xj0hnx
Diamond Member
Even so, that we can freely sell firearms in private sales without Form 4473 renders any collection of such data pretty much useless.
-
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.
Obama administration seeking tighter gun control in four border states.
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Even so, that we can freely sell firearms in private sales without Form 4473 renders any collection of such data pretty much useless.
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
The "flow of AK's" wasn't because gun shop owners were indiscriminate, it's because the US government told them to continue to sell to suspicious buyers. Quite few gun shop owners reported the sales to the BATFE, and were told to keep doing them so that they could "track" the firearms in hopes of mapping out cartels, it backfired as any sane person would have expected it would.
rudeguy
Lifer
and this new rule doesn't apply to private sales either
Anarchist420
Diamond Member
They would've just stabbed people to death if they couldn't shoot them.
The other thing to realize is that the Federal government armed the drug cartels. They're intent on increasing the power of the drug cartels and it's pissing me off.
Unfortunately, there are only two possible candidates who support the 2nd Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say the "right of the law abiding citizens...shall not be infringed." Requiring registration for firearms infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The other thing to realize is that the Federal government armed the drug cartels. They're intent on increasing the power of the drug cartels and it's pissing me off.
Unfortunately, there are only two possible candidates who support the 2nd Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say the "right of the law abiding citizens...shall not be infringed." Requiring registration for firearms infringes upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
No, it doesn't, but private gun sales aren't the problem, interfering with citizens ability to purchase firearms without being collected in a database is.
While I don't exactly have an issue with this, they need to justify WHY they need a database like this. So far the reasons are absolute BULLSHIT and anyone with half a brain realizes this, so where's the justification? Not to mention, it really doesn't change anything except add bureaucracy, cost us more money and expand our government. Overall this is a horrible idea, especially because of the reasons it is being pushed.
rudeguy
Lifer
no one says we have a right to purchase firearms without being in a database.
DucatiMonster696
Diamond Member
Aye comrade.
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
Sure we do, unless you can point out where in the Second Amendment there's a clause stating that our rights can not be infringed as long as we are in a database.
As bfdd said, unless they can show a valid reason to track these sales than it's a crock of shit, and quite frankly the government blowing their operation, and fucking up is not a reason to hamper, or track firearms purchases of citizens.
rudeguy
Lifer
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
As a responsible gun owner, I have no problem with this. As a Conservative I don't like it but I realize that it may be necessary.
We have to pick our battles and I just don't think this one is worth fighting.
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
Than you should rethink it. Please explain why it "may be necessary".
rudeguy
Lifer
because I can't think of a legal reason someone would need to purchase 25 AR's at once without having that info on file somewhere.
(and its then, not than)
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
Because they want to, and are free to, is good enough. They aren't talking about 25, they are talking about two.
The usual pro-gun ravers are giving the whole spectrum of gun owners a bad name.
Facts not actually in dispute other than in their imaginations-
1. Mexican authorities have confiscated over 80,000 guns in gang related actions over the last 4 years, the vast majority of which originated in the US.
2. The BATF allowed ~2,000 weapons to enter Mexico in hopes of tracking them. They had nothing to do with the other 78,000.
3. The vast majority of military weapons possessed by the gangs are apparently also of US origin, having arrived in Mexico via black market transactions in Central America, notably Honduras.
4. The proposed regs in no way diminish Americans' rights to buy as many guns as often as they want. You might tip your hand if you're trying to arm an insurrection under the new regs, a legitimate point of concern beyond Mexican drug gangs.
5. The idea that it's easier to acquire weapons in a more convenient way than buying them in the US is hogwash. We have the most lenient gun laws anywhere in the western hemisphere, and if you think the border is porous coming in, it's obviously a lot more porous going out.
6. Anybody who thinks that popular 5.56mm semi automatic sporting rifles with extended magazines are "neutered" doesn't know dick about firearms.
7. It seems obvious that a few entirely legitimate gun dealers in the Southwest are making a lot of money selling lots of guns to straw purchasers for the cartels. They're not doing anything illegal, at all, if Juan Valdez buys 10 guns a day for the rest of his life, but current regs allow Juan to do whatever he wants under the cover of current fragmented reporting of purchases, w/o anybody other than the dealer knowing how many guns he's buying.
I just love this bit of sophistry-
Explain how this proposed database interferes with the constitutional right to bear arms, other than in the fevered imaginations of some rather paranoid gun owners and advocates.
Facts not actually in dispute other than in their imaginations-
1. Mexican authorities have confiscated over 80,000 guns in gang related actions over the last 4 years, the vast majority of which originated in the US.
2. The BATF allowed ~2,000 weapons to enter Mexico in hopes of tracking them. They had nothing to do with the other 78,000.
3. The vast majority of military weapons possessed by the gangs are apparently also of US origin, having arrived in Mexico via black market transactions in Central America, notably Honduras.
4. The proposed regs in no way diminish Americans' rights to buy as many guns as often as they want. You might tip your hand if you're trying to arm an insurrection under the new regs, a legitimate point of concern beyond Mexican drug gangs.
5. The idea that it's easier to acquire weapons in a more convenient way than buying them in the US is hogwash. We have the most lenient gun laws anywhere in the western hemisphere, and if you think the border is porous coming in, it's obviously a lot more porous going out.
6. Anybody who thinks that popular 5.56mm semi automatic sporting rifles with extended magazines are "neutered" doesn't know dick about firearms.
7. It seems obvious that a few entirely legitimate gun dealers in the Southwest are making a lot of money selling lots of guns to straw purchasers for the cartels. They're not doing anything illegal, at all, if Juan Valdez buys 10 guns a day for the rest of his life, but current regs allow Juan to do whatever he wants under the cover of current fragmented reporting of purchases, w/o anybody other than the dealer knowing how many guns he's buying.
I just love this bit of sophistry-
Explain how this proposed database interferes with the constitutional right to bear arms, other than in the fevered imaginations of some rather paranoid gun owners and advocates.
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
Bullshit, that (incorrect) "fact" is only based off guns that were successfully traced, successfully traced being the key operative. The rest of your post is anti-gun dribble not worth recognizing as even being typed in a readable language.
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.1/gun-facts-5.1-screen.pdf
Recently Venezuela upgrading their military's aging firearms with I believe it was 200,000 Russian AK-101's, do you think it would be easier for drug cartels to get real assault rifles from somewhere like that, or Arizona gun shops?
Last edited:
So, uhh, are you one of those gunshop owners doing a booming business selling guns to people you know quite well are straw buyers for cartels, guys who pay for multiple firearms with wads of bills reeking of marijuana? Afraid the Admin will cut into your action, or what?
Start with 80,000 confiscated firearms, trace the origin of as many as you can. Whatever the %, it's ridiculous to think that what you've achieved isn't a representative sample of the rest. That's how random samples work.
And, uhh, mere dismissal works for Rush, not for everybody, certainly not for anybody whose POV is truly legitimate. Such people are usually eager to defend their opinions, address contrarian points as they're raised. Mere denial isn't a legitimate form of argument, but you already know that, right?
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
The fucking government told them to keep selling to them, did you even bother to read anything more than the thread title?
The number was approximately 27,000, not 80,000, ridiculous ...you.
The rest of your post is worth nothing more than dismissal as it clearly indicates that you, as you so eloquently put it, "don't know dick about guns".
"Real" assault rifles? Semi automatic US made weapons serve the cartels' purposes entirely well, as evidenced by their preponderance of use.
Venezuela? I'm no fan of the Chavez govt, but the notion that they're arming mexican drug cartels is a red herring, and not born out by the evidence, at all.
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
Yes, real, as in an actual assault rifle, not a semi auto civilian version. Semi auto Ruger Mini 14 do too, but they seemed to go under the radar of the frothing at the mouth anti-gunners because they lack the look of a "military style assault rifle", even though they are practical functionally identical, fire the same round and have the same capacity. The red herring is the "military style" bullshit.
The notion that Mexican drug cartels are arming themselves with assault rifles from the US is not born out of evidence, other than the guns the ATF allowed to walk. Having the government responsible for a tenth the guns in cartel hands and then wanting to restrict US gun owners is ludicrous.
Really?-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/06/AR2010100607003.html
80,000 guns seized over 4 years is entirely accurate.
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
No, it's not. Even if that were correct 74,000 =/= 80,000, even the crappiest pollster have a margin of error smaller than that.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09781t.pdf
http://justmytruth.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/gao-doj-fuzzy-math-used-in-reports-more-gun-control/
Some articles with more facts ...
http://www.americanchronicle.com/authors/view/2770
The gun hating left has distorted those numbers beyond recognition. This is the original quote ...
"Over 90 percent of the firearms seized in
Mexico and traced over the last 3 years have come from the United States."
There's that pesky phrase again.
Here's the whole thing for some context ...
"While it is impossible to know how
many firearms are illegally trafficked into Mexico in a given year, over
20,000, or around 87 percent, of firearms seized by Mexican authorities
and traced over the past 5 years originated in the United States, according
to data from ATF (see fig. 2). Over 90 percent of the firearms seized in
Mexico and traced over the last 3 years have come from the United States."
20,000 is 90% is the guns traced.
Last edited:
Nice hair splitting soft shoe, there. I never claimed that the cartels were arming themselves with "assault rifles", but rather with the legal semi auto US versions popular among US gun enthusiasts. The evidence bears that out entirely.
And you still haven't explained how the proposed data base interferes with the constitutional rights of US gun owners. You're still free to buy and own as many guns as you want, pursuant to existing regulations.
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
The only actual "evidence" is that the ATF allowed it to happen in hopes of tracking cartels, and it blew up in their faces, and then the American people are present with these shoddy baseless "statistics" to be repeated by any idiot with a keyboard.
Should there be a database for people to have freedom of speech? What about a database for people that do not want their homes invaded by police without probable cause, or have their phones tapped? Those sound pretty ridiculous don't they? So does having a database for engaging in any other right.
In other words, the proposed database poses no constitutional infringement, despite your raving and attempt to conflate issues.
DucatiMonster696
Diamond Member
In other words you have no real reason to back up why the Fed's should create this database of people lawfully exercising their Constitutional right.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
