Belgian_Draft

I'm sure there's probably some sort of civil liability involved in such a case. The problem I see is that there's little common sense involved in outlawing all private sales w/o a NICS check. What if I was to purchase a gun from my dad? A NICS check really wouldn't be warranted at all, but would I run the risk of being arrested and convicted of a felony because I didn't get a NICS check done? Doesn't seem right. I agree. That is why I suggested the alternative of making the check optional but holding the seller partially reponsible for the buyers actions IF the buyer was legally prohibeted from owning a gun. In the case of selling to your dad you would have a pretty good idea of whether he was a convicted felon or a documented nut case. As the law stands now, you could sell your gun to ANYBODY as long as you didn't know for a fact they were prohibited from owning it. 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.

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 silly argument is passing laws to "prevent" crime and expecting criminals to abide by them. Do you really think the rates of murder, bank robbery, kidnapping, rape, etc. would remain unchanged if suddenly they became legal? Laws nevber prevented anyone from committing a crime. They only deter most people and punish those who get caught breaking those laws. 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.

Do you support the same background checks and responsibility requirements for selling a car, since there are many more vehicle deaths than gun deaths? There are far fewer restrictions on purchasing a car. The only one I know of is in some states a minor cannot legally purchase a car without their parents permission. In those cases the law is the same as it is for booze....if you sell it to a minor, you can be held partially responsible for what happens next. 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.

Yes, they have proof. The gun was traded by the police to a dealer, who then sold it to the person who sold it at the show in Vegas. Where did you see anything saying his treatment wasn't reported? 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.

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. You have to have that private info FOR the NICS check, so how do you figure to get a 'simple yes or no without revealing any private information'? The decision would be made on the Feds end of the call. All the seller would be told is a simple yes or no. If the buyer doesn't want to give out his name and SS number to the seller he would have the option of having the local police run the check. If the buyer is turned down he would have the option of finding out why...unless he already knew the reason. 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.

So you want to punish the people who did NOT commit the crime? That's kind of bizarre. If you sell a car to someone, and then they kill someone driving drunk, should you be punished for not knowing that he was prone to drinking and driving? Be careful of what you ask for. But once kallend finishes up his future crime prediction machine, then we can run all transactions through him, and that will make the world perfect. No, I want to punish those who would facilitate the crime by selling a gun to a known felon. If you have a gun and you want to sell it, fine. Sell it to whomever you want as long as they pass a background check. They pass, you sell the gun, your responsibility ends there. But if you don't run a background check or sell the gun even if the check comes back witha big red flag, then you would be held partially responsible. It should be common sense for people to take responsibility such as selling a gun seriously. People shouldn't have to be told to check the buyers background. Unfortunately the world is full of people who only care that they got what they wanted and don't care what happens next. It is sad that we have come to the point where laws are needed just to make people take their responsibilities seriously. 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.

Yes, most defiantely. Exactly what does that mean? 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.

It is also Albert Einsteins birthday. 1879

One of my favorite TV shows when I was a kid was Mission:Impossible. Rest in peace. 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.

Actually we should not be afraid to tax the super rich because if we don't then lazy people will get mad they will fly right at us and get tangled in our hair and bite us and give us West Nile and rabies and we'll all go sterile as a result and there will be nobody left to do all the work and OH! THE HUGE MANATEE! 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.

Does that mean you get the pun? (It's really geeky) 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.

Fuck that! I got balls but I like 'em right where they are, thank you. 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.

no, they don't. and no, they aren't

The super-rich already pay a higher percentage of their income to the tax man than the rest of us. They are already paying more than "their fair share". It is their money, not ours. The same as your income is your money, not our money. 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.

I once watched a high school student recite pi to 500 decimal places. Hell, I have trouble remembering my phone number! 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.

Mmmm...good point. 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.

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.

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.

Has anybody here had a chance to ride a Triumph Rocket III Touring? I was looking at one in the showroom but haven't had a chance to test ride yet. It seems to sit real nice. The only bad thing i've heard (which really isn't an issue for me) is that it sounds like a Farmall tractor. Not looking to replace my GS, just looking for a second bike for those looooong trips. I have, however, ridden a HD Road King. It was niiiiice!

3.14159... Kinda has a ring to it.

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.

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.

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

Uh, yeah...it does. |Context box| You have officially taken the statement out of the box. The statement had no purpose in the article other than to imply weed prevents cancer. It's really that simple. Heck, I don't think it causes cancer any more than you probably do. What they should have stated was that there has never been a documented case of marijuana causing cancer. It is far more accurate, can be proven, and does not mislead the reader into think weed is some kind of cancer preventative substance. 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.

Uh, yeah...it does. 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.