms legislation. The slippery slope argument, is overused, tired, and very. very real.

Who has said that?

California Senator Diane Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

more to follow...

Except that quote had to deal with assault weapons not with all firearms.... This is once again irrelevant to the topic of background checks.

There are no legally available automatic assault weapons in the US. There are semi-automatic versions of military weapons. But those are no different than the semi-automatic rifles I have. Clip size may vary. Banning an AK-47 semi-automatic is just stupid.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I know lets start a campaign and call it "The War on Weapons"!
We can throw billions of dollars at it and teach it in schools. We'll enact tough legislation that will put you behind bars for the most minor offenses and fill the prisons to overcapacity. Surely that will teach these criminals that they should follow the law.

Sound familiar?

Why is it an all or nothing proposition? Can't we just have sane laws that make sense and try to minimize the amount of guns that fall into the hands of criminals?

While that sounds good in an ideal world Jules, unfortunately you are not dealing with sane people on the far left, because there are many members of Congress who have stated on record that their ultimate goal is the complete ban of all private possession of firearms. Prominent members. Since that is what we are up against, there is no choice but to fight tooth and nail against any little "sane" piece of firearms legislation. The slippery slope argument, is overused, tired, and very. very real.

Who has said that?

California Senator Diane Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

more to follow...

Except that quote had to deal with assault weapons not with all firearms.... This is once again irrelevant to the topic of background checks.

There are no legally available automatic assault weapons in the US. There are semi-automatic versions of military weapons. But those are no different than the semi-automatic rifles I have. Clip size may vary. Banning an AK-47 semi-automatic is just stupid.

There are automatics available to those eligible and living in the right states. Prices start at about $12k and go up from there. Nothing made after 1986 can be owned by civilians.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisheerman
I know lets start a campaign and call it "The War on Weapons"!
We can throw billions of dollars at it and teach it in schools. We'll enact tough legislation that will put you behind bars for the most minor offenses and fill the prisons to overcapacity. Surely that will teach these criminals that they should follow the law.

Sound familiar?

Why is it an all or nothing proposition? Can't we just have sane laws that make sense and try to minimize the amount of guns that fall into the hands of criminals?

While that sounds good in an ideal world Jules, unfortunately you are not dealing with sane people on the far left, because there are many members of Congress who have stated on record that their ultimate goal is the complete ban of all private possession of firearms. Prominent members. Since that is what we are up against, there is no choice but to fight tooth and nail against any little "sane" piece of firearms legislation. The slippery slope argument, is overused, tired, and very. very real.

Who has said that?

California Senator Diane Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

more to follow...

Except that quote had to deal with assault weapons not with all firearms.... This is once again irrelevant to the topic of background checks.

There are no legally available automatic assault weapons in the US. There are semi-automatic versions of military weapons. But those are no different than the semi-automatic rifles I have. Clip size may vary. Banning an AK-47 semi-automatic is just stupid.

There are automatics available to those eligible and living in the right states. Prices start at about $12k and go up from there. Nothing made after 1986 can be owned by civilians.

Thanks for the update.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Triumph
California Senator Diane Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

more to follow...

Except that quote had to deal with assault weapons not with all firearms.... This is once again irrelevant to the topic of background checks.

What is an "assault weapon"?

oh, wait, that's right... it's whatever the hell Feinstein and her merry band of idiots want it to be.

DOH!

 

[GeezerMan]

Link


Gun Shows Are Not a Source of ?Crime Guns?
? A 2006 FBI study of criminals who attacked law enforcement officers found that within their sample, ?None of the [attackers?] rifles, shotguns, or handguns ? were obtained from gun shows or related activities.? Ninety-seven percent of guns in the study were obtained illegally, and the assailants interviewed had nothing but contempt for gun laws. As one offender put it, ?[T]he 8,000 new gun laws would have made absolutely [no difference], whatsoever, about me getting a gun. ? I never went into a gun store or to a gun show or to a pawn shop or anyplace else where firearms are legally bought and sold.?4

? A Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report on ?Firearms Use by Offenders? found that fewer than 1% of U.S. ?crime guns? came from gun shows, with repeat offenders even less likely than first-timers to buy guns from any retail source. This 2001 study was based on interviews with 18,000 state prison inmates and is the largest such study ever conducted by the government.5

? Previous federal studies have found few criminals using gun shows. A 2000 BJS study, ?Federal Firearms Offenders, 1992-98,? found only 1.7% of federal prison inmates obtained their gun from a gun show.6 Similarly, a 1997 National Institute of Justice study reported less than 2% of criminals? guns come from gun shows.7

 

[Fear No Evil]

This is the problem with this debate. People don't know what the loophole is, they don't know what assault weapons are.. they don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons..