OBAMA THROWS A FIT

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

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.

i'm taking the stand that you don't have a link to back up your statement that i bolded.

roll your eyes all you want - i've seen one personally years ago.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i'm taking the stand that you don't have a link to back up your statement that i bolded.

I don't.

roll your eyes all you want - i've seen one personally years ago.

One? Really? That's a big problem, then. One gun stolen off the assembly line out of 300 million out on the streets. I bet we'd all be safer if that one gun wasn't out there.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

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

What was his reply.????

Listen to the clip.

why can't he advertise as a private party?

He can.

[himher 634]

I don't.

One? Really? That's a big problem, then. One gun stolen off the assembly line out of 300 million out on the streets. I bet we'd all be safer if that one gun wasn't out there.

We would all be safer if the 70,000 people who annually walk in, give their information, and try to get one illegally are referred for prosecution for it and are actually prosecuted and taken off the streets

But - gun-grabbers don't give a chit if CRIMINALS are walking around out there. Therefore: if the gun-grabbers don't want to enforce the law that is on the books today and impose the penalties that are on the books today for illegal buyers they can suck wind if they want more laws.

We would all be safer if felons and identified crazies are listed publicly with their names and addresses so that people who don't want to sell to them won't sell to them. Gun-grabbers want to protect the privacy of those people so if gun grabbers have so much concern for the privacy and rights of nuts and convicted felons they can suck wind for that too.

Edited April 20, 2013 by himher

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

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?

Obviously you do not understand so I will explain. I formerly held an FFL for 6 years. FFL dealers are and can be ALSO private parties. Once I purchased a firearm wholesale and entered it in my books I could sell it to whomever was legally qualified, including MYSELF. I had to fill out a form 4473 and do a background check ON MYSELF. The gun was entered as being sold to MYSELF in my official log and the 4473 was filed with the others.

The gun is now MINE. If I sell that gun privately the laws applying to private sale apply. I can sell as many guns as I like as a private citizen provided I am not doing so for the purchase of earning a living. I am a collector in addition to being a shooter. Collectors often make many transactions of firearms and sometimes need to trade or buy more than what is needed in order to get something they want. If you are ignorant of how collectors conduct their business...just say so.

But for those who think a clip and a magazine are similar...a stamp collector may purchase an entire binder full of stamps to get ONE stamp he really wants, then sell the others to recoup his money or even make a little money.

When I bought my 28 ga. Winchester M12 for skeet shooting, I did this. 28ga M12s are rarer than hens teeth and the price is reflected that way. This gentleman was also a Winchester collector and had a gorgeous M12 28 ga which he wanted a handsome price for and would not budge on the price. I wanted that gun! So what I did was make deal for several guns he was selling...a M1907, a M1910, a M1905 and an M71 carbine were among them..AND the M12 28 ga. I purchased them as a private person. I now am proud to own hi-grade M12s in 12, 16, 20, 28 ga plus a M42 in .410. All but the 16ga. (not used in skeet competition) are housed in a custom aluminum case which holds all four and is rated for travel by airlines. They are taken down into their two parts (ain't the M12 GRAND?!) and can be snapped back together ready to powder clays anywhere in the USA. I may be the only NSSA competitior still using the M12 but I am not going to switch.

I kept the M1907 (if you do not know what the model numbers mean, it does not matter, I am only going to educate you a little) because it was in better condition than the M1907 I already had. I sold the others and kept the M12, 28ga. When all was said and done I added that M12 to my collection for less than a 1/3 of the asking price...in net $$$. I sold the remaining guns on "Gunbroker" auctions as a private person.

The dealer on NPR (NPR is just a fountain of firearms knowledge) was probably doing the same thing. If he was not, then he is already violating the law and we do not need NEW laws we only need to enforce the ones we have. If NPR has discovered an illegal operation they should contact BATFE.

When I go to gun shows I often look not for guns to add to my collection, but for guns that I KNOW I can get a better price for on an internet auction. I found a Colt Detecive Special .38 for $150 at a gun show! I snapped it up and auctioned it a week later for 4 times that amount and bought Alla a nice S&W M41 target pistol on a concurrent auction for $850. Which means I REALLY paid $400 for her M41. Try to beat THAT! They retail for more than $1000. I have even purchased "parts guns" for a few dollars and taken them to "gun buy backs" and received 5 times what I paid for them and turned over a piece of junk for $50. They can kiss my @ss. I then use the money to buy the guns I want for my collection. Internet auctions are a good place to find guns but the prices tend to run high since collectors from all over bid on them and they know what they are worth. Sometimes you can get a good deal.

The hunt and the wheeling and dealing are all part of the fun of collecting.

I don't imagine NPR has a segment on that.

In short, what the dealer was doing was likely perfectly legal. If not, then he is a person that chooses NOT to comply with laws. Passing new laws for him NOT to comply with does not protect anyone from anything.

However, if you REALLY want universal background checks, then you would support the NRA proposal for the DIY internet based background checks which buyers would provide to sellers, whether the seller was a private person or a dealer.

Right?

Otherwise you are not going to get them. You can debate, argue, reason, post NPR clips all you want...

YOU ARE NOT GETTING BACKGROUND CHECKS unless you do it the way the NRA wants.

See my post above for an intelligent reponse. Or just keep posting ignorance. Your choice.

[himher 634]

That's the same wink y'all share when you pass a background check law with penalties tied to it. Now what?

Edited April 20, 2013 by himher

[himher 634]

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.

Don't pretend the background check is effective when illegal buyers are identified, referred for prosecution, and then not prosecuted

Your fit throwing is looking more and more pathetic. Really.

[SamanthaL 45]

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.

Just curious...where are you getting this information?

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.

Let me first say I'm a gun owner and legal carrier and a supporter of gun rights and the second amendment. Let me also say I am in favor of universal background checks because if that saves one life or prevents one tragedy or mass shooting then it's definitely worth it. With that being said, if this passes eventually, it is my opinion that 1 year, 5 years, 10 years down the road someone will look at this and say wow that was really dumb! That law didn't do a damn thing?! Solely for the reasons stated earlier that the government is not doing thier job of enforcing the law by not prosecuting the 77,000 people who lied on a federal document trying to illegally obtain one. Much like an income tax form. But if you lie on that, I'm pretty sure you'll be prosecuted and fined because the IRS will get thier money rest assured. That's what it's all about is money. 3 major reasons this legislation did not pass in regards to "closing loopholes":

1. Section 122 in summary: restricts advertising guns for sale or someone from advertising that they would like to buy a gun...(to me, this is unconstitutional)

restricts person to person sales in any building where there is a gun show...(this is just dumb like smoke and mirrors! all they gotta do is step outside the entrance to the building!)

(this ones really crazy) restricts person to person sales to ONLY very immediate family, parents to kids, uncles to nephews, 1st cousin to 1st cousin is the most lenient!...(this is just insane)

2. Section 128 in summary: states that a registered firearm owner is "entitled to" the transportation of a firearm in a vehicle IF the gun is not accessible by someone sitting in the passenger side seat or is locked in a seperate

compartment of the car other than the glove box or console obviously, OR if the gun is secured with a gun safety device...(this one is not spelled out very clearly but the way it's written it could be

interpretted as "if you have a person in your passenger seat you could NOT CARRY your concealed handgun because it would be easily accessible to the passenger especially while you're engaged in driving

the car, which is absolute B.S.)

3. Section 103 in summary: requires states to implement background check systems (computers, software, etc.) conduct and enforce the legislation of the background checks by giving each state $100,000,000 (one hundred million

dollars) ANNUALLY for the years 2014-2017 with 5% of said amount coming straight off the top and going to Indian tribes!(carrot anyone?) First off, where is this money going to come from when we can't

even keep the Whitehouse open for tours?! When all the police officers, fire fighters, school teachers, meat inspectors, air traffic controllers have been laid off because we don't have the money to

continue to pay their salaries? Even if we had the money to spend, how many states will then be capable after the 5 years to continue the upkeep of such a system if it really does cost that much? I

smell a carrot being dangled in front of the individual states.....here's all this money gonna be coming at you every year solely for a background check system.

I don't really see any loopholes this legislation would have closed? And please dear God, tell me where I can purchase a firearm online without having a background check done. I'm looking for a simple home defense shotgun for my

house. I can pass any background check, don't get me wrong, I've worked for 2 major airlines and at 5 airports in my lifetime and have a concealed carry permit. But just please show me where I can go online purchase a gun and have it shipped to my door, no questions asked? I'm not disputing that you can't do that, I just like proof. If you show me where, hell I'll order one today!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

We would all be safer if the 70,000 people who annually walk in, give their information, and try to get one illegally are referred for prosecution for it and are actually prosecuted and taken off the streets

But - gun-grabbers don't give a chit if CRIMINALS are walking around out there. Therefore: if the gun-grabbers don't want to enforce the law that is on the books today and impose the penalties that are on the books today for illegal buyers they can suck wind if they want more laws.

We would all be safer if felons and identified crazies are listed publicly with their names and addresses so that people who don't want to sell to them won't sell to them. Gun-grabbers want to protect the privacy of those people so if gun grabbers have so much concern for the privacy and rights of nuts and convicted felons they can suck wind for that too.

Denials should be checked into however 74% of those are eventually approved and the denial was based on a name match that was later corrected. 70,000 people attempting to buy guns are not criminals. However, there are MANY and the prosecution rate has been embarrassing.

Enforcing existing law should be tried first, you are correct.

But you mistake these people for people that want to reduce crime. They don't. They want to restrict your rights. Period.

For example, "Patriot" posts he has a "friend" who makes illegal unregistered automatic rifles from semi-auto assault rifles and a piece of scrap metal. Oh, yeah, and a file. It takes him 10 minutes or so.

Reminded that is ALREADY illegal...Patriot says he never actually installed the part in the rifle. Really? So how do we know he did not just change the shape of a piece of scrap metal?

See. Patriot wants to take away your rights. If he wanted to stop criminals he would call the BATFE and ask them to enforce the exsiting law which makes it illegal to shape full-auto sears with a file and scrap metal (and has been illegal since 1934) But no, there is no interest in enforcing the existing laws or evn in knowing what they are. We just need MORE. They do not kow what they are...but we need MORE! This is where their ignorance transitions to stupidity

[himher 634]

Just curious...where are you getting this information?

Let me first say I'm a gun owner and legal carrier and a supporter of gun rights and the second amendment. Let me also say I am in favor of universal background checks because if that saves one life or prevents one tragedy or mass shooting then it's definitely worth it. With that being said, if this passes eventually, it is my opinion that 1 year, 5 years, 10 years down the road someone will look at this and say wow that was really dumb! That law didn't do a damn thing?! Solely for the reasons stated earlier that the government is not doing thier job of enforcing the law by not prosecuting the 77,000 people who lied on a federal document trying to illegally obtain one. Much like an income tax form. But if you lie on that, I'm pretty sure you'll be prosecuted and fined because the IRS will get thier money rest assured. That's what it's all about is money. 3 major reasons this legislation did not pass in regards to "closing loopholes":

1. Section 122 in summary: restricts advertising guns for sale or someone from advertising that they would like to buy a gun...(to me, this is unconstitutional)

restricts person to person sales in any building where there is a gun show...(this is just dumb like smoke and mirrors! all they gotta do is step outside the entrance to the building!)

(this ones really crazy) restricts person to person sales to ONLY very immediate family, parents to kids, uncles to nephews, 1st cousin to 1st cousin is the most lenient!...(this is just insane)

2. Section 128 in summary: states that a registered firearm owner is "entitled to" the transportation of a firearm in a vehicle IF the gun is not accessible by someone sitting in the passenger side seat or is locked in a seperate

compartment of the car other than the glove box or console obviously, OR if the gun is secured with a gun safety device...(this one is not spelled out very clearly but the way it's written it could be

interpretted as "if you have a person in your passenger seat you could NOT CARRY your concealed handgun because it would be easily accessible to the passenger especially while you're engaged in driving

the car, which is absolute B.S.)

3. Section 103 in summary: requires states to implement background check systems (computers, software, etc.) conduct and enforce the legislation of the background checks by giving each state $100,000,000 (one hundred million

dollars) ANNUALLY for the years 2014-2017 with 5% of said amount coming straight off the top and going to Indian tribes!(carrot anyone?) First off, where is this money going to come from when we can't

even keep the Whitehouse open for tours?! When all the police officers, fire fighters, school teachers, meat inspectors, air traffic controllers have been laid off because we don't have the money to

continue to pay their salaries? Even if we had the money to spend, how many states will then be capable after the 5 years to continue the upkeep of such a system if it really does cost that much? I

smell a carrot being dangled in front of the individual states.....here's all this money gonna be coming at you every year solely for a background check system.

I don't really see any loopholes this legislation would have closed? And please dear God, tell me where I can purchase a firearm online without having a background check done. I'm looking for a simple home defense shotgun for my

house. I can pass any background check, don't get me wrong, I've worked for 2 major airlines and at 5 airports in my lifetime and have a concealed carry permit. But just please show me where I can go online purchase a gun and have it shipped to my door, no questions asked? I'm not disputing that you can't do that, I just like proof. If you show me where, hell I'll order one today!

gunbroker.com happy hunting

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

That's the same wink y'all share when you pass a background check law with penalties tied to it. Now what?

It is the most informed response he has.

I really am not going to argue this any further with idiots. I never had any interest since the bukkake began. The outcome was pre-ordained.

NRA won. Anti-gun idiots lost. I'm happy.

See ya 'round.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

It is the most informed response he has.

I really am not going to argue this any further with idiots. I never had any interest since the bukkake began. The outcome was pre-ordained.

NRA won. Anti-gun idiots lost. I'm happy.

See ya 'round.

Oh my goodness. Thank heavens.

I mean - I don't belive you but, whatever.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Obviously you do not understand so I will explain. I formerly held an FFL for 6 years. FFL dealers are and can be ALSO private parties. Once I purchased a firearm wholesale and entered it in my books I could sell it to whomever was legally qualified, including MYSELF. I had to fill out a form 4473 and do a background check ON MYSELF. The gun was entered as being sold to MYSELF in my official log and the 4473 was filed with the others.

The gun is now MINE. If I sell that gun privately the laws applying to private sale apply. I can sell as many guns as I like as a private citizen provided I am not doing so for the purchase of earning a living. I am a collector in addition to being a shooter. Collectors often make many transactions of firearms and sometimes need to trade or buy more than what is needed in order to get something they want. If you are ignorant of how collectors conduct their business...just say so.

But for those who think a clip and a magazine are similar...a stamp collector may purchase an entire binder full of stamps to get ONE stamp he really wants, then sell the others to recoup his money or even make a little money.

When I bought my 28 ga. Winchester M12 for skeet shooting, I did this. 28ga M12s are rarer than hens teeth and the price is reflected that way. This gentleman was also a Winchester collector and had a gorgeous M12 28 ga which he wanted a handsome price for and would not budge on the price. I wanted that gun! So what I did was make deal for several guns he was selling...a M1907, a M1910, a M1905 and an M71 carbine were among them..AND the M12 28 ga. I purchased them as a private person. I now am proud to own hi-grade M12s in 12, 16, 20, 28 ga plus a M42 in .410. All but the 16ga. (not used in skeet competition) are housed in a custom aluminum case which holds all four and is rated for travel by airlines. They are taken down into their two parts (ain't the M12 GRAND?!) and can be snapped back together ready to powder clays anywhere in the USA. I may be the only NSSA competitior still using the M12 but I am not going to switch.

I kept the M1907 (if you do not know what the model numbers mean, it does not matter, I am only going to educate you a little) because it was in better condition than the M1907 I already had. I sold the others and kept the M12, 28ga. When all was said and done I added that M12 to my collection for less than a 1/3 of the asking price...in net $$$. I sold the remaining guns on "Gunbroker" auctions as a private person.

The dealer on NPR (NPR is just a fountain of firearms knowledge) was probably doing the same thing. If he was not, then he is already violating the law and we do not need NEW laws we only need to enforce the ones we have. If NPR has discovered an illegal operation they should contact BATFE.

When I go to gun shows I often look not for guns to add to my collection, but for guns that I KNOW I can get a better price for on an internet auction. I found a Colt Detecive Special .38 for $150 at a gun show! I snapped it up and auctioned it a week later for 4 times that amount and bought Alla a nice S&W M41 target pistol on a concurrent auction for $850. Which means I REALLY paid $400 for her M41. Try to beat THAT! They retail for more than $1000. I have even purchased "parts guns" for a few dollars and taken them to "gun buy backs" and received 5 times what I paid for them and turned over a piece of junk for $50. They can kiss my @ss. I then use the money to buy the guns I want for my collection. Internet auctions are a good place to find guns but the prices tend to run high since collectors from all over bid on them and they know what they are worth. Sometimes you can get a good deal.

The hunt and the wheeling and dealing are all part of the fun of collecting.

I don't imagine NPR has a segment on that.

In short, what the dealer was doing was likely perfectly legal. If not, then he is a person that chooses NOT to comply with laws. Passing new laws for him NOT to comply with does not protect anyone from anything.

However, if you REALLY want universal background checks, then you would support the NRA proposal for the DIY internet based background checks which buyers would provide to sellers, whether the seller was a private person or a dealer.

Right?

Otherwise you are not going to get them. You can debate, argue, reason, post NPR clips all you want...

YOU ARE NOT GETTING BACKGROUND CHECKS unless you do it the way the NRA wants.

See my post above for an intelligent reponse. Or just keep posting ignorance. Your choice.

And since you are on your way out of this discussion - forever - I've highlighted the one point you wrote that is relevant.

Meaning - what we have now, is not good enough. There are ways around the laws presently in place. Doing nothing about them is not right. Saying passing a new law will do no good is a weak argument (no matter how many paragraphs you couch it in). We need to demand that our legislators keep working on this till they get something that will work.

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

And the SAME DAY some --edited----that are Obama worshippers were posting how the NRA had "lost" an important vote on the conceaeld carry reciprocity amendment.

Years ago someone told me the BEST tool to have for a debate is a --edited--- for an opponent. He was right!

There will BE NO federal firearms legislation

post removed and returned minus language content. post returned with minor edit. i'm sure all can post without the profanity. thank you.

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

One? Really? That's a big problem, then. One gun stolen off the assembly line out of 300 million out on the streets. I bet we'd all be safer if that one gun wasn't out there.

my statement was some. some does not imply it's a big problem. yet it's a way they can be obtained.