• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Dem-ordered study on buying guns online.

They say it backfired but its fox news, so I kinda wonder. Keep in mind Nixon asked for reports on drugs and pornography and when he found out neither was dangerous he still kept pushing for outright bans. And knowing that republicans control everything right now even if the report said online sales are leading directly to dead babies I still dont think they would do anything.
 
shortylickens said:
They say it backfired but its fox news, so I kinda wonder. Keep in mind Nixon asked for reports on drugs and pornography and when he found out neither was dangerous he still kept pushing for outright bans. And knowing that republicans control everything right now even if the report said online sales are leading directly to dead babies I still dont think they would do anything.
Click to expand...

Nixon was utter trash. He pushed a racial and political agenda ahead of anything else. This situation would suggest the Dems continuing to push for more gun bans / restrictions would be akin to Nixon pushing for his bans...
 
SlowSpyder said:
Nixon was utter trash. He pushed a racial and political agenda ahead of anything else. This situation would suggest the Dems continuing to push for more gun bans / restrictions would be akin to Nixon pushing for his bans...
Click to expand...
Funding a study is not the same thing as pushing for a ban. It is simply looking to see if there is a problem. No problem found so that should be the end of it.
 
dank69 said:
Funding a study is not the same thing as pushing for a ban. It is simply looking to see if there is a problem. No problem found so that should be the end of it.
Click to expand...

Do you think it will be the end of it thought? The left will suddenly drop this? I'd be surprised if so, personally.
 
no difference in an online ad and a newspaper add,
its the sellers responsibility to follow the local laws.
and the majority do. there are always outliers.
 
SlowSpyder said:
Do you think it will be the end of it thought? The left will suddenly drop this? I'd be surprised if so, personally.
Click to expand...
The end of what? This particular vector? I hope so although I expect the research to continue at some point. Gun control in general? Of course not, although I wish they would, at least for a while. Gun control is the biggest factor for why Democrats are not crushing the GOP in every election. They need to pull their heads out of their asses on this issue. There are far more important issues.
 
SlowSpyder said:
Do you think it will be the end of it thought? The left will suddenly drop this? I'd be surprised if so, personally.
Click to expand...

It's reasonable to check back periodically. I'd think law abiding gun owners would want to eject criminals from their midst. Favorable reports like this are good for them & for all of us. The truth matters.
 
From the article with the dumbass headline designed to attract dumbasses

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., as well as Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, had commissioned the Government Accountability Office report to look into how online private dealers might be selling guns to people not allowed to have them.

Their efforts were based on a 2016 report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which claimed that “anonymity of the internet makes it an ideal means for prohibited individuals to obtain illegal firearms.”

“Congressional requesters asked that GAO access the extent to which ATF is enforcing existing laws and investigate whether online private sellers sell firearms to people who are not allowed or eligible to possess a firearm,” the GAO report said.
Click to expand...

A few democrats asked for a study in response to a report by the ATF. The study indicated that all is well and that everyone could move on with their life.

In other news
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hut-down-for-20-years/?utm_term=.0eef8571163c
http://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-gun-violence/story?id=50300379
 
dank69 said:
The end of what? This particular vector? I hope so although I expect the research to continue at some point. Gun control in general? Of course not, although I wish they would, at least for a while. Gun control is the biggest factor for why Democrats are not crushing the GOP in every election. They need to pull their heads out of their asses on this issue. There are far more important issues.
Click to expand...
this is why i think the AWB is one of the dumbest things the democrats have done in the last 50 years. it directly affected a big swath of the population who might otherwise vote democratic with a largely useless law.
 
mdram said:
no difference in an online ad and a newspaper add,
its the sellers responsibility to follow the local laws.
and the majority do. there are always outliers.
Click to expand...

I'd be much more supportive of Democratic efforts if they focused on helping those who would obey the law to do so. For example, allow free background checks for private party firearm sellers. Instead the focus typically seems to be on making the rules uniformly tougher for everyone under the theory it will make it harder for those who wouldn't obey the law. More carrot would help but pro-gun control folks always seem to push for the stick, unless you're convicted of illegal gun possession then complaints about "unfair sentencing guidelines" and "stacking charges" seem to be in play quite often.
 
glenn1 said:
I'd be much more supportive of Democratic efforts if they focused on helping those who would obey the law to do so. For example, allow free background checks for private party firearm sellers. Instead the focus typically seems to be on making the rules uniformly tougher for everyone under the theory it will make it harder for those who wouldn't obey the law. More carrot would help but pro-gun control folks always seem to push for the stick, unless you're convicted of illegal gun possession then complaints about "unfair sentencing guidelines" and "stacking charges" seem to be in play quite often.
Click to expand...


If a report by the ATF made a claim that the internet provided an ideal means for prohibited individuals to procure firearms, would you support a study to see if that claim has any factual basis?
 
pauldun170 said:
If a report by the ATF made a claim that the internet provided an ideal means for prohibited individuals to procure firearms, would you support a study to see if that claim has any factual basis?
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed to studies. I might be opposed to the federal government paying for something the private sector could do itself (or non-profit with the appropriate political goal in mind for funding it). Or if taxpayers were spending an amount on the study far in excess of the potential cost-benefit to be derived from the study.
 
glenn1 said:
I'd be much more supportive of Democratic efforts if they focused on helping those who would obey the law to do so. For example, allow free background checks for private party firearm sellers. Instead the focus typically seems to be on making the rules uniformly tougher for everyone under the theory it will make it harder for those who wouldn't obey the law. More carrot would help but pro-gun control folks always seem to push for the stick, unless you're convicted of illegal gun possession then complaints about "unfair sentencing guidelines" and "stacking charges" seem to be in play quite often.
Click to expand...

its impossible for a private party to run a check even if they pay
dealer must log the gun into thier book, then back out, so there is that charge

even a minimal fee of $5 or $10 for a private part would be acceptable.
 
There's definitely room to create a win-win situation for everyone and make our country safer.

1. Close the private sale loophole; all gun purchases (dealer or private party) need to involve a NICS check.
2. Modernize and open up the NICS system; we shouldn't need paper forms and hour-long (or more) waits. This should also lower costs and make it easier for private parties to get NICS checks.

I'm 100% on board with the Second Amendment, but I also don't think you can just take someone's word for it that they're allowed to own a firearm.
 
mdram said:
its impossible for a private party to run a check even if they pay
dealer must log the gun into thier book, then back out, so there is that charge

even a minimal fee of $5 or $10 for a private part would be acceptable.
Click to expand...

You could remove even that minimal $5-10 to make it even easier to obey the law. The background check should be a free service even if we restrict access to FFL holders for logistical, privacy, or other reasons. Same principle as taxpayers footing the bill for basic immunizations, the expected cost-benefit ratio makes it a worthwhile expense. We don't ask people to pay to access the sex offender registry, this is the same concept of helping the law-abiding to not enable potential criminals via lack of simple lack of information.
 
ElFenix said:
this is why i think the AWB is one of the dumbest things the democrats have done in the last 50 years. it directly affected a big swath of the population who might otherwise vote democratic with a largely useless law.
Click to expand...


I have to agree here. It achieves nothing while creating a bad look for the Dems to those moderates that happen to be pro-2A or at least are not anti-2A.
 
dont forget there must be a way to force states to provide the info to nics
as well as a way to remove false info in a timely manner, not involving lawyers and courts.
 
glenn1 said:
I'm not opposed to studies. I might be opposed to the federal government paying for something the private sector could do itself (or non-profit with the appropriate political goal in mind for funding it).
Click to expand...
You expect the biased private sector to report fairly on their outcomes to the public? It's either government funded or non-profit funding (which even then can be scrutinized as some non profits are very politically motivated).

If a gun company or gun company funded study shows that people who own guns live longer, would you believe it? It would be very very scrutinized. Maybe they did 100 studies that showed the opposite and suppressed them but finally after retrying analyses and cooking data they get the results they want they release the study. This is something by the way that happens everyday with normal non-industry funded medical research (usually because the negative result doesn't really matter so it's not published. A person can have a negative result 100x in a row then by chance get a positive result and publish that), and it's even worse with industry funded as the investigator may be forced to sign agreements to publish only if the company gives final approval of the result (meaning if it makes them look bad, they kill the study or simply don't give permission for it to come out)
 
glenn1 said:
I'm not opposed to studies. I might be opposed to the federal government paying for something the private sector could do itself (or non-profit with the appropriate political goal in mind for funding it). Or if taxpayers were spending an amount on the study far in excess of the potential cost-benefit to be derived from the study.
Click to expand...

this is the sort of attitude that leads to shit congresses and shit laws. it started with the brain drain that happened when congress fired its professional staff in 1995, meaning congress doesn't have the ability to research things to figure out if a problem exists, much less what might be done about it. so, the vast majority of the information congress is getting is coming from lobbyists (you think those professional staff that were let go in 1995 went into some other industry? no, they did what they did best, but now they did it for someone who is decided not representative of the public).

studies cost peanuts in the grand scheme of things. peanuts. but you want more industry hacks and shills doing them rather than congress's own researchers. how do you expect congress to do anything well if its only fumbling about in the dark?

pj o'rourke comes to mind.
 
Evidence is not the currency of political influence. Good to know that the lack of safeguards is not so easily exploited. I wonder, though, why it was necessary to study. When a programmer finds a vulnerability, they don't study whether it is being exploited before choosing to patch it. There are bigger fish in illicit gun supply, however.
 
glenn1 said:
I'd be much more supportive of Democratic efforts if they focused on helping those who would obey the law to do so. For example, allow free background checks for private party firearm sellers. Instead the focus typically seems to be on making the rules uniformly tougher for everyone under the theory it will make it harder for those who wouldn't obey the law. More carrot would help but pro-gun control folks always seem to push for the stick, unless you're convicted of illegal gun possession then complaints about "unfair sentencing guidelines" and "stacking charges" seem to be in play quite often.
Click to expand...

Your GOP heroes are right in the driver's seat. It's entirely within their power to make it the way you want.

Don't bitch at Dems- bitch at them. Or maybe they want to keep it nicely fucked up so enthusiasts will keep circling the wagons around them.
 
SlowSpyder said:
We get the government we deserve. Once can't say they like Trump on this forum without being belittled. Are you really surprised that someone just like "us" was elected? Look at politics today, the left helped very much create this.
Click to expand...

wow, so much obvious self-hate in you. So we must ask again: is the left responsible for your unending terrible decisions? Do you have a single thought, idea, policy that you actually have the balls to stand behind, rather than continue to blame the left when your nonsense predictably fails, yet again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top