OBAMA THROWS A FIT

[duraaraa 203]

Is there really a solution to this?

Anyone who lost a friend or relative because the gun that was used to kill them was so easy to obtain would, understandably, want more gun control.

Anyone who has ever defended himself/herself from a threat thanks to the gun that they were easily able to obtain would, understandably, not want gun control.

Is there even a right answer?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I love how in the same breath libs boast about the big crackdowns resulting from background checks then follow up by not prosecuting anyone

If you don't pass the background check you can't buy the gun, from a gun shop. Nothing to prosecute until you get a gun by purchasing one online or from a private seller. Then you can only be prosecuted for illegal possession if you are legally prohibited from possessing the gun and/or use it in the act of committing a crime.

See the Nimitz Class Carrier sized hole in your silly argument?

Trying to buy a gun but failing to pass the background check is only a crime if you are legally prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. But you still have plenty of options.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Is there really a solution to this?

Anyone who lost a friend or relative because the gun that was used to kill them was so easy to obtain would, understandably, want more gun control.

Anyone who has ever defended himself/herself from a threat thanks to the gun that they were easily able to obtain would, understandably, not want gun control.

Is there even a right answer?

The ultimate goal is back door gun registration then gun Confiscation, and as shown here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPm2vf3tW30

[himher 634]

Trying to buy a gun but failing to pass the background check is only a crime if you are legally prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.

That's right. Bingo. It's a crime. This happens and they choose to not prosecute that crime thousands and thousands and thousands of times per year. That is my argument. The people who pretend to care so much about lives and public safety do not care at all that people are publicly attempting to obtain firearms that they are prohibited from owning. These are the same people who want EXPANDED checks?

Since you also said it I will not bother to point out the lack of holes in it.

Edited April 20, 2013 by himher

[himher 634]

Is there really a solution to this?

Anyone who lost a friend or relative because the gun that was used to kill them was so easy to obtain would, understandably, want more gun control.

Anyone who has ever defended himself/herself from a threat thanks to the gun that they were easily able to obtain would, understandably, not want gun control.

Is there even a right answer?

Yes. The answer is in the law, the constitution, and in the writings of the framers of the constitution where they clearly outlined their intention. Individual right to self-defense from either criminals or from the government itself was discussed, recorded, and written down and the courts are currently recognizing this in formal rulings.

Edited April 20, 2013 by himher

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If you don't pass the background check you can't buy the gun, from a gun shop. Nothing to prosecute until you get a gun by purchasing one online or from a private seller. Then you can only be prosecuted for illegal possession if you are legally prohibited from possessing the gun and/or use it in the act of committing a crime.

See the Nimitz Class Carrier sized hole in your silly argument?

Trying to buy a gun but failing to pass the background check is only a crime if you are legally prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. But you still have plenty of options.

Your argument is wrong in many ways and I will educate you.

There are two types of firearms sales. sales from dealers and sales from private individuals. Period. It does not matter where the sale occurs. Ginshow, gun shop, basement, garage sale or anything else. ALL sales through dealers require background checks, ALL sales through unlicensed (private persons) do not require background checks.

There ARE NO "internet sales" you CANNOT buy a gun "through the internet" unless you are a federally licensed dealer. You can be INTRODUCED to a gun or advertise a gun on the internet but you CANNOT receive it that way. If the firearm is a "long gun" (rifle or shotgun..I forgot there are f*cktards reading this) AND is being sold by someone in your state OR your state allows you to buy long guns in another state AND that person's state allows them to sell long guns to a resident of another state...then you can DRIVE your car to that person and complete the sale in person with the private seller OR a dealer (who will then do a background check)

If the firearm ia a handgun and the private seller is in your home state, you can drive to them and complete the sale in person. If not, the handgun must be shipped to a FFL (clue for morons...Federal Firearms Licensee) in your state and you can complete the sale at his shop or a gun show. He will do a background check.

I am not guessing. I am a collector and have done this dozens of times. I have a local dealer I use. When I win an internet auction, for example, I go to him and ask him to send a copy of his license to the seller. The seller ships the firearm to him. I go to his shop and transact the sale and a background check. Anyone who thinks it is otherwise is ignorant of how it works. Period. They are supporting MORE laws without knowing what the current laws are. THAT's stupid.

FFLs can ONLY sell firearms at their fixed place of business OR a gun show registered with BATFE.

That said, the "hole" is much smaller...submarine size, maybe.

The NRA has a solution and would have introduced it but decided to shut down Obama and wait for better congressional make-up. Universal background checks for ALL firearms sales done with an online DIY background check system. The technology exists and can be easily implemented.

The buyer would go online, conduct a background check on himself and print out the results. The same way you would doa credit check or credit report. Any fee would be paid by the buyer with a credit or debit card. The resulting approval would be valid to purchase any nuimber of firearms for 5 days...just as the dealer background checks are now.

The gun grabbers do not want this. Because they do not want background cheks. They want to making owning a gun more difficult so there are less gun ownwrs with less political clout so they can advance their agenda to take away our rights.

The proposed law would have required private sellers to have "proof of ownership" for any fireamrs they are selling. So if I want to sell the M1895 Winchester my Grandfather bought, used, from a private seller in 1916 and I inherited when he died because my Grandmother said "Here Gary, I know you liked this rifle and Granddad would want you to have it" She neglected to write me a receipt and therefore I cannot prove it is "mine". THAT is what they were trying to do...shut down gun shows and private sales altogether.

As usual the gun grabbers used an even to advance their agenda to take away rights and over-reached (they always do) and LOST.

Incidentally the DIY system would also have established a way to automatically report failures to pass which could be investigated and prosecuted.

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

Nothing to prosecute until you get a gun by purchasing one online or from a private seller.

i'd grade this as a very remote possibility.

this assumes that the seller (who for the sake of argument i'll assume is a legal owner of said firearm) is not discerning about who he or she sells it to, given the following:

- the very real threat in our litigious society today of a financially ruining lawsuit should they transfer it to someone they shouldn't,

- the possibility of prosecution, fines, and jail time under federal laws for transferring to someone that shouldn't possess the firearm,

- the negative publicity that would come his/her way, along with the very real negative potential for impacting employment and social circles,

- the potential for being the cause of an event that would lead to even more restrictions on gun ownership.....

any private purchases i've made (2, occurred in 2002) were made via my father with a hunting partner of my his. i'm fairly confident that at some point in time prior to that sale, my ability to possess firearms was discussed between the two of them or considered by the seller, who assumed correctly that my father would not allow a sale to occur should i not be legally able to own one.

in the case of private sales on my part, i've sold one in the past 20 years and that was to someone i knew personally and was legally able to possess one.

i'm also quite picky about who i buy from - i've had the opportunity to buy some firearms from an individual and passed on it due to the individual being of questionable character - found out later on there was a good possibility the firearms were reported stolen in an insurance scam.

in summary, not all gun owners are selling guns to just anyone as some would like to portray.

Edited April 20, 2013 by charles!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

in summary, not all gun owners are selling guns to just anyone as some would like to portray.

Who has made any such suggestion? Right, nobody. The fact of the matter is that every gun that is in the hands of a criminal was legally purchased at some point in time. Smith & Wesson does not have a special mail-order catalog to sell guns to criminals. So someone legally able to purchase a firearm has transferred it to someone not able to at some point. The few exceptions would be guns that were stolen from lawful owners. But that is a tiny percentage of the guns that are in the hands of criminals. Most are sold in online or in other private transactions where more often than not the seller is not required to ascertain whether the buyer is legally able to purchase a firearm. That is the big gaping loophole that legislation sought to close. But the NRA and their enslaved minority of Senators will not allow criminals to lose ready and unfettered access to firearms. They will defend criminals' ability to purchase firearms at all cost.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Gary, it's not as if people really don't understand how internet gun sales work.

I keep my radio on at work all day. I heard this clip. It talks about what you describe. And other things. I think it's very intesting.

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=177650612&m=177601562

From the clip:

I went to ArmsList.com and found that this year there have been over 20 ads on the site listed by one private party. Those ads include a phone number in North Carolina and they say: Ask for Casey. I searched the name and the number and came up with Casey Grant at Carolina Gunrunners in Raleigh. Mr. Grant put us onto the owner, Jim McComas.

Mr. McComas is a federally licensed gun dealer. And I asked them why does he advertise on ArmsList as a private party?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Gary, it's not as if people really don't understand how internet gun sales work.

I keep my radio on at work all day. I heard this clip. It talks about what you describe. And other things. I think it's very intesting.

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=177650612&m=177601562

From the clip:

I went to ArmsList.com and found that this year there have been over 20 ads on the site listed by one private party. Those ads include a phone number in North Carolina and they say: Ask for Casey. I searched the name and the number and came up with Casey Grant at Carolina Gunrunners in Raleigh. Mr. Grant put us onto the owner, Jim McComas.

Mr. McComas is a federally licensed gun dealer. And I asked them why does he advertise on ArmsList as a private party?

[lostinblue 1,989]

And I asked them why does he advertise on ArmsList as a private party?

What was his reply.????

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Did ya get yer little feelings hurt? Sorry.

Oh, and if there's no win or lose, then how can I lose?

You lost.

No Federal gun control laws. GFY

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

Who has made any such suggestion? Right, nobody. The fact of the matter is that every gun that is in the hands of a criminal was legally purchased at some point in time.

not true. some are stolen off the assembly line.

Smith & Wesson does not have a special mail-order catalog to sell guns to criminals.

well duh.

So someone legally able to purchase a firearm has transferred it to someone not able to at some point. The few exceptions would be guns that were stolen from lawful owners. But that is a tiny percentage of the guns that are in the hands of criminals. Most are sold in online or in other private transactions where more often than not the seller is not required to ascertain whether the buyer is legally able to purchase a firearm. That is the big gaping loophole that legislation sought to close.

link to back up your claim there?

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

Mr. McComas is a federally licensed gun dealer. And I asked them why does he advertise on ArmsList as a private party?[/i]

why can't he advertise as a private party?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

link to back up your claim there?

Charles, really? Are you going to take the stand that the way criminals obtain firearms is by stealing them? Internet sales ain't happening? Private sales at gun shows are not happening? It happens every day. It's documented. There are videos of purchases made w/o any background checks. It's all out there. Don't pretend that the background check system is effective when it covers only gun store sales.

not true. some are stolen off the assembly line.