I am usually considered a republican, but disagree on their stance on many things including the abolishment of edcuation for kids to keep themselves safe and teaching "abstinance" instead, and abortion rights.
However, I will never give up my right to my gun(s), and if anyone comes in my house without permission, I will shoot. To kill.
Likewise, I feel that anyone trying to harm me away from my home, they may be able to do it, but they'll go to the hospital in as bad or worse shape than I am.
The men and women of our office will do their job. We will follow the law, indict the lawbreakers, pursue convictions and lock up the gunmen. We will work hard and long for justice. But it will be late. . . always late. . . that is the nature of our job: to step in after the blood has been shed, to pursue justice for those who have fallen. We will do our job, ladies and gentlemen, but there are other jobs to do. Jobs we must all do. We must keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Richard A. Devine Cook County State's Attorney's Speech before the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
I agree with THX that this is a good thing, as long as you don't affect the law abiding. The only problem is that the anti gun and gun control crowd attempts to do this by restricting the law abiding citizens' ability to have guns, while the crooks hold their bellies laughing at all of us. The better thing would be to lock up repeat offenders for longer periods of time, and start cutting back on parole. But that would take money as we would need to build prison beds instead of having more prevention programs. That is probably a topic for another thread. I am unaware of any place on the face of the earth where gun control for the law abiding citizens has resulted in a reduction in criminal activity. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against this tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
Anyone know who made this statement? It was Minnesota's own HHH. He is on the same page as todays Justice Department.
i've always liked the statement "boxes used in the defence of freedom: soap box. mail box. ballot box. ammo box. use in that order." i may have the mail box and ballot box backwards though.
I am usually considered a republican, but disagree on their stance on many things including the abolishment of edcuation for kids to keep themselves safe and teaching "abstinance" instead, and abortion rights.
I don't know who would call you a republican with those ideas.
Ever consider that YOU are wrong and that you don't have to agree on every single issue? No I am not wrong. I don't have to agree on every issue.
There's many Republicans that are pro-abortion and many Democrats that are anti-abortion. No there are few pro abortionists that vote Republican. There a re fewer prolifers that vote democrat that is the way it is. Now if some is proabortion it is likely they are going to agree more with democrats than republicans. Again that is the way it is. They may call themselves Republicans but may they should look a little closer at the general principles of their party and maybe they woudld change their declaration.
Now if some is proabortion it is likely they are going to agree more with democrats than republicans.
I will give you that. However, I would argue that the abortion issue isn't as important in some people's minds as other issues.
They may call themselves Republicans but may they should look a little closer at the general principles of their party and maybe they woudld change their declaration.
Maybe the Republican party should catch up with the times and not be influenced so much by right winger extremists. Same goes for the Democrats.
Maybe the Republican party should catch up with the times and not be influenced so much by right winger extremists.
It is a myth that Republicans are "influenced so much by right winger extremists." It is political propaganda by democrats. That is not to say they are not much more conservative as a group than democrats. How could they not be?
You better look at the definition of extremists, then. Each of those people were elected by popular vote by thei constituients. Popularity by definition would seem to exclude the idea they are extremists, at least in relation to their constituients. Now I suppose you could say that North Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Utah and Mississipi are extrmists states but no one will buy that.
Olympia Snow, John McCain, Liddy Dole, John Chaffee (now retired I think). Also in New York you have the Governor, George Pataki.
The level to which they support gun control varies. The level that Democrats support gun control varies as well. There are some democrats who are probably stronger 2nd amendment supporters than some of our more "moderate" republicans.
The other variable is the context that gun control is used in.
I am of the opinion that people who have been convicted of murder should not be in possession of a gun. That is a form of gun control. Of course, I am also of the opinion that someone who has been convicted of murder should not necessarily be out walking around on the street, 'cause if they are, and they are still bent on committing murder, they will get a gun if not another suitable weapon.
Most Americans, even NRA members probably feel pretty close to the same way. Therefor they support "gun control". That term is meaningless unless you define what you mean by it. That's why the polls always seem to get this wrong, the gun controllers push ahead with more gun control laws, and then Gore gets defeated in his own home state for supporting more gun control laws.
Gun control is not a black and white issue. That's why we keep arguing over it. To some any control is way too much, and to some the only amount of control that will satisfy them is to have an outright ban.
THX 1138, this brings up a good topic. Where do our fellow posters find themselves on the gun control spectrum?
I am pretty close to no control. I mentioned above I don't want convicted violent felons to have guns, but I want them in prison as well. I don't think someone who has been mentally adjudicated and is still under that classification should have guns.
I think that open carry of handguns is protected by the BOR. Concealed carry should be shall issue, althought Vermont is very safe with no CCW permit required to carry concealed.
We should be able to keep and bear any arms that an infantry soldier or police officer can carry, as long as the damage those arms do can be limited to stopping an attack by one or a small group of individuals without causing widespread or undue harm to innocent bystanders.
This means RPGs, handgrenades, land mines, are out. These weapons should be kept by the authorities and then distributed to members of the militia when the militia is called to service. That way these weapons are used under the proper authority in dire circumstances or emergencies.
We would be much better off punishing misuse of firearms in crimes than we have been trying to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. If someone uses a firearm to commit a crime of violence against humans, (taking too many ducks wouldn't count), I am all for locking them up for a life time. If they fire the weapon in the commission of a violent crime, they get the death penalty if it is available in that state.
These people might as well be democrats. They are democrats in everything but name.
This is where RINO comes from (Republicans In Name Only).
There are probably some democrats who are regarded just the same by the left. They would be DINO's.
Democrats who are pro second amendment for the most part:
Hubert H. Humphry (deceased), James Trafficant (Ohio) who is now in some hot water, Zell Miller of Georgia, John Dingell of Michigan, the new governor of Virginia whose name escapes me, but it might be Mark Warner. I am sure there are others from western states and southern states.
This year, an election year, you will see members of the parties moving to the middle because they think that's where the most votes are. With 9/11 still somewhat fresh on our minds, with the Bush Justice Dept. making a public statement regarding the individual right to keep and bear arms, and now with the Zogby poll, the politicians will be reading the tea leaves and you won't hear much about gun control from the left, while the right will be railing against it just a little bit more. At least that is my prediction. I could be wrong, but it will be fun to watch the posturing on this issue.
The really funny thing is, is that gun control is usually not even among the top ten national issues when polls are conducted. Most people feel that enforcing existing laws is more effective than gun control. That has been in the polls for several years now. Oh, well. It gives crumudgeons like me something to argue over.
Jethro, when riots run rampant and the police are unable to provide necessary protection, then the owner is permitted to shoot to kill to protect his without fearing prosecution. Do you understand my previous posting now?!?!
Waiting periods? Depends upon why the gun is required/desired. Background checks? If you aren't in the police puter that should be enough. The quickest way is to check to see if you voted (not for whom just that you did). Voted = ok, didn't vote = not ok.
For your info: The Reps used to have a more moderate stance prior to Nixon. After which they increasing went with the Fundamentalists. Hence I do not vote for them.
Consider how they want little government but want more prisons, are anti-abortion (talk about being in a person's face!) and so on. Too many inherent contradictions in terms. Dems only just better but not so many old men in that party. Yeah, I do dislike old men - they get weird.
As in 'cramming for their finals' I have routinely found most old women to be more sensible than most old men. As an example, I give you Mugabe - a truly wierded out old man who should retire. We may not care for Mrs. Thatcher but at least she had the decency to behave properly and retire to private life.
Checking to see if someone is insane or a criminal before he/she buys the most lethal, military-style weapons is a common sense social safeguard, not any sort of imposition that anyone who's "clean" need fear.
Especially in the current "terrorism" context.
Who does it make more sense for the FBI to check up on?
An editorial writer who's criticizing Bush policy in a principled way?
Or the kind of dude who showed up at flight schools a year or so ago, but who's now prowling gunshows?
Who does it make more sense for the FBI to check up on?
An editorial writer who's critizing Bush policy in a principled way?
Or the kind of dude who showed up at flight schools a year or so ago, but who's now prowling gunshows? Â Â
That would be ....Gaaasp......."profiling" Ooooooh the "P" word. Ohhh noooo. Anything but that.
But on your other issue of terrorists buying guns at gunshows. Hmm let's seem, what did the terrorists use ? boxcutters, that's it regulate, and ban boxcutters, I want background checks on knives too, yes that'll stop the criminals. I want to close the cutlery world loophole.
First of all, it's a myth that many have bought lock stock and barrel.
And as to your terrorist buying a gun in Michigan and the "loophole" myth. Here's some info. See next post
CNSNews.com -- An anti-gun group's ad campaign suggesting that gun shows provide terrorists access to weapons is being shot down by the National Rifle Association (NRA). The group Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) asks in its latest advertising campaign, "We're fighting terrorists around the world. Why do we let them buy guns in America?"
The advertisement goes on to describe the arrest of alleged terrorist gunrunner Ali Boumelhem.
"According to The Middle East Intelligence Report (sic), the FBI has already arrested one Hezbollah terrorist who purchased weapons at several Michigan gun shows."
James Jay Baker, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) says the answer to AGS' question is, "We don't." He is highly critical of the ad's content, calling it an "outrageous attempt" to link the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks to gun shows.
"AGS has shown it is no longer content to capitalize on the grief left in the wake of two homicidal teen-agers at Columbine High School. It is now seeking to exploit the fear of global terrorism left by the attacks of September 11," Baker wrote in a December 20 editorial. "Furthermore, the facts of the cited case do not support the AGS effort."
He points out that the ad fails to mention that Boumelhem was a convicted felon who could not legally buy firearms at a gun show or anywhere else.
"To suggest he slipped through a 'gun show loophole' is simply a lie," Baker said. "He was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted in federal court. In other words, the system worked."
Boumelhem was convicted of shipping firearms to a non-licensed person Sept. 10th in U.S. District Court. He was scheduled to be sentenced this week. AGS does mention the previous felony conviction elsewhere on its website.
Baker cites further omissions by AGS. In its commentary on the Boumelhem case, the group writes:
"According to the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin (MEIB), the shipment intercepted in November was part of a pattern --Boumelhem 'traveled frequently to gun shows to buy arms and then hid them in cargo crates bound for Lebanon.' Moreover, an FBI informant previously had seen Boumelhem in Beirut unloading shipments of weapons and explosives," the group writes.
But the AGS' paraphrase of the informant describing Boumelhem's activities in Beirut to the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin (MEIB) leaves out key details.
"In addition," MEIB writes, "an FBI informant told investigators that he had seen Boumelhem in Beirut unloading shipments of automatic weapons, explosives, grenades and rocket launchers."
Baker believes the omission was intentional.
"Clearly, 'automatic weapons, explosives, grenades and rocket launchers' was changed to 'weapons and explosives,'" he said. "Why? Because AGS knows full well that since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934 none of those items can be bought or sold at any gun show."
The AGS website also describes the items seized after the FBI searched an auto parts cargo container Boumelhem was shipping to Lebanon.
"They found shotguns, ammunition, flash suppressors, assault weapons parts, and a police scanner hidden in a car door," AGS wrote.
But Osama Siblani, editor of Dearborn, Michigan's, "Arab American News" points out that what authorities actually found, inside a single car door, was only two shotguns and 750 rounds of ammunition, along with a few spare parts and police scanner.
"Hezbollah is getting millions of dollars from Iran. They have plenty of weapons. They don't need a few shotguns from Dearborn," Siblani said in a May 6, 2001 interview with "The Detroit News."
Despite the criticisms of its omissions, AGS continues to cite the case as an example of terrorists buying weapons by exploiting the so-called "gun show loophole."
Federally licensed firearms dealers agree to conduct background inquiries on all purchasers through the National Instant Check System (NICS) as a part of their licensing agreement.
Private citizens seeking to sell or trade personal guns are not required to conduct such checks at gun shows or anywhere else. AGS, and other anti-gun groups, call the exercise of that right a "loophole."
As CNSNews.com previously reported critics of NICS say the entire idea of background checks is merely a back-door effort by anti-Second Amendment lawmakers to create a federal registry of gun owners.
They point to a 1989 Justice Department document, entitled "Report to the Attorney General on Systems for Identifying Felons Who Attempt to Purchase Firearms."
"Any system that requires a criminal history record(s) check prior to purchase of a firearm creates the potential for the automated tracking of individuals who seek to purchase firearms," the report said.
"It shouldn't exist. It's unconstitutional," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, referring to the background check system.
Matt Bennett, a spokesman for AGS argues that background checks at gun shows are a necessary crime prevention tool.
"In our view, gun shows are the place where dangers arise," Bennett said. "If you're a criminal looking to buy a gun, it's just too easy access for those types of people at big, organized events like that."
Baker says AGS and other "radical fringe anti-gun groups" are simply continuing their pattern of exploiting current events to promote restrictions on Second Amendment rights.
"Americans will be disgusted by this crass manipulation, because they understand that the threat of terrorism will not be found in their neighborhood gun show," he said. "But the threat of political opportunism taking hold is very real."
So, "private" dealers enjoy a loophole that permits an avoidance of proper scrutiny.
And, unless I'm misreading the above piece, which is so intensely partisan to the pro-gun view as to demand a side-by-side comparison with the opposing claims, Boumelhem repeatedly succeeded in acquiring weapons and related items...but was caught only when trying to sell some of what he'd picked up.
And, unless I'm misreading the above piece, which is so intensely partisan to the pro-gun view as to demand a side-by-side comparison with the opposing claims,
Yeah. but can't actually do that as both AGS and Brady appear to have purged their Boumelhem claims from their web sites. Strange that. I guess their work was done I shot an error into the air. It fell to earth I know not where
Boumelhem repeatedly succeeded in acquiring weapons and related items...but was caught only when trying to sell some of what he'd picked up.
Repeatedly? (He did it. he did it again)
I'm sorry: No evidence for but was caught only when trying to sell some of what he'd picked upor for the claims of The Green Party of Delaware
On Sept. 10, one day before the devastating attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, Ali and MohamedBoumelhem were convicted on a variety of weapons violations plus conspiracy to ship weapons to the terrorist organization Hezbollah in Lebanon. They had legally purchased an arsenal of shotguns, ammunition, flash suppressors, assault weapons parts and a police scanner from a Michigan gun show.
How could this happen?
Because federal and state laws in Michigan (as in most of Florida) do not require background checks at guns shows, giving Ali and Mohamed Boumelhem free reign to shop for their terrorist comrades in the Hezbollah.
Mohamed, with a previously clean record, could go shopping for his mass-murdering buddiesat gun stores anywhere.
But Ali, operating unchecked at gun shows, was special. The government surveillance of him included an informant sighting of him in Beirut unloading previous shipments of weapons and explosives as well as video of him firing automatic weapons in Lebanon and proclaiming his Hezbollah association (he's a leader in its Amal militia). [Errors, exaggerations and unfounded perjoratives bolded] Â Â
If Ali really had militia connexions, he wouldn't have gone to the trouble of using a 40 foot shipping container to smuggle two (2) 12-guage shotguns to Lebanon The region's kinda awash with a lot more weaponary than that.
That's right the grand Middle East terrorists get their weapons at US Gun Show fantasy that Sarah pulled out of her arse involved two(2) 12 gauge shotguns
And for the record Ali Boumelhem was convicted of five counts of a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, one count of conspiracy to ship arms to Lebanon, and one count of conspiracy to ship firearms and ammo without notice to the carrier. His brother was acquiited of all charges.
All other claims are either Sarah Brady touting the "gun-show loophole" or the FBI claiming post September 11 that they aren't asleep; they caught a "terrorist arms smuggler"; and because of their vigilance the Hezbollah in Lebanon are wailing "Alas we cannot launch the Infada, the man bringing both of the shotguns from America has been arrested"
The circumstances of this case are hopelessly muddied by conflicting claims. Intensely partisan people calling each other "liar".
Here's the basic issue:
If I were someone interested in acquiring weapons for a criminal or terrorist activity (which is an utterly abhorent notion to me), I certainly wouldn't go to Wal-Mart to do it.
And I wouldn't risk robbing anyone.
I'd go to a gun show, faking a NRA-style, intense aversion to gun control and registration.
I'd just hang out and make contacts.
Sooner or later, I'd find someone with a similar, actual ideological orientation...that I could buy just about anything from.
I can't help but wonder how many such purchasers haven't been caught.
Colorado voters acted to close this dangerous loophole in their state.
Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) have introduced national legislation that would require background checks of all gun buyers at gun shows.
1. First(as several others and the article Luv2Fly posted):All gun purchases from FFL's at any gun show, anywhere in the US must go through a background check, which is supposed to be an instantaneous check, where the information about a "legal" purchaser is supposed to be destroyed immediately to prevent a registration system.
2. Second. Anyone who is selling firearms as a "business" is REQUIRED by Federal law to have an FFL. See First point above regarding the need for background checks and FFL's.
3. Third. If someone is not engaged in the "business" of selling firearms for a profit, or in other words is selling some of his own personal collection because he hasn't a need for them anymore or needs the money for other personal and private reasons, that person is not required to have a FFL and may sell to people without a background check. He can do that either at or away from the gun show. He is legally not supposed to sell to anyone he may reasonably suspect may be a felon, or otherwise engaged in criminal activity, or whom he may reasonably suspect is purchasing the firearm(s) for criminal activity. This is Dennis' and the gun controllers/banners "Gun Show Loophole". The seller in this case better not show up at any more than one gun show as a seller, because then he would and should raise the suspicions of the authorities. Plus the other FFL's would be inclined to "turn him in", as he is having an impact on their livlihoods.
Now assuming I'm Dennis, and I make myself act like an NRA type (whatever the H E doubletoothpicks that means).
Then I go to a gun show to look for weapons to use for terrorism. If I have never been convicted of a felony, I can buy from anyone I want. No loop hole there.
If I am not a felon, I can buy for other terrorists and criminals, but then I am conducting a straw purchase, which is highly illegal and against federal laws. No loop hole there, even though I may still get around the law without being caught.
Let's say that I decide to buy from a ne'er do well who is selling some of his personal collection. He is happy to sell to anyone. I can buy from him at a gun show. This is the so called loophole. How many private sellers sell guns at gun shows? The number is miniscule. The VPC and the Brady Bunch always claim that there are tables and tables of unlicensed dealer "stuff". What they forget (or purposely leave out) is that these people are selling knives, old military paraphenalia, T shirts, military surplus equipment, etc., but not firearms.
Now let's say they "close" the so called loophole, and make every gun purchase go through a background check. What's to stop Dennis and me from finding someone willing to break the law, agree to a purchase "off site", and then do the deal away from the gun show? What's to stop Dennis and me from buying a gun with a background check, and then later selling or trading that gun to one of our not so legal buddies for black market foodstamps to help the homeless.
So, to summarize, I will admit there is a loophole, but it is very small, and the law to close it would be easily circumvented. In addition, the proposed laws to close the loophole go way beyond that:3 days to complete background checks, registration of every attendee, registration of the promoters, registration of every seller, a requriment that if you even talk about a gun purchase, you need to go register that you had the conservation, and a whole lotta other gobbledygook that makes this unpalatable to us pro-freedom types.
Where do you think this closing of the loophole will lead us? I can imagine this: "You know, since we required background checks for every gun sale at a gun show, people are not actually making purchases at the gun shows from private sellers. They are going off site to do it. We need to make sure ALL PRIVATE SALES go through a background check".
Does anyone think that these background checks are stopping criminals from getting guns? I don't. They have many alternate channels.
Last point; (sorry about the length) Less than 2 percent of criminals got their guns at a gun show. Hardly a big crisis as some would have us believe.
The system I would approve would be one where if you WEREN'T in its database, you were OKAY. That way the only ones you would be tracking would be those who had 'volunteered for their current position'.
Profiling, without cause, is a bad thing; but once cause has been established then it should be used. For example, if rape do not go looking for Grandmothers.
Tying in with you and Kit, I can be dragged kicking and screaming to accept (even though I still believe it is an infringement on my rights under the 2nd) going through a background check to purchase a firearm, as long as the following conditions are met:
1. It takes less than 10 minutes. If it will take longer, that is the governments fault and they should fix it on their time, not mine! Congress gave the DOJ $200 million to put in a better records check computer system. What happened to that money? There should be a watchdog timer that at the end of 10 minutes says approved, if no ne'er do well names and info match mine.
2. The information about my background check should be immediately destroyed upon positive approval. None of this 90 or 180 days for auditing purposes. What a load of sheep dip that is.
3. If a felon attempts to purchase a firearm, the computer system should alert the local police to the name and information that was provided, as well as where the attempted purchase was attempted. The felon should be arrested ASAP for committing another felony, and tossed in the slammer, a federal one at that. I have problems with which violations of the law make a person a felon who can no longer possess firearms, but I'll save that for another time.
Why I think background checks don't prevent crime or prohibited persons from getting guns:
1. it's too easy to make fake ID's. The govt. has already been complaining about this.
2. Straw purchases easily circumvent the law.
3. Criminals can smuggle weapons into the country with drugs, and usually do.
4. The black market has guns for cheap on the street corner. Why pay high retail prices and go through the hassle that the law abiding do?
5. The government has gotten too big and bloated. One hand doesn't know what the other is doing. How are they supposed to keep accurate data on criminals.
6. The justice system routinely lets people plea bargain charges from felonies down to misdemeanors. For the most part, they would sale through a background check.
7. Violent juveniles who are charged as juveniles, get a clean rap sheet when they turn 18. They too would not be stopped by background checks.
8. The authorities can enter all sorts of information that might make you look suspicious on a background check, even if you just have too many unpaid parking tickets.
9. Criminals can steal information about people they know are law abiding and use that to create credit cards, drivers licenses, etc. and pass the background check.
10.We give drivers licenses to people who are here on visas. Do you think all of these people are entered into the data base? Can they pass a background check? I am not sure on that one.
I think like many laws they are feel good measures. They are put there for political reasons or by people who are looking for easy answers to crime even though they know it won't make a difference.
I don't mind the background checks as long as most of the conditions you laid out are met. I don't know about the 10 minute thing, heck it took me 20 to get liscence tabs yesterday :)
Other than that I don't mind them. I don't like them but what are you going to do ? In most cases criminals aren't going to go through all of that as you point out. I really don't think they make a huge differnece and any law can be gotten around by a criminal. I do like Kit's idea of just having a list of the people that shouldn't have them and matching up a name. That would eliminate some of peoples concerns as far as creating a list. If it's just the bad guys, no problem. I don't like them keeping records of names either. I don't buy it that they only keep them 90 days. Problem there of course you get a guy's girlfriend who is clean buying it for him or just buying it in the black market all together.
It should be noted as well that most pro 2nd ammendment people are also the first ones to push for heavier sentences for people commiting crimes with guns. We don't want criminals to have them anymore than you do. But we also realize that law breakers don't care about the law and it usually does nothing to take them from criminals and makes it harder for law abiding people who wish to do so. But you'll find that most support the laws already on the books and support legislation to make stiffer penalties for those who use a gun in a crime.
I present myself as the perfect example of why loophole closures are needed.
I'm a "different" kind of guy.
Prone to views most folks would deem radical and extremist.
You just don't know how completely wacko I actually might be.
Should I, or other passengers on the same space ship (or one flying in the opposite direction), be entirely free to buy guns without prior background scrutiny?
No siree, Benito J. Mussolini!
It's my responsibility to you, and to society, that that doesn't happen.
Prone to views most folks would deem radical and extremist.
Whew, good thing I was sitting when I read that.
Should I, or other passengers on the same space ship (or one flying in the opposite direction), be entirely free to buy guns without prior background scrutiny? Â Â
No siree, Benito J. Mussolini!
It's my responsibility to you, and to society, that that doesn't happen.
No it's my responsiblity and my right to protect and defend myself. If I deem it to be through using a gun, so be it. I don't currently and they are locked away in the gun safe but it's up to me to decide should I decide to do so.
BTW if you were traveling in a spaceship at say 3,000 miles an hour, if you fired a bullet would it just fall to the ground because you were already going faster than the bullet ? betcha didn't think of that did ya'
But NOT act to shut the open door that allowed three known terrorists to date to get weapons at our nation's gun shows. Â Â
But Dennis, didn't you read my earlier post on how easy it would be to circumvent the closing of this so called "gun show loophole"? There were 3 terrorists who broke the law already if they shouldn't have had guns. Did they have clean records or had they been convicted of something already? If they had clean records, they could have gone right through a background check. If they had unclean records, couldn't they have agreed to do a deal off site? Please explain how you are going to close this loophole with another law and make it effective? I lost you somewhere on your explaination as to how this is going to work.
If you just like to say, "We need a law to close the gun show loophole", then I suspect you haven't informed yourself (as Mr. Gore was so fond of saying)as to how that law could or would work, or you are just tossing political stones in the water and enjoying watching the ripples travel outward in ever larger concentric circles.
All we are saying (besides "give peace a chance") is that it's kinda screwy to
I would like to see peace everywhere in the world too, Dennis. The problem is that there are, and always will be people who are evil or willing to take advantage of weaker people who will never allow total peace.
When the serpent was able to convince Eve to eat the apple and then she convinced Adam, God took away world peace from mankind, and left mankind to his own existence. All he left was a promise that if man lived in a God like manner, he would once again know peace in the after life. Many people believe this and work their entire lives to try and foster peace. Many people have no belief in an afterlife, let alone a Supreme Creator, so what do they have to gain by being peaceful? They would rather be the top dogs in the present, and they sometimes don't care who gets hurt or killed in their climb to the top. This is called evil, Dennis. If you can figure out a way to eliminate evil, peace will have a chance.
I will treat others as I like to be treated. I will resist people who want to have control over my free will. Sometimes you have to fight to stay alive or to stay free, so that you can continue to work for peace.
Agreed, Ares. It's like saying all Republicans & Democrats agree fully with the party platforms.
Right THX
I am usually considered a republican, but disagree on their stance on many things including the abolishment of edcuation for kids to keep themselves safe and teaching "abstinance" instead, and abortion rights.
However, I will never give up my right to my gun(s), and if anyone comes in my house without permission, I will shoot. To kill.
Likewise, I feel that anyone trying to harm me away from my home, they may be able to do it, but they'll go to the hospital in as bad or worse shape than I am.
But, hey! I'm just a little old lady!
why only law enforcement should carry guns
Because gun Control makes the streets so safe
We must keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Nothing wrong with that. Just don't keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
I agree with THX that this is a good thing, as long as you don't affect the law abiding. The only problem is that the anti gun and gun control crowd attempts to do this by restricting the law abiding citizens' ability to have guns, while the crooks hold their bellies laughing at all of us. The better thing would be to lock up repeat offenders for longer periods of time, and start cutting back on parole. But that would take money as we would need to build prison beds instead of having more prevention programs. That is probably a topic for another thread. I am unaware of any place on the face of the earth where gun control for the law abiding citizens has resulted in a reduction in criminal activity. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.
Anyone know who made this statement? It was Minnesota's own HHH. He is on the same page as todays Justice Department.
i've always liked the statement "boxes used in the defence of freedom: soap box. mail box. ballot box. ammo box. use in that order." i may have the mail box and ballot box backwards though.
Allan Lang 6/5/02 9:48pm
We must keep guns out of the hands of criminals
------------------------------------------------------------------
The only reasonable, constitutional and in the end, feasible way to achieve this end is to seperate the criminals from the law abiding
By taking those who have proven thay have a predisposition towards violent crime and storing them away for the remainder of their lives
The prison system is not a rehab center, it is a wall of seperation
Gun control should not be mistaken for crime control
I am usually considered a republican, but disagree on their stance on many things including the abolishment of edcuation for kids to keep themselves safe and teaching "abstinance" instead, and abortion rights.
I don't know who would call you a republican with those ideas.
Come on Jethro. Anyone that doesn't agree with you is a Liberal in your mind.
Ever consider that YOU are wrong and that you don't have to agree on every single issue?
There's many Republicans that are pro-abortion and many Democrats that are anti-abortion.
Ever consider that YOU are wrong and that you don't have to agree on every single issue? No I am not wrong. I don't have to agree on every issue.
There's many Republicans that are pro-abortion and many Democrats that are anti-abortion. No there are few pro abortionists that vote Republican. There a re fewer prolifers that vote democrat that is the way it is. Now if some is proabortion it is likely they are going to agree more with democrats than republicans. Again that is the way it is. They may call themselves Republicans but may they should look a little closer at the general principles of their party and maybe they woudld change their declaration.
Now if some is proabortion it is likely they are going to agree more with democrats than republicans.
I will give you that. However, I would argue that the abortion issue isn't as important in some people's minds as other issues.
They may call themselves Republicans but may they should look a little closer at the general principles of their party and maybe they woudld change their declaration.
Maybe the Republican party should catch up with the times and not be influenced so much by right winger extremists. Same goes for the Democrats.
However, I would argue that the abortion issue isn't as important in some people's minds as other issues.
I will give you that.
Maybe the Republican party should catch up with the times and not be influenced so much by right winger extremists.
It is a myth that Republicans are "influenced so much by right winger extremists." It is political propaganda by democrats. That is not to say they are not much more conservative as a group than democrats. How could they not be?
It is political propagand by democrats.
I'm a Republican and I would arge that the party is influenced by too many extremists.
who do you call an extremist that has a lot of influence on the party?
Jessie Helms, Newt Gingrich, John Ashcroft, Orrin Hatch, Trent Lott....
You better look at the definition of extremists, then. Each of those people were elected by popular vote by thei constituients. Popularity by definition would seem to exclude the idea they are extremists, at least in relation to their constituients. Now I suppose you could say that North Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Utah and Mississipi are extrmists states but no one will buy that.
Sure thing Joel. Sorry about the tangent.
To stay on topic: I don't know of any Republicans that are for gun control but I know there are some Democrats that are against it.
Joel, do you know of any Republicans for gun control?
Olympia Snow, John McCain, Liddy Dole, John Chaffee (now retired I think). Also in New York you have the Governor, George Pataki.
The level to which they support gun control varies. The level that Democrats support gun control varies as well. There are some democrats who are probably stronger 2nd amendment supporters than some of our more "moderate" republicans.
The other variable is the context that gun control is used in.
I am of the opinion that people who have been convicted of murder should not be in possession of a gun. That is a form of gun control. Of course, I am also of the opinion that someone who has been convicted of murder should not necessarily be out walking around on the street, 'cause if they are, and they are still bent on committing murder, they will get a gun if not another suitable weapon.
Most Americans, even NRA members probably feel pretty close to the same way. Therefor they support "gun control". That term is meaningless unless you define what you mean by it. That's why the polls always seem to get this wrong, the gun controllers push ahead with more gun control laws, and then Gore gets defeated in his own home state for supporting more gun control laws.
Gun control is not a black and white issue. That's why we keep arguing over it. To some any control is way too much, and to some the only amount of control that will satisfy them is to have an outright ban.
THX 1138, this brings up a good topic. Where do our fellow posters find themselves on the gun control spectrum?
I am pretty close to no control. I mentioned above I don't want convicted violent felons to have guns, but I want them in prison as well. I don't think someone who has been mentally adjudicated and is still under that classification should have guns.
I think that open carry of handguns is protected by the BOR. Concealed carry should be shall issue, althought Vermont is very safe with no CCW permit required to carry concealed.
We should be able to keep and bear any arms that an infantry soldier or police officer can carry, as long as the damage those arms do can be limited to stopping an attack by one or a small group of individuals without causing widespread or undue harm to innocent bystanders.
This means RPGs, handgrenades, land mines, are out. These weapons should be kept by the authorities and then distributed to members of the militia when the militia is called to service. That way these weapons are used under the proper authority in dire circumstances or emergencies.
We would be much better off punishing misuse of firearms in crimes than we have been trying to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. If someone uses a firearm to commit a crime of violence against humans, (taking too many ducks wouldn't count), I am all for locking them up for a life time. If they fire the weapon in the commission of a violent crime, they get the death penalty if it is available in that state.
Olympia Snow, John McCain, Liddy Dole, John Chaffee (now retired I think). Also in New York you have the Governor, George Pataki.
Well, now that you mention it I remember McCain. The rest I was unaware of.
Regarding where I stand, I believe non criminals have a right to arms.
I don't have a problem with background checks per se but, they need to fix some of the issues.
I'm against the death penalty but I agree with life in prison.
mccain was the big one that i was thinking of. couldn't remember his name or i woulda posted it myself.
Olympia Snow, John McCain, Liddy Dole, John Chaffee (now retired I think). Also in New York you have the Governor, George Pataki.
These people might as well be democrats. They are democrats in everything but name.
This is where RINO comes from (Republicans In Name Only).
There are probably some democrats who are regarded just the same by the left. They would be DINO's.
Democrats who are pro second amendment for the most part:
Hubert H. Humphry (deceased), James Trafficant (Ohio) who is now in some hot water, Zell Miller of Georgia, John Dingell of Michigan, the new governor of Virginia whose name escapes me, but it might be Mark Warner. I am sure there are others from western states and southern states.
This year, an election year, you will see members of the parties moving to the middle because they think that's where the most votes are. With 9/11 still somewhat fresh on our minds, with the Bush Justice Dept. making a public statement regarding the individual right to keep and bear arms, and now with the Zogby poll, the politicians will be reading the tea leaves and you won't hear much about gun control from the left, while the right will be railing against it just a little bit more. At least that is my prediction. I could be wrong, but it will be fun to watch the posturing on this issue.
The really funny thing is, is that gun control is usually not even among the top ten national issues when polls are conducted. Most people feel that enforcing existing laws is more effective than gun control. That has been in the polls for several years now. Oh, well. It gives crumudgeons like me something to argue over.
JOEL LARSON 6/7/02 11:40am
Chaffe died in office, was a republican in name only (RINO)
they stole his seat and gave it to his son
there was something of a minor uproar
surprized you didn't hear some of the shouting
Oly is a little closer to the real thing
but only a little
Sorry to have kept you waiting
Jethro, when riots run rampant and the police are unable to provide necessary protection, then the owner is permitted to shoot to kill to protect his without fearing prosecution. Do you understand my previous posting now?!?!
Waiting periods? Depends upon why the gun is required/desired. Background checks? If you aren't in the police puter that should be enough. The quickest way is to check to see if you voted (not for whom just that you did). Voted = ok, didn't vote = not ok.
For your info: The Reps used to have a more moderate stance prior to Nixon. After which they increasing went with the Fundamentalists.
Hence I do not vote for them.
Consider how they want little government but want more prisons, are anti-abortion (talk about being in a person's face!) and so on. Too many inherent contradictions in terms. Dems only just better but not so many old men in that party. Yeah, I do dislike old men - they get weird.
Old in mind.
As in 'cramming for their finals' I have routinely found most old women to be more sensible than most old men. As an example, I give you Mugabe - a truly wierded out old man who should retire. We may not care for Mrs. Thatcher but at least she had the decency to behave properly and retire to private life.
Hezbollah member Ali Boumelhem buys weapons at Michigan gunshows, where he doesn't have to undergo police background checks.
Connor Claxton, of the IRA, goes to South Florida to purchase weapons for the "struggle" in Northern Ireland.
Muhammad Asrar, with al-Qaeda connections, loads up on submachine guns at Texas gunshows.
When "Nutty Jim Bipper", who mutters about shooting down helicopters,
hits the gunshow circuit, be sure to give him what he wants.
Put dollars above national security, and don't ever make any concessions to that Godawful background check idea!
I tohught you were against government regulations Dennis ? Whatever happened to not forcing your morals on someone ?
I'll let Joel correct your false assumptions on the other issues.
Checking to see if someone is insane or a criminal before he/she
buys the most lethal, military-style weapons is a common sense social safeguard, not any sort of imposition that anyone who's "clean" need fear.
Especially in the current "terrorism" context.
Who does it make more sense for the FBI to check up on?
An editorial writer who's criticizing Bush policy in a principled way?
Or the kind of dude who showed up at flight schools a year or so ago,
but who's now prowling gunshows?
That would be ....Gaaasp......."profiling" Ooooooh the "P" word. Ohhh noooo. Anything but that.
But on your other issue of terrorists buying guns at gunshows.
Hmm let's seem, what did the terrorists use ? boxcutters, that's it regulate, and ban boxcutters, I want background checks on knives too, yes that'll stop the criminals. I want to close the cutlery world loophole.
First of all, it's a myth that many have bought lock stock and barrel.
And as to your terrorist buying a gun in Michigan and the "loophole" myth. Here's some info.
See next post
CNSNews.com -- An anti-gun group's ad campaign suggesting that gun shows provide terrorists access to weapons is being shot down by the National Rifle Association (NRA).
The group Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) asks in its latest advertising campaign, "We're fighting terrorists around the world. Why do we let them buy guns in America?"
The advertisement goes on to describe the arrest of alleged terrorist gunrunner Ali Boumelhem.
"According to The Middle East Intelligence Report (sic), the FBI has already arrested one Hezbollah terrorist who purchased weapons at several Michigan gun shows."
James Jay Baker, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) says the answer to AGS' question is, "We don't." He is highly critical of the ad's content, calling it an "outrageous attempt" to link the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks to gun shows.
"AGS has shown it is no longer content to capitalize on the grief left in the wake of two homicidal teen-agers at Columbine High School. It is now seeking to exploit the fear of global terrorism left by the attacks of September 11," Baker wrote in a December 20 editorial. "Furthermore, the facts of the cited case do not support the AGS effort."
He points out that the ad fails to mention that Boumelhem was a convicted felon who could not legally buy firearms at a gun show or anywhere else.
"To suggest he slipped through a 'gun show loophole' is simply a lie," Baker said. "He was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted in federal court. In other words, the system worked."
Boumelhem was convicted of shipping firearms to a non-licensed person Sept. 10th in U.S. District Court. He was scheduled to be sentenced this week. AGS does mention the previous felony conviction elsewhere on its website.
Baker cites further omissions by AGS. In its commentary on the Boumelhem case, the group writes:
"According to the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin (MEIB), the shipment intercepted in November was part of a pattern --Boumelhem 'traveled frequently to gun shows to buy arms and then hid them in cargo crates bound for Lebanon.' Moreover, an FBI informant previously had seen Boumelhem in Beirut unloading shipments of weapons and explosives," the group writes.
But the AGS' paraphrase of the informant describing Boumelhem's activities in Beirut to the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin (MEIB) leaves out key details.
"In addition," MEIB writes, "an FBI informant told investigators that he had seen Boumelhem in Beirut unloading shipments of automatic weapons, explosives, grenades and rocket launchers."
Baker believes the omission was intentional.
"Clearly, 'automatic weapons, explosives, grenades and rocket launchers' was changed to 'weapons and explosives,'" he said. "Why? Because AGS knows full well that since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934 none of those items can be bought or sold at any gun show."
The AGS website also describes the items seized after the FBI searched an auto parts cargo container Boumelhem was shipping to Lebanon.
"They found shotguns, ammunition, flash suppressors, assault weapons parts, and a police scanner hidden in a car door," AGS wrote.
But Osama Siblani, editor of Dearborn, Michigan's, "Arab American News" points out that what authorities actually found, inside a single car door, was only two shotguns and 750 rounds of ammunition, along with a few spare parts and police scanner.
"Hezbollah is getting millions of dollars from Iran. They have plenty of weapons. They don't need a few shotguns from Dearborn," Siblani said in a May 6, 2001 interview with "The Detroit News."
Despite the criticisms of its omissions, AGS continues to cite the case as an example of terrorists buying weapons by exploiting the so-called "gun show loophole."
Federally licensed firearms dealers agree to conduct background inquiries on all purchasers through the National Instant Check System (NICS) as a part of their licensing agreement.
Private citizens seeking to sell or trade personal guns are not required to conduct such checks at gun shows or anywhere else. AGS, and other anti-gun groups, call the exercise of that right a "loophole."
As CNSNews.com previously reported critics of NICS say the entire idea of background checks is merely a back-door effort by anti-Second Amendment lawmakers to create a federal registry of gun owners.
They point to a 1989 Justice Department document, entitled "Report to the Attorney General on Systems for Identifying Felons Who Attempt to Purchase Firearms."
"Any system that requires a criminal history record(s) check prior to purchase of a firearm creates the potential for the automated tracking of individuals who seek to purchase firearms," the report said.
"It shouldn't exist. It's unconstitutional," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, referring to the background check system.
Matt Bennett, a spokesman for AGS argues that background checks at gun shows are a necessary crime prevention tool.
"In our view, gun shows are the place where dangers arise," Bennett said. "If you're a criminal looking to buy a gun, it's just too easy access for those types of people at big, organized events like that."
Baker says AGS and other "radical fringe anti-gun groups" are simply continuing their pattern of exploiting current events to promote restrictions on Second Amendment rights.
"Americans will be disgusted by this crass manipulation, because they understand that the threat of terrorism will not be found in their neighborhood gun show," he said. "But the threat of political opportunism taking hold is very real."
Copyright CNSNews.com
So, "private" dealers enjoy a loophole that permits an avoidance of
proper scrutiny.
And, unless I'm misreading the above piece, which is so intensely
partisan to the pro-gun view as to demand a side-by-side comparison with the opposing claims, Boumelhem repeatedly succeeded in acquiring weapons and related items...but was caught only when trying to sell
some of what he'd picked up.
Of course I am pro-gun
and a Democrat btw. What I am against is criminals.
Looks like.
Yeah. but can't actually do that as both AGS and Brady appear to have purged their Boumelhem claims from their web sites. Strange that. I guess their work was done
I shot an error into the air. It fell to earth I know not where
Repeatedly? (He did it. he did it again)
I'm sorry: No evidence for but was caught only when trying to sell some of what he'd picked upor for the claims of
The Green Party of Delaware
If Ali really had militia connexions, he wouldn't have gone to the trouble of using a 40 foot shipping container to smuggle two (2) 12-guage shotguns to Lebanon The region's kinda awash with a lot more weaponary than that.
That's right the grand Middle East terrorists get their weapons at US Gun Show fantasy that Sarah pulled out of her arse involved two(2) 12 gauge shotguns
And for the record Ali Boumelhem was convicted of five counts of a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, one count of conspiracy to ship arms to Lebanon, and one count of conspiracy to ship firearms and ammo without notice to the carrier. His brother was acquiited of all charges.
All other claims are either Sarah Brady touting the "gun-show loophole" or the FBI claiming post September 11 that they aren't asleep; they caught a "terrorist arms smuggler"; and because of their vigilance the Hezbollah in Lebanon are wailing "Alas we cannot launch the Infada, the man bringing both of the shotguns from America has been arrested"
The circumstances of this case are hopelessly muddied by conflicting claims. Intensely partisan people calling each other "liar".
Here's the basic issue:
If I were someone interested in acquiring weapons for a criminal or terrorist activity (which is an utterly abhorent notion to me), I certainly wouldn't go to Wal-Mart to do it.
And I wouldn't risk robbing anyone.
I'd go to a gun show, faking a NRA-style, intense aversion to gun control and registration.
I'd just hang out and make contacts.
Sooner or later, I'd find someone with a similar, actual ideological orientation...that I could buy just about anything from.
That needs to be tightened up.
I can't help but wonder how many such purchasers haven't been caught.
Colorado voters acted to close this dangerous loophole in their state.
Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) have introduced national legislation that would require background checks of all gun buyers at gun shows.
It's a common sense measure.
Let's back it.
1. First(as several others and the article Luv2Fly posted):All gun purchases from FFL's at any gun show, anywhere in the US must go through a background check, which is supposed to be an instantaneous check, where the information about a "legal" purchaser is supposed to be destroyed immediately to prevent a registration system.
2. Second. Anyone who is selling firearms as a "business" is REQUIRED by Federal law to have an FFL. See First point above regarding the need for background checks and FFL's.
3. Third. If someone is not engaged in the "business" of selling firearms for a profit, or in other words is selling some of his own personal collection because he hasn't a need for them anymore or needs the money for other personal and private reasons, that person is not required to have a FFL and may sell to people without a background check. He can do that either at or away from the gun show. He is legally not supposed to sell to anyone he may reasonably suspect may be a felon, or otherwise engaged in criminal activity, or whom he may reasonably suspect is purchasing the firearm(s) for criminal activity. This is Dennis' and the gun controllers/banners "Gun Show Loophole". The seller in this case better not show up at any more than one gun show as a seller, because then he would and should raise the suspicions of the authorities. Plus the other FFL's would be inclined to "turn him in", as he is having an impact on their livlihoods.
Now assuming I'm Dennis, and I make myself act like an NRA type (whatever the H E doubletoothpicks that means).
Then I go to a gun show to look for weapons to use for terrorism. If I have never been convicted of a felony, I can buy from anyone I want. No loop hole there.
If I am not a felon, I can buy for other terrorists and criminals, but then I am conducting a straw purchase, which is highly illegal and against federal laws. No loop hole there, even though I may still get around the law without being caught.
Let's say that I decide to buy from a ne'er do well who is selling some of his personal collection. He is happy to sell to anyone. I can buy from him at a gun show. This is the so called loophole. How many private sellers sell guns at gun shows? The number is miniscule. The VPC and the Brady Bunch always claim that there are tables and tables of unlicensed dealer "stuff". What they forget (or purposely leave out) is that these people are selling knives, old military paraphenalia, T shirts, military surplus equipment, etc., but not firearms.
Now let's say they "close" the so called loophole, and make every gun purchase go through a background check. What's to stop Dennis and me from finding someone willing to break the law, agree to a purchase "off site", and then do the deal away from the gun show? What's to stop Dennis and me from buying a gun with a background check, and then later selling or trading that gun to one of our not so legal buddies for black market foodstamps to help the homeless.
So, to summarize, I will admit there is a loophole, but it is very small, and the law to close it would be easily circumvented. In addition, the proposed laws to close the loophole go way beyond that:3 days to complete background checks, registration of every attendee, registration of the promoters, registration of every seller, a requriment that if you even talk about a gun purchase, you need to go register that you had the conservation, and a whole lotta other gobbledygook that makes this unpalatable to us pro-freedom types.
Where do you think this closing of the loophole will lead us? I can imagine this: "You know, since we required background checks for every gun sale at a gun show, people are not actually making purchases at the gun shows from private sellers. They are going off site to do it. We need to make sure ALL PRIVATE SALES go through a background check".
Does anyone think that these background checks are stopping criminals from getting guns? I don't. They have many alternate channels.
Last point; (sorry about the length) Less than 2 percent of criminals got their guns at a gun show. Hardly a big crisis as some would have us believe.
Joel, Good post as usual.
Kit,
Well said on both points.
Tying in with you and Kit, I can be dragged kicking and screaming to accept (even though I still believe it is an infringement on my rights under the 2nd) going through a background check to purchase a firearm, as long as the following conditions are met:
1. It takes less than 10 minutes. If it will take longer, that is the governments fault and they should fix it on their time, not mine! Congress gave the DOJ $200 million to put in a better records check computer system. What happened to that money? There should be a watchdog timer that at the end of 10 minutes says approved, if no ne'er do well names and info match mine.
2. The information about my background check should be immediately destroyed upon positive approval. None of this 90 or 180 days for auditing purposes. What a load of sheep dip that is.
3. If a felon attempts to purchase a firearm, the computer system should alert the local police to the name and information that was provided, as well as where the attempted purchase was attempted. The felon should be arrested ASAP for committing another felony, and tossed in the slammer, a federal one at that. I have problems with which violations of the law make a person a felon who can no longer possess firearms, but I'll save that for another time.
Why I think background checks don't prevent crime or prohibited persons from getting guns:
1. it's too easy to make fake ID's. The govt. has already been complaining about this.
2. Straw purchases easily circumvent the law.
3. Criminals can smuggle weapons into the country with drugs, and usually do.
4. The black market has guns for cheap on the street corner. Why pay high retail prices and go through the hassle that the law abiding do?
5. The government has gotten too big and bloated. One hand doesn't know what the other is doing. How are they supposed to keep accurate data on criminals.
6. The justice system routinely lets people plea bargain charges from felonies down to misdemeanors. For the most part, they would sale through a background check.
7. Violent juveniles who are charged as juveniles, get a clean rap sheet when they turn 18. They too would not be stopped by background checks.
8. The authorities can enter all sorts of information that might make you look suspicious on a background check, even if you just have too many unpaid parking tickets.
9. Criminals can steal information about people they know are law abiding and use that to create credit cards, drivers licenses, etc. and pass the background check.
10.We give drivers licenses to people who are here on visas. Do you think all of these people are entered into the data base? Can they pass a background check? I am not sure on that one.
Joel,
I think like many laws they are feel good measures. They are put there for political reasons or by people who are looking for easy answers to crime even though they know it won't make a difference.
I don't mind the background checks as long as most of the conditions you laid out are met. I don't know about the 10 minute thing, heck it took me 20 to get liscence tabs yesterday :)
Other than that I don't mind them. I don't like them but what are you going to do ? In most cases criminals aren't going to go through all of that as you point out. I really don't think they make a huge differnece and any law can be gotten around by a criminal. I do like Kit's idea of just having a list of the people that shouldn't have them and matching up a name. That would eliminate some of peoples concerns as far as creating a list. If it's just the bad guys, no problem. I don't like them keeping records of names either. I don't buy it that they only keep them 90 days. Problem there of course you get a guy's girlfriend who is clean buying it for him or just buying it in the black market all together.
It should be noted as well that most pro 2nd ammendment people are also the first ones to push for heavier sentences for people commiting crimes with guns. We don't want criminals to have them anymore than you do. But we also realize that law breakers don't care about the law and it usually does nothing to take them from criminals and makes it harder for law abiding people who wish to do so. But you'll find that most support the laws already on the books and support legislation to make stiffer penalties for those who use a gun in a crime.
I present myself as the perfect example of why loophole closures are needed.
I'm a "different" kind of guy.
Prone to views most folks would deem radical and extremist.
You just don't know how completely wacko I actually might be.
Should I, or other passengers on the same space ship (or one flying in
the opposite direction), be entirely free to buy guns without prior
background scrutiny?
No siree, Benito J. Mussolini!
It's my responsibility to you, and to society, that that doesn't happen.
Check me out, please.
Whew, good thing I was sitting when I read that.
No it's my responsiblity and my right to protect and defend myself. If I deem it to be through using a gun, so be it. I don't currently and they are locked away in the gun safe but it's up to me to decide should I decide to do so.
BTW if you were traveling in a spaceship at say 3,000 miles an hour, if you fired a bullet would it just fall to the ground because you were already going faster than the bullet ? betcha didn't think of that did ya'
All we are saying (besides "give peace a chance") is that it's kinda screwy to...
Tighten flight school security after 9/11 to prevent a repeat of September's travesty.
Conduct sweeps of Islamic communities in the U.S. to identify
potential terrorists (nevermind, for a moment, the civil liberties
problems entailed).
Dance with sharpened spiked shoes on the Bill of Rights to the tune of the USA PATRIOT ACT boogie.
But NOT act to shut the open door that allowed three known terrorists
to date to get weapons at our nation's gun shows.
But Dennis, didn't you read my earlier post on how easy it would be to circumvent the closing of this so called "gun show loophole"? There were 3 terrorists who broke the law already if they shouldn't have had guns. Did they have clean records or had they been convicted of something already? If they had clean records, they could have gone right through a background check. If they had unclean records, couldn't they have agreed to do a deal off site? Please explain how you are going to close this loophole with another law and make it effective? I lost you somewhere on your explaination as to how this is going to work.
If you just like to say, "We need a law to close the gun show loophole", then I suspect you haven't informed yourself (as Mr. Gore was so fond of saying)as to how that law could or would work, or you are just tossing political stones in the water and enjoying watching the ripples travel outward in ever larger concentric circles.
I would like to see peace everywhere in the world too, Dennis. The problem is that there are, and always will be people who are evil or willing to take advantage of weaker people who will never allow total peace.
When the serpent was able to convince Eve to eat the apple and then she convinced Adam, God took away world peace from mankind, and left mankind to his own existence. All he left was a promise that if man lived in a God like manner, he would once again know peace in the after life. Many people believe this and work their entire lives to try and foster peace. Many people have no belief in an afterlife, let alone a Supreme Creator, so what do they have to gain by being peaceful? They would rather be the top dogs in the present, and they sometimes don't care who gets hurt or killed in their climb to the top. This is called evil, Dennis. If you can figure out a way to eliminate evil, peace will have a chance.
I will treat others as I like to be treated. I will resist people who want to have control over my free will. Sometimes you have to fight to stay alive or to stay free, so that you can continue to work for peace.
Dennis Rahkonen 6/11/02 5:25pm
Dance with sharpened spiked shoes on the Bill of Rights
isn't that what you propose with most every post ?