Why I disagree with the NRA

[Belgian_Draft 0]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35860968/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Quote

Law enforcement officials say Bedell, a man with a history of severe psychiatric problems, had been sent a letter by California authorities Jan. 10 telling him he was prohibited from buying a gun because of his mental history.

Nineteen days later, the officials say, Bedell bought the Ruger at a gun show in Las Vegas. Such a sale by a private individual does not require the kind of background check that would have stopped Bedell's purchase.

Though I am a life member of the NRA, I don't agreee with them on everything. Background checks should be required on ALL firearm transactions, not just those involving a licensed dealer.
Would this have prevented the nut from getting a gun? Probably not. But it would have made it much more difficult and the person who sold it to him could also be held partially responsible for his actions. As it stands the guy who sold him the handgun(s) can claim he broke no laws or rules and went by the book.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35860968/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Quote

Law enforcement officials say Bedell, a man with a history of severe psychiatric problems, had been sent a letter by California authorities Jan. 10 telling him he was prohibited from buying a gun because of his mental history.

Nineteen days later, the officials say, Bedell bought the Ruger at a gun show in Las Vegas. Such a sale by a private individual does not require the kind of background check that would have stopped Bedell's purchase.

Though I am a life member of the NRA, I don't agreee with them on everything. Background checks should be required on ALL firearm transactions, not just those involving a licensed dealer.
Would this have prevented the nut from getting a gun? Probably not. But it would have made it much more difficult and the person who sold it to him could also be held partially responsible for his actions. As it stands the guy who sold him the handgun(s) can claim he broke no laws or rules and went by the book.

Given the lightning-quick speed that government seems to work at, I'm curious if he'd have shown up in NICS anyway.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35860968/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Quote

Law enforcement officials say Bedell, a man with a history of severe psychiatric problems, had been sent a letter by California authorities Jan. 10 telling him he was prohibited from buying a gun because of his mental history.

Nineteen days later, the officials say, Bedell bought the Ruger at a gun show in Las Vegas. Such a sale by a private individual does not require the kind of background check that would have stopped Bedell's purchase.

Though I am a life member of the NRA, I don't agreee with them on everything. Background checks should be required on ALL firearm transactions, not just those involving a licensed dealer.
Would this have prevented the nut from getting a gun? Probably not. But it would have made it much more difficult and the person who sold it to him could also be held partially responsible for his actions. As it stands the guy who sold him the handgun(s) can claim he broke no laws or rules and went by the book.

So then do you advocate private gun sales go thru a gun dealer? If not, more restriction on gun dealers only pushes the bad guy to the private sector and does nothing to keep guns out the hands of the crook/murderer.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Given the lightning-quick speed that government seems to work at, I'm curious if he'd have shown up in NICS anyway.

There is alwasy the chance he wouldn't have. But we know that if a check isn't run, he would slip through every time.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

So then do you advocate private gun sales go thru a gun dealer? If not, more restriction on gun dealers only pushes the bad guy to the private sector and does nothing to keep guns out the hands of the crook/murderer.

No, I don't advocate running all sales through a gun dealer. The instant check system can be modified to allow private sellers to call and get a simple yes or no to the sale without revealing any private information. This in no way pushes more restriction on gun dealers, nor any more responsibility. Yes, it would push them toward the black market. But, as i said, it would also enable us to hold the seller partially responsible for the buyers actions if no attempt was made to check the buyers background.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kallend 2,147]

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

Given the lightning-quick speed that government seems to work at, I'm curious if he'd have shown up in NICS anyway.

There is alwasy the chance he wouldn't have. But we know that if a check isn't run, he would slip through every time.

True.

At every gun show I've been to, the vast majority of the sellers have been gun dealers, who have to run the NICS checks anyway. I think most of them would be happy to run the NICS check on behalf of a private seller for a small fee, provided such a thing is legal.

I'd consider myself a "gun-nut", but I have no problem requiring NICS checks for private sales at gun shows, however I'm not in favor of requiring it for private sales elsewhere, as it'd be pretty much unenforceable anyway.

Unfortunately, none of the groups wanting to close the "gun show loophole" are interested in addressing just the gun-show part, which I'm certain many pro-gun people would support - they want to essentially ban all privates sales w/o an NICS check.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35860968/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Quote

Law enforcement officials say Bedell, a man with a history of severe psychiatric problems, had been sent a letter by California authorities Jan. 10 telling him he was prohibited from buying a gun because of his mental history.

Nineteen days later, the officials say, Bedell bought the Ruger at a gun show in Las Vegas. Such a sale by a private individual does not require the kind of background check that would have stopped Bedell's purchase.

Though I am a life member of the NRA, I don't agreee with them on everything. Background checks should be required on ALL firearm transactions, not just those involving a licensed dealer.
Would this have prevented the nut from getting a gun? Probably not. But it would have made it much more difficult and the person who sold it to him could also be held partially responsible for his actions. As it stands the guy who sold him the handgun(s) can claim he broke no laws or rules and went by the book.

I would agree if that after the search the record of the inquiry and a sale (if it happened) are destroyed and not kept

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35860968/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Quote

Law enforcement officials say Bedell, a man with a history of severe psychiatric problems, had been sent a letter by California authorities Jan. 10 telling him he was prohibited from buying a gun because of his mental history.

Nineteen days later, the officials say, Bedell bought the Ruger at a gun show in Las Vegas. Such a sale by a private individual does not require the kind of background check that would have stopped Bedell's purchase.

Though I am a life member of the NRA, I don't agreee with them on everything. Background checks should be required on ALL firearm transactions, not just those involving a licensed dealer.
Would this have prevented the nut from getting a gun? Probably not. But it would have made it much more difficult and the person who sold it to him could also be held partially responsible for his actions. As it stands the guy who sold him the handgun(s) can claim he broke no laws or rules and went by the book.

I would agree if that after the search the record of the inquiry and a sale (if it happened) are destroyed and not kept

So in common with criminals, you like it that guns are untraceable.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Given the lightning-quick speed that government seems to work at, I'm curious if he'd have shown up in NICS anyway.

There is alwasy the chance he wouldn't have. But we know that if a check isn't run, he would slip through every time.

True.

At every gun show I've been to, the vast majority of the sellers have been gun dealers, who have to run the NICS checks anyway. I think most of them would be happy to run the NICS check on behalf of a private seller for a small fee, provided such a thing is legal.

I'd consider myself a "gun-nut", but I have no problem requiring NICS checks for private sales at gun shows, however I'm not in favor of requiring it for private sales elsewhere, as it'd be pretty much unenforceable anyway.

Unfortunately, none of the groups wanting to close the "gun show loophole" are interested in addressing just the gun-show part, which I'm certain many pro-gun people would support - they want to essentially ban all privates sales w/o an NICS check.

You are correct in saying it would be unenforceable, but the consequences of getting caught not complying could be severe and thus serves as a deterrent.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Given the lightning-quick speed that government seems to work at, I'm curious if he'd have shown up in NICS anyway.

There is alwasy the chance he wouldn't have. But we know that if a check isn't run, he would slip through every time.

True.

At every gun show I've been to, the vast majority of the sellers have been gun dealers, who have to run the NICS checks anyway. I think most of them would be happy to run the NICS check on behalf of a private seller for a small fee, provided such a thing is legal.

I'd consider myself a "gun-nut", but I have no problem requiring NICS checks for private sales at gun shows, however I'm not in favor of requiring it for private sales elsewhere, as it'd be pretty much unenforceable anyway.

Unfortunately, none of the groups wanting to close the "gun show loophole" are interested in addressing just the gun-show part, which I'm certain many pro-gun people would support - they want to essentially ban all privates sales w/o an NICS check.

You are correct in saying it would be unenforceable, but the consequences of getting caught not complying could be severe and thus serves as a deterrent.

I can see that, but it would do little to deter the criminal element, defeating the point of the law in the first place. It'd serve as nothing more than a nuisance for the law-abiding.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35860968/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Quote

Law enforcement officials say Bedell, a man with a history of severe psychiatric problems, had been sent a letter by California authorities Jan. 10 telling him he was prohibited from buying a gun because of his mental history.

Nineteen days later, the officials say, Bedell bought the Ruger at a gun show in Las Vegas. Such a sale by a private individual does not require the kind of background check that would have stopped Bedell's purchase.

Though I am a life member of the NRA, I don't agreee with them on everything. Background checks should be required on ALL firearm transactions, not just those involving a licensed dealer.
Would this have prevented the nut from getting a gun? Probably not. But it would have made it much more difficult and the person who sold it to him could also be held partially responsible for his actions. As it stands the guy who sold him the handgun(s) can claim he broke no laws or rules and went by the book.

I would agree if that after the search the record of the inquiry and a sale (if it happened) are destroyed and not kept

So in common with criminals, you like it that guns are untraceable.

That is another twist on your part

I want my privacy protected if I am legally able to purchase a gun. If I am a legal buyer or seller and and sell to a legal purchaser, why would the record need to be kept?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

So then do you advocate private gun sales go thru a gun dealer? If not, more restriction on gun dealers only pushes the bad guy to the private sector and does nothing to keep guns out the hands of the crook/murderer.

No, I don't advocate running all sales through a gun dealer. The instant check system can be modified to allow private sellers to call and get a simple yes or no to the sale without revealing any private information. This in no way pushes more restriction on gun dealers, nor any more responsibility. Yes, it would push them toward the black market. But, as i said, it would also enable us to hold the seller partially responsible for the buyers actions if no attempt was made to check the buyers background.

Ok, so you do advocate the clearance of all gun sales thru the government. Also, how can you hold a private party liable for following these rules? An FFL is liable thru his license, training, testing, acknowledgments of proper process, now you want to burden private gun owners of all of this knowledge and responsibility, even as it changes.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

...however I'm not in favor of requiring it for private sales elsewhere, as it'd be pretty much unenforceable anyway.

That's what I wrote before I read what you wrote; I agree.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Given the lightning-quick speed that government seems to work at, I'm curious if he'd have shown up in NICS anyway.

There is alwasy the chance he wouldn't have. But we know that if a check isn't run, he would slip through every time.

True.

At every gun show I've been to, the vast majority of the sellers have been gun dealers, who have to run the NICS checks anyway. I think most of them would be happy to run the NICS check on behalf of a private seller for a small fee, provided such a thing is legal.

I'd consider myself a "gun-nut", but I have no problem requiring NICS checks for private sales at gun shows, however I'm not in favor of requiring it for private sales elsewhere, as it'd be pretty much unenforceable anyway.

Unfortunately, none of the groups wanting to close the "gun show loophole" are interested in addressing just the gun-show part, which I'm certain many pro-gun people would support - they want to essentially ban all privates sales w/o an NICS check.

You are correct in saying it would be unenforceable, but the consequences of getting caught not complying could be severe and thus serves as a deterrent.

Now we're advoacting deterrence theory, a utopian principle that has never been found to be consistent. Look at the murder rate, as convictions and/or executions increase, does the murder rate go up, down or up and down irratically? Right, deterrence is fodder for politicians to peddle.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Given the lightning-quick speed that government seems to work at, I'm curious if he'd have shown up in NICS anyway.

There is alwasy the chance he wouldn't have. But we know that if a check isn't run, he would slip through every time.

True.

At every gun show I've been to, the vast majority of the sellers have been gun dealers, who have to run the NICS checks anyway. I think most of them would be happy to run the NICS check on behalf of a private seller for a small fee, provided such a thing is legal.

I'd consider myself a "gun-nut", but I have no problem requiring NICS checks for private sales at gun shows, however I'm not in favor of requiring it for private sales elsewhere, as it'd be pretty much unenforceable anyway.

Unfortunately, none of the groups wanting to close the "gun show loophole" are interested in addressing just the gun-show part, which I'm certain many pro-gun people would support - they want to essentially ban all privates sales w/o an NICS check.

You are correct in saying it would be unenforceable, but the consequences of getting caught not complying could be severe and thus serves as a deterrent.

I can see that, but it would do little to deter the criminal element, defeating the point of the law in the first place. It'd serve as nothing more than a nuisance for the law-abiding.

Right.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Given the lightning-quick speed that government seems to work at, I'm curious if he'd have shown up in NICS anyway.

There is alwasy the chance he wouldn't have. But we know that if a check isn't run, he would slip through every time.

True.

At every gun show I've been to, the vast majority of the sellers have been gun dealers, who have to run the NICS checks anyway. I think most of them would be happy to run the NICS check on behalf of a private seller for a small fee, provided such a thing is legal.

I'd consider myself a "gun-nut", but I have no problem requiring NICS checks for private sales at gun shows, however I'm not in favor of requiring it for private sales elsewhere, as it'd be pretty much unenforceable anyway.

Unfortunately, none of the groups wanting to close the "gun show loophole" are interested in addressing just the gun-show part, which I'm certain many pro-gun people would support - they want to essentially ban all privates sales w/o an NICS check.

You are correct in saying it would be unenforceable, but the consequences of getting caught not complying could be severe and thus serves as a deterrent.

I can see that, but it would do little to deter the criminal element, defeating the point of the law in the first place. It'd serve as nothing more than a nuisance for the law-abiding.

I think of it as being a way to make those who otherwise don't care what the buyer does with the gun take some responsibility for, at the minimum, making a reasonable and very simple effort to make sure the buyer is, in fact, legally qualified to purchase. We already hold people responsible for selling booze to minors. It only makes sense to hold people responsible for selling guns to illegal recipients if they don't make an effort to check their background.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Gawain 0]

The entire gun-control scheme is about control, not guns.

There isn't a single law on the books that can stop any motivated individual from acquiring a firearm. Period.

Criminals rely on elements of surprise and the shock value of a gun to carry out whatever endeavor they pursue (bank, 7-eleven, et al). They do this knowing that a vast majority of people are not armed.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35860968/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Quote

Law enforcement officials say Bedell, a man with a history of severe psychiatric problems, had been sent a letter by California authorities Jan. 10 telling him he was prohibited from buying a gun because of his mental history.

Nineteen days later, the officials say, Bedell bought the Ruger at a gun show in Las Vegas. Such a sale by a private individual does not require the kind of background check that would have stopped Bedell's purchase.

Though I am a life member of the NRA, I don't agreee with them on everything. Background checks should be required on ALL firearm transactions, not just those involving a licensed dealer.
Would this have prevented the nut from getting a gun? Probably not. But it would have made it much more difficult and the person who sold it to him could also be held partially responsible for his actions. As it stands the guy who sold him the handgun(s) can claim he broke no laws or rules and went by the book.

I would agree if that after the search the record of the inquiry and a sale (if it happened) are destroyed and not kept

So in common with criminals, you like it that guns are untraceable.

That is another twist on your part

I want my privacy protected if I am legally able to purchase a gun. If I am a legal buyer or seller and and sell to a legal purchaser, why would the record need to be kept?

If you are legal, what have you to worry about? I can understand why CRIMINALS would worry. Is there something you're hiding from us?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Given the lightning-quick speed that government seems to work at, I'm curious if he'd have shown up in NICS anyway.

There is alwasy the chance he wouldn't have. But we know that if a check isn't run, he would slip through every time.

True.

At every gun show I've been to, the vast majority of the sellers have been gun dealers, who have to run the NICS checks anyway. I think most of them would be happy to run the NICS check on behalf of a private seller for a small fee, provided such a thing is legal.

I'd consider myself a "gun-nut", but I have no problem requiring NICS checks for private sales at gun shows, however I'm not in favor of requiring it for private sales elsewhere, as it'd be pretty much unenforceable anyway.

Unfortunately, none of the groups wanting to close the "gun show loophole" are interested in addressing just the gun-show part, which I'm certain many pro-gun people would support - they want to essentially ban all privates sales w/o an NICS check.

You are correct in saying it would be unenforceable, but the consequences of getting caught not complying could be severe and thus serves as a deterrent.

I can see that, but it would do little to deter the criminal element, defeating the point of the law in the first place. It'd serve as nothing more than a nuisance for the law-abiding.

The exact same thing can be said about laws against murder, bank robbery, kidnapping, rape, and even speeding.

It's a silly argument.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Given the lightning-quick speed that government seems to work at, I'm curious if he'd have shown up in NICS anyway.

There is alwasy the chance he wouldn't have. But we know that if a check isn't run, he would slip through every time.

True.

At every gun show I've been to, the vast majority of the sellers have been gun dealers, who have to run the NICS checks anyway. I think most of them would be happy to run the NICS check on behalf of a private seller for a small fee, provided such a thing is legal.

I'd consider myself a "gun-nut", but I have no problem requiring NICS checks for private sales at gun shows, however I'm not in favor of requiring it for private sales elsewhere, as it'd be pretty much unenforceable anyway.

Unfortunately, none of the groups wanting to close the "gun show loophole" are interested in addressing just the gun-show part, which I'm certain many pro-gun people would support - they want to essentially ban all privates sales w/o an NICS check.

You are correct in saying it would be unenforceable, but the consequences of getting caught not complying could be severe and thus serves as a deterrent.

I can see that, but it would do little to deter the criminal element, defeating the point of the law in the first place. It'd serve as nothing more than a nuisance for the law-abiding.

I think of it as being a way to make those who otherwise don't care what the buyer does with the gun take some responsibility for, at the minimum, making a reasonable and very simple effort to make sure the buyer is, in fact, legally qualified to purchase. We already hold people responsible for selling booze to minors. It only makes sense to hold people responsible for selling guns to illegal recipients if they don't make an effort to check their background.

+1

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35860968/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Quote

Law enforcement officials say Bedell, a man with a history of severe psychiatric problems, had been sent a letter by California authorities Jan. 10 telling him he was prohibited from buying a gun because of his mental history.

Nineteen days later, the officials say, Bedell bought the Ruger at a gun show in Las Vegas. Such a sale by a private individual does not require the kind of background check that would have stopped Bedell's purchase.

Though I am a life member of the NRA, I don't agreee with them on everything. Background checks should be required on ALL firearm transactions, not just those involving a licensed dealer.
Would this have prevented the nut from getting a gun? Probably not. But it would have made it much more difficult and the person who sold it to him could also be held partially responsible for his actions. As it stands the guy who sold him the handgun(s) can claim he broke no laws or rules and went by the book.

I would agree if that after the search the record of the inquiry and a sale (if it happened) are destroyed and not kept

So in common with criminals, you like it that guns are untraceable.

That is another twist on your part

I want my privacy protected if I am legally able to purchase a gun. If I am a legal buyer or seller and and sell to a legal purchaser, why would the record need to be kept?

If you are legal, what have you to worry about? I can understand why CRIMINALS would worry. Is there something you're hiding from us?

So now you swing a sorry ass story regarding that infamous "if you have nothing to worry about" line

You are nothing if not hypocritical I guess

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35860968/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Quote

Law enforcement officials say Bedell, a man with a history of severe psychiatric problems, had been sent a letter by California authorities Jan. 10 telling him he was prohibited from buying a gun because of his mental history.

Nineteen days later, the officials say, Bedell bought the Ruger at a gun show in Las Vegas. Such a sale by a private individual does not require the kind of background check that would have stopped Bedell's purchase.

Though I am a life member of the NRA, I don't agreee with them on everything. Background checks should be required on ALL firearm transactions, not just those involving a licensed dealer.
Would this have prevented the nut from getting a gun? Probably not. But it would have made it much more difficult and the person who sold it to him could also be held partially responsible for his actions. As it stands the guy who sold him the handgun(s) can claim he broke no laws or rules and went by the book.

I would agree if that after the search the record of the inquiry and a sale (if it happened) are destroyed and not kept

So in common with criminals, you like it that guns are untraceable.

That is another twist on your part

I want my privacy protected if I am legally able to purchase a gun. If I am a legal buyer or seller and and sell to a legal purchaser, why would the record need to be kept?

If you are legal, what have you to worry about? I can understand why CRIMINALS would worry. Is there something you're hiding from us?

So now you swing a sorry ass story regarding that infamous "if you have nothing to worry about" line

You are nothing if not hypocritical I guess

Don't like Sauce for the Gander?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Dont care to answer the question?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35860968/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Quote

Law enforcement officials say Bedell, a man with a history of severe psychiatric problems, had been sent a letter by California authorities Jan. 10 telling him he was prohibited from buying a gun because of his mental history.

Nineteen days later, the officials say, Bedell bought the Ruger at a gun show in Las Vegas. Such a sale by a private individual does not require the kind of background check that would have stopped Bedell's purchase.

Though I am a life member of the NRA, I don't agreee with them on everything. Background checks should be required on ALL firearm transactions, not just those involving a licensed dealer.
Would this have prevented the nut from getting a gun? Probably not. But it would have made it much more difficult and the person who sold it to him could also be held partially responsible for his actions. As it stands the guy who sold him the handgun(s) can claim he broke no laws or rules and went by the book.

I would agree if that after the search the record of the inquiry and a sale (if it happened) are destroyed and not kept

So in common with criminals, you like it that guns are untraceable.

I believe that all guns should be completely untraceable.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG