***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The guy in Newtown, his mother was a lawful gun owner. She had a connection to the crime. At the end of the day, guns introduce a hazard into our society. And if we make the social judgment that that's ok with us to accept, then fine. But the costs should be borne by the people who enjoy it not everybody else. It's how we do everything, or at least how we should.

Society benefits from the social utility of 2nd amendment rights in ways that significantly outweighs the hazards. There's no question about that.

Gun owners benefit from having guns. My share of enjoyment of 2nd amendment rights is limited to the venison that I turn into jerky at Christmas. But I'm willing to trade that in for reducing gun violence. If you guys don't want to trade in your guns, then the cost should be borne by the people who benefit.This isn't rocket surgery.

Gun owners tend to think that even non-gun owners benefit from other people's gun ownership. Apparently the fact that I might have a gun is what's keeping the hordes of rapists and government oppressors from knocking down my door in the middle of the night. When the Westchester newspaper published the list of people with gun permits, all the gun people freaked out first because OMG NOW ALL THE BAD GUYS KNOW THE HOUSES WHERE THERE ARE NO GUNS!! Then when us non-gun owners didn't really care, they switched their argument to "NOW ALL THE BAD GUYS KNOW THE HOUSES WHERE THEY CAN STEAL GUNS!!"

 

[smotherhook]

this is the same guy who said to levy a tax of X amount of dollars per gun every year. so, if i have 40 collector guns that i never shoot (shelf queens) i have to pay 700-800 dollars ayear in taxes on them. jeez, i am going to go take a #### now.

I always thought conservatives favored, "pay your share" and, "take responsibility". Guess not.FWIW, I'd be fine with exempting guns that are permanently disabled. If you want to have a trophy on your wall that can't hurt anybody, that's fine.

share of what? take responsibility for what? permanently disabling a collector firearm is like taking the engine out of a 63 split window coupe (corvette)

Read 4 up.Then pay the tax. Or buy fewer guns. I don't care. Make your own ####### decisions.

no and no

Do you have any other hobbies which you want me to pay for?

no

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

The guy in Newtown, his mother was a lawful gun owner. She had a connection to the crime. At the end of the day, guns introduce a hazard into our society. And if we make the social judgment that that's ok with us to accept, then fine. But the costs should be borne by the people who enjoy it not everybody else. It's how we do everything, or at least how we should.

Society benefits from the social utility of 2nd amendment rights in ways that significantly outweighs the hazards. There's no question about that. You are just as responsible for Newtown as I am. Yet you demand that I make sacrifices while you aren't willing to at all?

We don't need to pass new legislation to strengthen background checks. Simply start enforcing the laws that already exist.

I'd say there's a glaringly huge question about that, otherwise none of these conversations would be happening.

 

[smotherhook]

this is the same guy who said to levy a tax of X amount of dollars per gun every year. so, if i have 40 collector guns that i never shoot (shelf queens) i have to pay 700-800 dollars ayear in taxes on them. jeez, i am going to go take a #### now.

I always thought conservatives favored, "pay your share" and, "take responsibility". Guess not.FWIW, I'd be fine with exempting guns that are permanently disabled. If you want to have a trophy on your wall that can't hurt anybody, that's fine.

share of what? take responsibility for what? permanently disabling a collector firearm is like taking the engine out of a 63 split window coupe (corvette)

Read 4 up.Then pay the tax. Or buy fewer guns. I don't care. Make your own ####### decisions.

no and no

Do you have any other hobbies which you want me to pay for?

no

Just this one then. Ok.

no

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

It wouldn't be unprecedented for taxpayers to pay for other people's hobbies. Where I live there are taxpayer-funded dog parks and tennis courts and playgrounds and basketball courts and hiking trails, etc. I'm not saying those things are the same as gun ownership, but Matthias's general point seems a bit off.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Nunavut man who fired a semi-automatic rifle at five home intruders, killing three, has murder convictions overturned

Good for him

 

[smotherhook]

this is the same guy who said to levy a tax of X amount of dollars per gun every year. so, if i have 40 collector guns that i never shoot (shelf queens) i have to pay 700-800 dollars ayear in taxes on them. jeez, i am going to go take a #### now.

I always thought conservatives favored, "pay your share" and, "take responsibility". Guess not.FWIW, I'd be fine with exempting guns that are permanently disabled. If you want to have a trophy on your wall that can't hurt anybody, that's fine.

share of what? take responsibility for what? permanently disabling a collector firearm is like taking the engine out of a 63 split window coupe (corvette)

Read 4 up.Then pay the tax. Or buy fewer guns. I don't care. Make your own ####### decisions.

no and no

Do you have any other hobbies which you want me to pay for?

no

Just this one then. Ok.

no

So someone should pay for a guard in every school to keep people safe since we have all sorts of guns, but it shouldn't be gun owners and it shouldn't be people who don't own guns. Basically your solution is borrow the money until we're all dead?

no

 

[ichris]

The guy in Newtown, his mother was a lawful gun owner. She had a connection to the crime. At the end of the day, guns introduce a hazard into our society. And if we make the social judgment that that's ok with us to accept, then fine. But the costs should be borne by the people who enjoy it not everybody else. It's how we do everything, or at least how we should.

Society benefits from the social utility of 2nd amendment rights in ways that significantly outweighs the hazards. There's no question about that.

Gun owners benefit from having guns. My share of enjoyment of 2nd amendment rights is limited to the venison that I turn into jerky at Christmas. But I'm willing to trade that in for reducing gun violence. If you guys don't want to trade in your guns, then the cost should be borne by the people who benefit.This isn't rocket surgery.

Odd, this discussion is no longer about compromise, it's about removing guns from society. Glad we got to the bottom of that.If you can't understand or recognize the positive externality benefits of gun ownership in society and the second amendment, no compromises will ever satisfy your hoplophobic desires.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

It wouldn't be unprecedented for taxpayers to pay for other people's hobbies. Where I live there are taxpayer-funded dog parks and tennis courts and playgrounds and basketball courts and hiking trails, etc. I'm not saying those things are the same as gun ownership, but Matthias's general point seems a bit off.

It's really about it being a negative externality. I'm trying to keep things accessible.

It's not a traditional externality, though, because most people's guns aren't involved in homicides or suicides or other bad stuff. You would be charging people based on the possibility that their gun might be used in that way, but that probably varies a lot based on what kind of gun it is, how it's stored, where the person lives, etc.

 

[ichris]

If you can't understand or recognize the positive externality benefits of gun ownership in society and the second amendment, no compromises will ever satisfy your hoplophobic desires.

I recognize some people take a benefit out of their gun ownership. I don't think there's this halo effect that you're implying that I reap these huge benefits of you, or someone else, having a gun. So all I'm saying is that the people who benefit from having guns around should be the people who foot the bill for having them around. This isn't complex.

You've already made your intentions clear. The second amendment has no place in your utopian society. If this was about making society in the real world safer you should be willing to compromise.Since compromising is no longer a viable option perhaps we should look into enforcing current laws.

 

[timschochet]

It wouldn't be unprecedented for taxpayers to pay for other people's hobbies. Where I live there are taxpayer-funded dog parks and tennis courts and playgrounds and basketball courts and hiking trails, etc. I'm not saying those things are the same as gun ownership, but Matthias's general point seems a bit off.

I've spent some time the last few days on a gun owners' website (TheHighRoad.Org). I learned quite a bit from the experience. One of the things that became very clear to me is that gun owners do not regard their firearms as a "hobby". They see themselves as the constitutional defenders of freedom. They honestly believe that they will one day be called upon (possibly soon) to resist tyranny. To paraphrase A Few Good Men, they perceive themselves as the guys we need on the Wall.

 

[timschochet]

Since compromising is no longer a viable option perhaps we should look into enforcing current laws.

Right now we can't enforce current laws effectively without a universal background check. It is illegal for convicted felons to purchase guns. But they're able to get away with it because there are no background checks for private sales.

 

[ichris]

Since compromising is no longer a viable option perhaps we should look into enforcing current laws.

Right now we can't enforce current laws effectively without a universal background check. It is illegal for convicted felons to purchase guns. But they're able to get away with it because there are no background checks for private sales.

It's illegal to lie on a Form 4473, punishable for up to 10 years in prison. Universal background checks would make absolutely no difference in the government's ability to prosecute these crimes. When the FFL calls in to do the NICS check and it comes back denied it means the buyer either lied or NICS failed. In cases of perjury, these should be the easiest to prosecute. The signed Form 4473 is proof of the lie.

We have a known prohibited person attempting to buy a gun and a clear cut case with evidence to prosecute them. The FBI is aware of their intent to purchase a weapon via NICS. And they don't follow it up? They ignore them? The background check worked, it kept the gun from the prohibited person. Why are only .1% of these perjury cases prosecuted?

The government has the tools to enforce this law. No new legislation required.

 

[tom22406]

Maybe this will help clear some things up for you Tim

Link

Poll: Gov’t Trust Hits Historic Low, Majority Say Feds Threaten Personal Rights

January 31, 2013 6:13 PM

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – Americans’ trust in the federal government has hit a historic low as – for the first time in the Pew Research Center’s poll history – the majority of the public says the government threatens their personal rights and freedoms.

The January 9-13 Pew Research Center poll finds that 53 percent of Americans think the federal government impedes upon their personal rights and freedoms. The percentage of people who say they are content with the government sank to a record low of only 11 percent.

The survey finds continued widespread distrust in the U.S. government.

About a quarter of Americans (26 percent) trust the government in Washington to do the right thing just about always or most of the time; 73 percent say they can trust the government only some of the time or volunteer that they can never trust the government.

Just 20 percent of Americans say they are basically content with the federal government; 58 percent say they are frustrated, while 19 percent say they are angry.

Lack of trust in the federal government has increased steadily since the beginning of the Obama administration, according to Pew poll numbers.

In March 2010, opinions were divided over whether the government represented a threat to personal freedom; 47 percent said it did while 50 percent disagreed. In surveys between 1995 and 2003, majorities rejected the idea that the government threatened people’s rights and freedoms.

And the poll found that Americans trust the system, just not the politicians themselves.

When asked if the current problem with Congress is a broken political system, or the members themselves, most people continue to point to the lawmakers. A majority (56 percent) says that the political system can work fine, it is the members of Congress that are the problem. Only about a third (32 percent) says that lawmakers have good intentions and it is political system that is broken.

And both Republicans and Democrats appear to agree that the system works – but the politicians don’t.

Nearly identical majorities of Republicans (58 percent), Democrats (57 percent) and independents (56 percent) say that lawmakers, rather than the political system, are the problem with Congress.

 

[timschochet]

Since compromising is no longer a viable option perhaps we should look into enforcing current laws.

Right now we can't enforce current laws effectively without a universal background check. It is illegal for convicted felons to purchase guns. But they're able to get away with it because there are no background checks for private sales.

It's illegal to lie on a Form 4473, punishable for up to 10 years in prison. Universal background checks would make absolutely no difference in the government's ability to prosecute these crimes. When the FFL calls in to do the NICS check and it comes back denied it means the buyer either lied or NICS failed. In cases of perjury, these should be the easiest to prosecute. The signed Form 4473 is proof of the lie.

We have a known prohibited person attempting to buy a gun and a clear cut case with evidence to prosecute them. The FBI is aware of their intent to purchase a weapon via NICS. And they don't follow it up? They ignore them? The background check worked, it kept the gun from the prohibited person. Why are only .1% of these perjury cases prosecuted?

The government has the tools to enforce this law. No new legislation required.

Form 4473 is for licensed sellers only. I agree with you that it needs to be enforced better. But I'm talking about private sales, for which this form is not currently required.Also, my understanding is the reason that the ATF is unable to enforce these forms for licensed sellers is that the NRA and it's supporters have consistently fought giving funds to the ATF for this purpose. The NRA does not WANT these laws enforced.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Since compromising is no longer a viable option perhaps we should look into enforcing current laws.

Right now we can't enforce current laws effectively without a universal background check. It is illegal for convicted felons to purchase guns. But they're able to get away with it because there are no background checks for private sales.

Hmm. Maybe if you instituted a universal background check on the purchase drugs, convicted felons wouldn't be able to get drugs anymore.

 

[ichris]

Since compromising is no longer a viable option perhaps we should look into enforcing current laws.

Right now we can't enforce current laws effectively without a universal background check. It is illegal for convicted felons to purchase guns. But they're able to get away with it because there are no background checks for private sales.

It's illegal to lie on a Form 4473, punishable for up to 10 years in prison. Universal background checks would make absolutely no difference in the government's ability to prosecute these crimes. When the FFL calls in to do the NICS check and it comes back denied it means the buyer either lied or NICS failed. In cases of perjury, these should be the easiest to prosecute. The signed Form 4473 is proof of the lie.

We have a known prohibited person attempting to buy a gun and a clear cut case with evidence to prosecute them. The FBI is aware of their intent to purchase a weapon via NICS. And they don't follow it up? They ignore them? The background check worked, it kept the gun from the prohibited person. Why are only .1% of these perjury cases prosecuted?

The government has the tools to enforce this law. No new legislation required.

Form 4473 is for licensed sellers only. I agree with you that it needs to be enforced better. But I'm talking about private sales, for which this form is not currently required.Also, my understanding is the reason that the ATF is unable to enforce these forms for licensed sellers is that the NRA and it's supporters have consistently fought giving funds to the ATF for this purpose. The NRA does not WANT these laws enforced.

That's not true at all. The NRA is openly advocating that these laws need to be enforced. How easy would it be for people who get denied by NICS to turn around and buy a gun through a private sale? Damn easy. If we're concerned about reducing gun violence, prosecuting this crime would be a good start and they wouldn't need to wait for congress to pass a law. If prohibited people knowingly try to buy a gun they must be prosecuted for lying on the Form 4473. If they aren't they have no reason not to try buying weapons.

 

[Hoosier16]

That list of FFLs on gunbroker is wildly outdated. Ten years ago there were 283,000 FFLs. Today there are only 118,000. There are not plenty of FFLs charging transfer fees that cheap anymore.

I just checked the 1st 3 pages on that link. The prices listed for the ones that had websites matched their prices listed on their websites. I couldn't find any that were outdated.I'm not sure why the number of FFLs is important, but I think there are only about 60,000 today.

In a face to face private transfer I avoid the use tax. I can't do that if an FFL is required to runs a NICS check.

That's not quite the same as being charged a new tax. The tax is currently required. "Avoid" probably isn't the right word.

I am satisfied with the measures WAC has in place to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

That's great that you're satisfied, but there clearly is a giant hole in their method. Nobody is going to confiscate my CCW card if I'm arrested for a domestic crime. They will deny me if I try to renew it, but that may be 5 years from now.

The shrinking number of FFLs matters because there are fewer businesses that can legally facilitate gun transfers. With less competition the FFLs charge whatever they want to process a transfer. Gun stores charge confiscatory prices for transfers because they'd rather you bought the gun from them. Again, it won't be a big deal for the average person. But it will cripple a collectors ability to trade without significantly diminishing the value of his collection.

I think you're significantly overstating the economic burden of transfer fees. You don't think 60,000 FFLs are enough to create competition? A $25.00 fee is confiscatory? I admit to not fully understanding the collector side of it. I don't know how many 'trades' one makes a year. But, at some number of trades, the collector probably isn't a collector anymore. He probably should be considered a dealer. At that point, it might make sense for the collector to become an FFL.

If you are so convinced universal background checks will make society safer then you should have no problems paying your fair share of the cost. I'm not convinced it will make a difference.

I'm not sure what this means but I do pay my fair share. I don't mind paying the FFL fee or background check fee when I buy a gun. I do think it would make a little bit of a difference running background checks on each purchase. It doesn't prevent someone from illegally obtaining a gun on the street but it does prevent a criminal from obtaining a gun illegally from a seller who is attempting to legally sell a gun.

What COULD make society safer is if we actually made an effort to enforce laws already on the books. The DOJ doesn't even go after people who lie on the the Form 4473 for background checks. Something like .1% of perjuries on Form 4473 are prosecuted. The DOJ doesn't need to wait for congress to pass a new law to strengthen background checks. Doing this will at least begin to deter prohibited people from trying to buy weapons.

Agree 100% on this. Prosecute current laws. Make current penalties for crimes stiffer. Don't parole the violent criminals.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Nunavut man who fired a semi-automatic rifle at five home intruders, killing three, has murder convictions overturnedGood for him

He held what is called an SKS-D, which he legally owned. The semi-automatic rifle is supposed to hold only five bullets but Mr. Bishop fitted it with a 25-bullet “banana clip,” an illegal add-on that gives it a similar appearance to an AK-47.

What would have happened had he only had the 5 shot clip Tim thinks he should have?

 

[Cookiemonster]

Since compromising is no longer a viable option perhaps we should look into enforcing current laws.

Right now we can't enforce current laws effectively without a universal background check. It is illegal for convicted felons to purchase guns. But they're able to get away with it because there are no background checks for private sales.

It's illegal to lie on a Form 4473, punishable for up to 10 years in prison. Universal background checks would make absolutely no difference in the government's ability to prosecute these crimes. When the FFL calls in to do the NICS check and it comes back denied it means the buyer either lied or NICS failed. In cases of perjury, these should be the easiest to prosecute. The signed Form 4473 is proof of the lie.

We have a known prohibited person attempting to buy a gun and a clear cut case with evidence to prosecute them. The FBI is aware of their intent to purchase a weapon via NICS. And they don't follow it up? They ignore them? The background check worked, it kept the gun from the prohibited person. Why are only .1% of these perjury cases prosecuted?

The government has the tools to enforce this law. No new legislation required.

Form 4473 is for licensed sellers only. I agree with you that it needs to be enforced better. But I'm talking about private sales, for which this form is not currently required.Also, my understanding is the reason that the ATF is unable to enforce these forms for licensed sellers is that the NRA and it's supporters have consistently fought giving funds to the ATF for this purpose. The NRA does not WANT these laws enforced.

But if they are unwilling or unable to enforce the broken laws that are served on a silver platter, how in the world does it make sense to enact further laws that they will have next to no ability to enforce? I am all for making it an easier, non-intrusive (as in, not giving a stranger my SSN) procedure to verify a buyer's legitimacy, but to make further law and inconvenience and or expense while not doing what you can about what you can in the way of crime and punishment, it is just a waste of time. The feds are not doing their jobs as it is. I don't feel it is justified to let them further in the door of telling me how to live my life when they already don't do what they should be doing, let alone giving them more of my money to keep doing less with it.

 

[timschochet]

This editorial from the Washington Post was probably a little over the top, but I found this part interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/opinion/waldman-gun-women/index.html

What gun advocates say is that we all need to put ourselves and our families in danger to prepare for the home invasion that is the equivalent of being struck by lightning. According to the FBI, in the entire country in 2011 there were just 201 justifiable homicides committed with guns by private citizens. There are over 300 million guns in America, which means that about 1 out of every 1.5 million guns was actually used for lethal self-defense. According to the National Weather Service, your chance of being hit by lightning this year is a mere 1 in 1 million.

 

[jafo]

This editorial from the Washington Post was probably a little over the top, but I found this part interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/opinion/waldman-gun-women/index.html

What gun advocates say is that we all need to put ourselves and our families in danger to prepare for the home invasion that is the equivalent of being struck by lightning. According to the FBI, in the entire country in 2011 there were just 201 justifiable homicides committed with guns by private citizens. There are over 300 million guns in America, which means that about 1 out of every 1.5 million guns was actually used for lethal self-defense. According to the National Weather Service, your chance of being hit by lightning this year is a mere 1 in 1 million.

It fails to mention how many home invasions are stopped with a gun without shooting anyone. Seems to be more common than lethal methods, and many cases go unreported.

 

[timschochet]

This editorial from the Washington Post was probably a little over the top, but I found this part interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2...omen/index.html

What gun advocates say is that we all need to put ourselves and our families in danger to prepare for the home invasion that is the equivalent of being struck by lightning. According to the FBI, in the entire country in 2011 there were just 201 justifiable homicides committed with guns by private citizens. There are over 300 million guns in America, which means that about 1 out of every 1.5 million guns was actually used for lethal self-defense. According to the National Weather Service, your chance of being hit by lightning this year is a mere 1 in 1 million.

It fails to mention how many home invasions are stopped with a gun without shooting anyone. Seems to be more common than lethal methods, and many cases go unreported.

That's correct. And the editorial also fails to point out that mass shootings, which are the primary reason given for banning high capacity magazines, are even rarer than home invasions. Which is why I think the editorial was over the top. But there is a significant point here: both sides of this debate are making a lot of arguments based on extremely rare anecdotes. Even worse, the pro-gun side base at least some of their arguments on an extremely rare theoretical (the "tyrannical government") for which there are no anecdotes to rely on. This is a sorry way to make public policy decisions.

 

[Boston]

This editorial from the Washington Post was probably a little over the top, but I found this part interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/opinion/waldman-gun-women/index.html

What gun advocates say is that we all need to put ourselves and our families in danger to prepare for the home invasion that is the equivalent of being struck by lightning. According to the FBI, in the entire country in 2011 there were just 201 justifiable homicides committed with guns by private citizens. There are over 300 million guns in America, which means that about 1 out of every 1.5 million guns was actually used for lethal self-defense. According to the National Weather Service, your chance of being hit by lightning this year is a mere 1 in 1 million.

How do you estimate the number of home invasions not committed because a criminal has to worry about a homeowner having a gun?

 

[Wilbur Wood]

I'd like to see some data on the following:The ratio of #1 to #2#1 The number of time that a legal gun owner uses, or threatens to use, a firearm to protect his family, house or possessions.#2 The number of times a "legally" owned firearm is fired for any reason other than #1 above and in which an injury or death occursTo me some real insight into this ratio would say a lot. I have a gut feeling about this ratio but would love to see some data.

 

[Hoosier16]

But if they are unwilling or unable to enforce the broken laws that are served on a silver platter, how in the world does it make sense to enact further laws that they will have next to no ability to enforce? I am all for making it an easier, non-intrusive (as in, not giving a stranger my SSN) procedure to verify a buyer's legitimacy, but to make further law and inconvenience and or expense while not doing what you can about what you can in the way of crime and punishment, it is just a waste of time. The feds are not doing their jobs as it is. I don't feel it is justified to let them further in the door of telling me how to live my life when they already don't do what they should be doing, let alone giving them more of my money to keep doing less with it.

One of the biggest jobs of a prosecutor is to use their discretion on what cases warrant charging someone. That entails a number of variables, including severity of the crime. It's my understanding that like voting rights, gun ownership rights aren't a binary thing. It isn't just that if you've ever been convicted of a crime you are ineligible. And there are weirdnesses with once people finish their paroled, get their record expunged, or whatever. So there may be legitimate confusion on someone's part on whether or not they're entitled to own a firearm. If a prosecutor looks at an offense and decides not to press charges, they're not avoiding their job. They're doing it.

I think it's pretty binary. The questions can only be answered yes or no. There really isn't any gray area.Form 4473

 

[Hoosier16]

I think it's pretty binary. The questions can only be answered yes or no. There really isn't any gray area.Form 4473

The second half of that form is all explanations and exceptions. It's not totally straight-forward and someone may be unaware of their status. Most of "voter fraud" cases are people who believe that they're eligible to vote but aren't.

Point me to the question that's ambiguous.

 

[Hoosier16]

I think it's pretty binary. The questions can only be answered yes or no. There really isn't any gray area.Form 4473

The second half of that form is all explanations and exceptions. It's not totally straight-forward and someone may be unaware of their status. Most of "voter fraud" cases are people who believe that they're eligible to vote but aren't.

Point me to the question that's ambiguous.

The question involving criminals is probably the one that's most appropriate. The exception (to 11.c and 11.i on the bottom of pg. 4) as written isn't ambiguous (although it is a bit layered/complex) but people can be unaware of mistaken about their own status or the governing law of their jurisdiction. People may believe that having served their time and being put out on parole, their conviction has been set aside. As I said, it happens in voting cases with some amount of frequency. And at the end of the day, it's US prosecutors who are in best control of the facts to decide whether or not to charge someone. To say that we have X violations and Y convictions so people aren't doing their job is to a limited view.

I think convicted criminals are well aware of their status and probably know the difference between a pardon and a parole. Even so, 100% of the denials don't have to be prosecuted. But, I think when the percentage of prosecutions is as low as it is, we can conclude that people aren't doing their job.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

But if they are unwilling or unable to enforce the broken laws that are served on a silver platter, how in the world does it make sense to enact further laws that they will have next to no ability to enforce? I am all for making it an easier, non-intrusive (as in, not giving a stranger my SSN) procedure to verify a buyer's legitimacy, but to make further law and inconvenience and or expense while not doing what you can about what you can in the way of crime and punishment, it is just a waste of time. The feds are not doing their jobs as it is. I don't feel it is justified to let them further in the door of telling me how to live my life when they already don't do what they should be doing, let alone giving them more of my money to keep doing less with it.

One of the biggest jobs of a prosecutor is to use their discretion on what cases warrant charging someone. That entails a number of variables, including severity of the crime. It's my understanding that like voting rights, gun ownership rights aren't a binary thing. It isn't just that if you've ever been convicted of a crime you are ineligible. And there are weirdnesses with once people finish their paroled, get their record expunged, or whatever. So there may be legitimate confusion on someone's part on whether or not they're entitled to own a firearm. If a prosecutor looks at an offense and decides not to press charges, they're not avoiding their job. They're doing it.

Defendant: I didn't know I was driving 70 in a 55 your honorJudge: O' you didn't know? Well in that case, case dismissed..

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Great discussion. Glad to see people have landed on an answer.

 

[mad sweeney]

But if they are unwilling or unable to enforce the broken laws that are served on a silver platter, how in the world does it make sense to enact further laws that they will have next to no ability to enforce? I am all for making it an easier, non-intrusive (as in, not giving a stranger my SSN) procedure to verify a buyer's legitimacy, but to make further law and inconvenience and or expense while not doing what you can about what you can in the way of crime and punishment, it is just a waste of time. The feds are not doing their jobs as it is. I don't feel it is justified to let them further in the door of telling me how to live my life when they already don't do what they should be doing, let alone giving them more of my money to keep doing less with it.

One of the biggest jobs of a prosecutor is to use their discretion on what cases warrant charging someone. That entails a number of variables, including severity of the crime. It's my understanding that like voting rights, gun ownership rights aren't a binary thing. It isn't just that if you've ever been convicted of a crime you are ineligible. And there are weirdnesses with once people finish their paroled, get their record expunged, or whatever. So there may be legitimate confusion on someone's part on whether or not they're entitled to own a firearm. If a prosecutor looks at an offense and decides not to press charges, they're not avoiding their job. They're doing it.

Defendant: I didn't know I was driving 70 in a 55 your honorJudge: O' you didn't know? Well in that case, case dismissed..

Oh good, you're back. Are you going to address the outstanding issues you've ducked amidst your bluster or are you going to continue to ignore it and and bluster your way through different mounds of horse crap?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

But if they are unwilling or unable to enforce the broken laws that are served on a silver platter, how in the world does it make sense to enact further laws that they will have next to no ability to enforce? I am all for making it an easier, non-intrusive (as in, not giving a stranger my SSN) procedure to verify a buyer's legitimacy, but to make further law and inconvenience and or expense while not doing what you can about what you can in the way of crime and punishment, it is just a waste of time. The feds are not doing their jobs as it is. I don't feel it is justified to let them further in the door of telling me how to live my life when they already don't do what they should be doing, let alone giving them more of my money to keep doing less with it.

One of the biggest jobs of a prosecutor is to use their discretion on what cases warrant charging someone. That entails a number of variables, including severity of the crime. It's my understanding that like voting rights, gun ownership rights aren't a binary thing. It isn't just that if you've ever been convicted of a crime you are ineligible. And there are weirdnesses with once people finish their paroled, get their record expunged, or whatever. So there may be legitimate confusion on someone's part on whether or not they're entitled to own a firearm. If a prosecutor looks at an offense and decides not to press charges, they're not avoiding their job. They're doing it.

Defendant: I didn't know I was driving 70 in a 55 your honorJudge: O' you didn't know? Well in that case, case dismissed..

Oh good, you're back. Are you going to address the outstanding issues you've ducked amidst your bluster or are you going to continue to ignore it and and bluster your way through different mounds of horse crap?

rhetorical question?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

But if they are unwilling or unable to enforce the broken laws that are served on a silver platter, how in the world does it make sense to enact further laws that they will have next to no ability to enforce? I am all for making it an easier, non-intrusive (as in, not giving a stranger my SSN) procedure to verify a buyer's legitimacy, but to make further law and inconvenience and or expense while not doing what you can about what you can in the way of crime and punishment, it is just a waste of time. The feds are not doing their jobs as it is. I don't feel it is justified to let them further in the door of telling me how to live my life when they already don't do what they should be doing, let alone giving them more of my money to keep doing less with it.

One of the biggest jobs of a prosecutor is to use their discretion on what cases warrant charging someone. That entails a number of variables, including severity of the crime. It's my understanding that like voting rights, gun ownership rights aren't a binary thing. It isn't just that if you've ever been convicted of a crime you are ineligible. And there are weirdnesses with once people finish their paroled, get their record expunged, or whatever. So there may be legitimate confusion on someone's part on whether or not they're entitled to own a firearm. If a prosecutor looks at an offense and decides not to press charges, they're not avoiding their job. They're doing it.

Defendant: I didn't know I was driving 70 in a 55 your honorJudge: O' you didn't know? Well in that case, case dismissed..

Oh good, you're back. Are you going to address the outstanding issues you've ducked amidst your bluster or are you going to continue to ignore it and and bluster your way through different mounds of horse crap?

Outstanding issues? As if you're here to be part of a discussion rather than troll?

 

[ichris]

According to Joe Biden... "we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."

in 2010, prosecutors considered just 22 cases of information falsification, and 40 additional background-check cases ended up before prosecutors for reasons related to unlawful gun possession. Prosecutors pursued just 44 of those 62 cases, although more than 72,600 applications were denied on the basis of a background check. Overall, gun prosecutions per capita in 2011 were down 35 percent from the previous administration's peak in 2004.

 

[tom22406]

According to Joe Biden... "we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately."

in 2010, prosecutors considered just 22 cases of information falsification, and 40 additional background-check cases ended up before prosecutors for reasons related to unlawful gun possession. Prosecutors pursued just 44 of those 62 cases, although more than 72,600 applications were denied on the basis of a background check. Overall, gun prosecutions per capita in 2011 were down 35 percent from the previous administration's peak in 2004.

We want more laws to not enforce!!We demand action!!!!

 

[mad sweeney]

But if they are unwilling or unable to enforce the broken laws that are served on a silver platter, how in the world does it make sense to enact further laws that they will have next to no ability to enforce? I am all for making it an easier, non-intrusive (as in, not giving a stranger my SSN) procedure to verify a buyer's legitimacy, but to make further law and inconvenience and or expense while not doing what you can about what you can in the way of crime and punishment, it is just a waste of time. The feds are not doing their jobs as it is. I don't feel it is justified to let them further in the door of telling me how to live my life when they already don't do what they should be doing, let alone giving them more of my money to keep doing less with it.

One of the biggest jobs of a prosecutor is to use their discretion on what cases warrant charging someone. That entails a number of variables, including severity of the crime. It's my understanding that like voting rights, gun ownership rights aren't a binary thing. It isn't just that if you've ever been convicted of a crime you are ineligible. And there are weirdnesses with once people finish their paroled, get their record expunged, or whatever. So there may be legitimate confusion on someone's part on whether or not they're entitled to own a firearm. If a prosecutor looks at an offense and decides not to press charges, they're not avoiding their job. They're doing it.

Defendant: I didn't know I was driving 70 in a 55 your honorJudge: O' you didn't know? Well in that case, case dismissed..

Oh good, you're back. Are you going to address the outstanding issues you've ducked amidst your bluster or are you going to continue to ignore it and and bluster your way through different mounds of horse crap?

Outstanding issues? As if you're here to be part of a discussion rather than troll?

So you're going to do exactly as I thought. Bluster your way past answering the outstanding issues (as in late, as in you're avoiding answering them). You asked if I thought something was ridiculous and I answered but you edited my return question out of my response and have avoided it. You pointed out that I was wrong about some facts buying doing so were blatantly wrong about your own facts but won't address that at all either. Own up or shut up.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

But if they are unwilling or unable to enforce the broken laws that are served on a silver platter, how in the world does it make sense to enact further laws that they will have next to no ability to enforce? I am all for making it an easier, non-intrusive (as in, not giving a stranger my SSN) procedure to verify a buyer's legitimacy, but to make further law and inconvenience and or expense while not doing what you can about what you can in the way of crime and punishment, it is just a waste of time. The feds are not doing their jobs as it is. I don't feel it is justified to let them further in the door of telling me how to live my life when they already don't do what they should be doing, let alone giving them more of my money to keep doing less with it.

One of the biggest jobs of a prosecutor is to use their discretion on what cases warrant charging someone. That entails a number of variables, including severity of the crime. It's my understanding that like voting rights, gun ownership rights aren't a binary thing. It isn't just that if you've ever been convicted of a crime you are ineligible. And there are weirdnesses with once people finish their paroled, get their record expunged, or whatever. So there may be legitimate confusion on someone's part on whether or not they're entitled to own a firearm. If a prosecutor looks at an offense and decides not to press charges, they're not avoiding their job. They're doing it.

Defendant: I didn't know I was driving 70 in a 55 your honorJudge: O' you didn't know? Well in that case, case dismissed..

Oh good, you're back. Are you going to address the outstanding issues you've ducked amidst your bluster or are you going to continue to ignore it and and bluster your way through different mounds of horse crap?

Outstanding issues? As if you're here to be part of a discussion rather than troll?

So you're going to do exactly as I thought. Bluster your way past answering the outstanding issues (as in late, as in you're avoiding answering them). You asked if I thought something was ridiculous and I answered but you edited my return question out of my response and have avoided it. You pointed out that I was wrong about some facts buying doing so were blatantly wrong about your own facts but won't address that at all either. Own up or shut up.

You ^ have in no way discussed the topic here with your post.. You're a troll and nothing else..You have no basis in any discussion outside of harassing the other patrons of the discussion.. In which you're are always either wrong, or blatantly over looking the discussion topic..

And if you're talking about another thread all together, then we can go over there and talk about it instead of you grasping at straws, hoping you caught something.. I ignored you there because it was obvious you had no clue what you were talking about.. I'll show you where there was a potential 3rd suspect.. But there, not here..

 

[mad sweeney]

But if they are unwilling or unable to enforce the broken laws that are served on a silver platter, how in the world does it make sense to enact further laws that they will have next to no ability to enforce? I am all for making it an easier, non-intrusive (as in, not giving a stranger my SSN) procedure to verify a buyer's legitimacy, but to make further law and inconvenience and or expense while not doing what you can about what you can in the way of crime and punishment, it is just a waste of time. The feds are not doing their jobs as it is. I don't feel it is justified to let them further in the door of telling me how to live my life when they already don't do what they should be doing, let alone giving them more of my money to keep doing less with it.

One of the biggest jobs of a prosecutor is to use their discretion on what cases warrant charging someone. That entails a number of variables, including severity of the crime. It's my understanding that like voting rights, gun ownership rights aren't a binary thing. It isn't just that if you've ever been convicted of a crime you are ineligible. And there are weirdnesses with once people finish their paroled, get their record expunged, or whatever. So there may be legitimate confusion on someone's part on whether or not they're entitled to own a firearm. If a prosecutor looks at an offense and decides not to press charges, they're not avoiding their job. They're doing it.

Defendant: I didn't know I was driving 70 in a 55 your honorJudge: O' you didn't know? Well in that case, case dismissed..

Oh good, you're back. Are you going to address the outstanding issues you've ducked amidst your bluster or are you going to continue to ignore it and and bluster your way through different mounds of horse crap?

Outstanding issues? As if you're here to be part of a discussion rather than troll?

So you're going to do exactly as I thought. Bluster your way past answering the outstanding issues (as in late, as in you're avoiding answering them). You asked if I thought something was ridiculous and I answered but you edited my return question out of my response and have avoided it. You pointed out that I was wrong about some facts buying doing so were blatantly wrong about your own facts but won't address that at all either. Own up or shut up.

You ^ have in no way discussed the topic here with your post.. You're a troll and nothing else..You have no basis in any discussion outside of harassing the other patrons of the discussion.. In which you're are always either wrong, or blatantly over looking the discussion topic..

And if you're talking about another thread all together, then we can go over there and talk about it instead of you grasping at straws, hoping you caught something.. I ignored you there because it was obvious you had no clue what you were talking about.. I'll show you where there was a potential 3rd suspect.. But there, not here..

Go ahead and bump the thread with your 3rd suspect truth. Ive been waiting for it but you just blustered about and ignored it and let it slide away. You act like I didn't want to discuss it in that thread. I did, but you didn't. . But in this thread, in response to your question I also asked you the same. You replied to part of the post but edited out the very reasonable question I asked. And then you act like I'm a troll with no interest in discussion. Both times you slunk away hoping to let it die and then, to no ones surprise, try to bellow and fume to distract away from you not answering. I'll ask you again, the very simple question. Do you not think its ridiculous to compare banning guns, whose sole intended purpose is to cause death, with banning kitchen knives and cars and a variety of other objects whose entire range of intended purposes do not encompass causing death?

 

[Hoosier16]

I think it's pretty binary. The questions can only be answered yes or no. There really isn't any gray area.Form 4473

The second half of that form is all explanations and exceptions. It's not totally straight-forward and someone may be unaware of their status. Most of "voter fraud" cases are people who believe that they're eligible to vote but aren't.

Point me to the question that's ambiguous.

The question involving criminals is probably the one that's most appropriate. The exception (to 11.c and 11.i on the bottom of pg. 4) as written isn't ambiguous (although it is a bit layered/complex) but people can be unaware of mistaken about their own status or the governing law of their jurisdiction. People may believe that having served their time and being put out on parole, their conviction has been set aside. As I said, it happens in voting cases with some amount of frequency. And at the end of the day, it's US prosecutors who are in best control of the facts to decide whether or not to charge someone. To say that we have X violations and Y convictions so people aren't doing their job is to a limited view.

I think convicted criminals are well aware of their status and probably know the difference between a pardon and a parole. Even so, 100% of the denials don't have to be prosecuted. But, I think when the percentage of prosecutions is as low as it is, we can conclude that people aren't doing their job.

We have a lot of convicts in the country. And seriously, this mistake arises a lot.It's not just the difference between paroled and pardoned. The language is: the person has been pardoned, the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or the person has had their civil rights ... taken away and later restored AND the person is not prohibited by law of the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred from receiving or possessing firearms. There's a lot there.Talk to a USADA about it. Ask them if they think they're doing their job.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.At some point, the responsibility for knowing the law falls on the convicted criminal.

 

[mad sweeney]

But if they are unwilling or unable to enforce the broken laws that are served on a silver platter, how in the world does it make sense to enact further laws that they will have next to no ability to enforce? I am all for making it an easier, non-intrusive (as in, not giving a stranger my SSN) procedure to verify a buyer's legitimacy, but to make further law and inconvenience and or expense while not doing what you can about what you can in the way of crime and punishment, it is just a waste of time. The feds are not doing their jobs as it is. I don't feel it is justified to let them further in the door of telling me how to live my life when they already don't do what they should be doing, let alone giving them more of my money to keep doing less with it.

One of the biggest jobs of a prosecutor is to use their discretion on what cases warrant charging someone. That entails a number of variables, including severity of the crime. It's my understanding that like voting rights, gun ownership rights aren't a binary thing. It isn't just that if you've ever been convicted of a crime you are ineligible. And there are weirdnesses with once people finish their paroled, get their record expunged, or whatever. So there may be legitimate confusion on someone's part on whether or not they're entitled to own a firearm. If a prosecutor looks at an offense and decides not to press charges, they're not avoiding their job. They're doing it.

Defendant: I didn't know I was driving 70 in a 55 your honorJudge: O' you didn't know? Well in that case, case dismissed..

Oh good, you're back. Are you going to address the outstanding issues you've ducked amidst your bluster or are you going to continue to ignore it and and bluster your way through different mounds of horse crap?

Outstanding issues? As if you're here to be part of a discussion rather than troll?

So you're going to do exactly as I thought. Bluster your way past answering the outstanding issues (as in late, as in you're avoiding answering them). You asked if I thought something was ridiculous and I answered but you edited my return question out of my response and have avoided it. You pointed out that I was wrong about some facts buying doing so were blatantly wrong about your own facts but won't address that at all either. Own up or shut up.

You ^ have in no way discussed the topic here with your post.. You're a troll and nothing else..You have no basis in any discussion outside of harassing the other patrons of the discussion.. In which you're are always either wrong, or blatantly over looking the discussion topic..

And if you're talking about another thread all together, then we can go over there and talk about it instead of you grasping at straws, hoping you caught something.. I ignored you there because it was obvious you had no clue what you were talking about.. I'll show you where there was a potential 3rd suspect.. But there, not here..

I like how now it's a "potential" third suspect!

 

[ichris]

That's correct. And the editorial also fails to point out that mass shootings, which are the primary reason given for banning high capacity magazines, are even rarer than home invasions. Which is why I think the editorial was over the top.

But there is a significant point here: both sides of this debate are making a lot of arguments based on extremely rare anecdotes. Even worse, the pro-gun side base at least some of their arguments on an extremely rare theoretical (the "tyrannical government") for which there are no anecdotes to rely on. This is a sorry way to make public policy decisions.

Second amendment advocates are trying to prevent poor public policy that will be perceived by many as tyrannical. The NY SAFE act just banned something like 90% of all handgun magazines on the market. Law abiding citizens are being told to dispose of their property, or else. A lot of upstate NYers don't think tyrannical government is theoretical or rare. Doesnt history tell us the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people?Just because tyrannical government is rare doesn't make the threat any less than when the country was founded. Justifiable homicide is rare too. Deaths caused by "assault weapons" are incredibly rare. So what?

Meanwhile it appears lying on a Form 4473 isnt that rare. But prosecuting the crime for lying on a Form 4473 is rare. That's something the government can start fixing right away, no new legislation is required to fix that incredibly asinine public policy decision.

People who agree with the NRA are not rare. People who don't want the government "fixing" our second amendment rights are not rare.

 

[ichris]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Mistake of fact generally is.

At some point, the responsibility for knowing the law falls on the convicted criminal.

So what you're saying is that if you have the slightest bit of doubt, you shouldn't try to buy a gun. Because if you break any technicality, we'll throw you in jail for 4 years.Come to think of it, I may like this.

Any statist would.It's the follow up I want to see happen. If we have a violent prohibited person attempt to purchase a weapon and NICS rejects the sale, it should be followed up. Often times the prohibited person will not stop looking for a weapon just because they get rejected the first time.

Like you say, this isn't rocket surgery.

 

[timschochet]

Doesnt history tell us the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people?

No. No it doesn't. In fact, in many instances it tells us the exact opposite. I don't know why this lie continues to be repeated here, but I plan on challenging it every time it does. It isn't true.

 

[timschochet]

iChris, yesterday you asserted that the NRA and it's supporters were in favor of the government enforcing existing laws. But this simply isn't true. According to this Washington Post article from 2010:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/14/AR2010121406045.html

Over nearly four decades, the NRA has wielded remarkable influence over Congress, persuading lawmakers to curb ATF's budget and mission and to call agency officials to account at oversight hearings.

There are numerous articles and reports which point to the same fact: the NRA has tried to slash ATF's budget and powers, even using it's supporters to prevent Congress from approving a permanent head. (As we speak, there isn't one.) The failure of our ability to enforce the current laws lies squarely on the NRA and its supporters- despite their assertions, they don't want them enforced. They want the ability to sell guns to whomever, no questions asked. That is why they oppose closing the private sales loophole, which almost all law enforcement types agree is the best way to enforce the current laws.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

But if they are unwilling or unable to enforce the broken laws that are served on a silver platter, how in the world does it make sense to enact further laws that they will have next to no ability to enforce? I am all for making it an easier, non-intrusive (as in, not giving a stranger my SSN) procedure to verify a buyer's legitimacy, but to make further law and inconvenience and or expense while not doing what you can about what you can in the way of crime and punishment, it is just a waste of time. The feds are not doing their jobs as it is. I don't feel it is justified to let them further in the door of telling me how to live my life when they already don't do what they should be doing, let alone giving them more of my money to keep doing less with it.

One of the biggest jobs of a prosecutor is to use their discretion on what cases warrant charging someone. That entails a number of variables, including severity of the crime. It's my understanding that like voting rights, gun ownership rights aren't a binary thing. It isn't just that if you've ever been convicted of a crime you are ineligible. And there are weirdnesses with once people finish their paroled, get their record expunged, or whatever. So there may be legitimate confusion on someone's part on whether or not they're entitled to own a firearm. If a prosecutor looks at an offense and decides not to press charges, they're not avoiding their job. They're doing it.

Defendant: I didn't know I was driving 70 in a 55 your honorJudge: O' you didn't know? Well in that case, case dismissed..

Oh good, you're back. Are you going to address the outstanding issues you've ducked amidst your bluster or are you going to continue to ignore it and and bluster your way through different mounds of horse crap?

Outstanding issues? As if you're here to be part of a discussion rather than troll?

So you're going to do exactly as I thought. Bluster your way past answering the outstanding issues (as in late, as in you're avoiding answering them). You asked if I thought something was ridiculous and I answered but you edited my return question out of my response and have avoided it. You pointed out that I was wrong about some facts buying doing so were blatantly wrong about your own facts but won't address that at all either. Own up or shut up.

You ^ have in no way discussed the topic here with your post.. You're a troll and nothing else..You have no basis in any discussion outside of harassing the other patrons of the discussion.. In which you're are always either wrong, or blatantly over looking the discussion topic..

And if you're talking about another thread all together, then we can go over there and talk about it instead of you grasping at straws, hoping you caught something.. I ignored you there because it was obvious you had no clue what you were talking about.. I'll show you where there was a potential 3rd suspect.. But there, not here..

I like how now it's a "potential" third suspect!

2 suspects went to the hospital.. and they were looking for another.. That makes 3.. And all suspects are "potential".. Get your head on straight..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Mistake of fact generally is.

At some point, the responsibility for knowing the law falls on the convicted criminal.

So what you're saying is that if you have the slightest bit of doubt, you shouldn't try to buy a gun. Because if you break any technicality, we'll throw you in jail for 4 years.Come to think of it, I may like this.

Any statist would.It's the follow up I want to see happen. If we have a violent prohibited person attempt to purchase a weapon and NICS rejects the sale, it should be followed up. Often times the prohibited person will not stop looking for a weapon just because they get rejected the first time.

Like you say, this isn't rocket surgery.

Maybe we can throw some yokels with DUIs on their records in the slammer for trying to buy a shotgun.

Or you know.. maybe just investigate to see if it's reasonable to throw the guy in jail so guys like you don't sit back and make asinine conclusions like this ^..So, we're all in agreement then.. We add more laws, to hell with enforcing them.. I think we can all agree with that..

 

[mad sweeney]

But if they are unwilling or unable to enforce the broken laws that are served on a silver platter, how in the world does it make sense to enact further laws that they will have next to no ability to enforce? I am all for making it an easier, non-intrusive (as in, not giving a stranger my SSN) procedure to verify a buyer's legitimacy, but to make further law and inconvenience and or expense while not doing what you can about what you can in the way of crime and punishment, it is just a waste of time. The feds are not doing their jobs as it is. I don't feel it is justified to let them further in the door of telling me how to live my life when they already don't do what they should be doing, let alone giving them more of my money to keep doing less with it.

One of the biggest jobs of a prosecutor is to use their discretion on what cases warrant charging someone. That entails a number of variables, including severity of the crime. It's my understanding that like voting rights, gun ownership rights aren't a binary thing. It isn't just that if you've ever been convicted of a crime you are ineligible. And there are weirdnesses with once people finish their paroled, get their record expunged, or whatever. So there may be legitimate confusion on someone's part on whether or not they're entitled to own a firearm. If a prosecutor looks at an offense and decides not to press charges, they're not avoiding their job. They're doing it.

Defendant: I didn't know I was driving 70 in a 55 your honorJudge: O' you didn't know? Well in that case, case dismissed..

Oh good, you're back. Are you going to address the outstanding issues you've ducked amidst your bluster or are you going to continue to ignore it and and bluster your way through different mounds of horse crap?

Outstanding issues? As if you're here to be part of a discussion rather than troll?

So you're going to do exactly as I thought. Bluster your way past answering the outstanding issues (as in late, as in you're avoiding answering them). You asked if I thought something was ridiculous and I answered but you edited my return question out of my response and have avoided it. You pointed out that I was wrong about some facts buying doing so were blatantly wrong about your own facts but won't address that at all either. Own up or shut up.

You ^ have in no way discussed the topic here with your post.. You're a troll and nothing else..You have no basis in any discussion outside of harassing the other patrons of the discussion.. In which you're are always either wrong, or blatantly over looking the discussion topic..

And if you're talking about another thread all together, then we can go over there and talk about it instead of you grasping at straws, hoping you caught something.. I ignored you there because it was obvious you had no clue what you were talking about.. I'll show you where there was a potential 3rd suspect.. But there, not here..

I like how now it's a "potential" third suspect!

2 suspects went to the hospital.. and they were looking for another.. That makes 3.. And all suspects are "potential".. Get your head on straight..

Link? I guarantee there isn't a story that alludes to a 3rd suspect, potential or otherwise. You saying so, doesn't make it so. Prove it.And why are you doing it here? Why not do it in the other thread. You know, the one you just told me we should discuss this in?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Doesnt history tell us the first thing a tyrannical government does is disarm the people?

No. No it doesn't. In fact, in many instances it tells us the exact opposite. I don't know why this lie continues to be repeated here, but I plan on challenging it every time it does. It isn't true.

It doesn't? Please explain..

 

[mad sweeney]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Mistake of fact generally is.

At some point, the responsibility for knowing the law falls on the convicted criminal.

So what you're saying is that if you have the slightest bit of doubt, you shouldn't try to buy a gun. Because if you break any technicality, we'll throw you in jail for 4 years.Come to think of it, I may like this.

Any statist would.It's the follow up I want to see happen. If we have a violent prohibited person attempt to purchase a weapon and NICS rejects the sale, it should be followed up. Often times the prohibited person will not stop looking for a weapon just because they get rejected the first time.

Like you say, this isn't rocket surgery.

Maybe we can throw some yokels with DUIs on their records in the slammer for trying to buy a shotgun.

Or you know.. maybe just investigate to see if it's reasonable to through the guy in jail so guys like you don't sit back and make asinine conclusions like this ^..So, we're all in agreement then.. We add more laws, to hell with enforcing them.. I think we can all agree with that..

I chuckle about how you were upset at being called a drama queen.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

But if they are unwilling or unable to enforce the broken laws that are served on a silver platter, how in the world does it make sense to enact further laws that they will have next to no ability to enforce? I am all for making it an easier, non-intrusive (as in, not giving a stranger my SSN) procedure to verify a buyer's legitimacy, but to make further law and inconvenience and or expense while not doing what you can about what you can in the way of crime and punishment, it is just a waste of time. The feds are not doing their jobs as it is. I don't feel it is justified to let them further in the door of telling me how to live my life when they already don't do what they should be doing, let alone giving them more of my money to keep doing less with it.

One of the biggest jobs of a prosecutor is to use their discretion on what cases warrant charging someone. That entails a number of variables, including severity of the crime. It's my understanding that like voting rights, gun ownership rights aren't a binary thing. It isn't just that if you've ever been convicted of a crime you are ineligible. And there are weirdnesses with once people finish their paroled, get their record expunged, or whatever. So there may be legitimate confusion on someone's part on whether or not they're entitled to own a firearm. If a prosecutor looks at an offense and decides not to press charges, they're not avoiding their job. They're doing it.

Defendant: I didn't know I was driving 70 in a 55 your honorJudge: O' you didn't know? Well in that case, case dismissed..

Oh good, you're back. Are you going to address the outstanding issues you've ducked amidst your bluster or are you going to continue to ignore it and and bluster your way through different mounds of horse crap?

Outstanding issues? As if you're here to be part of a discussion rather than troll?

So you're going to do exactly as I thought. Bluster your way past answering the outstanding issues (as in late, as in you're avoiding answering them). You asked if I thought something was ridiculous and I answered but you edited my return question out of my response and have avoided it. You pointed out that I was wrong about some facts buying doing so were blatantly wrong about your own facts but won't address that at all either. Own up or shut up.

You ^ have in no way discussed the topic here with your post.. You're a troll and nothing else..You have no basis in any discussion outside of harassing the other patrons of the discussion.. In which you're are always either wrong, or blatantly over looking the discussion topic..

And if you're talking about another thread all together, then we can go over there and talk about it instead of you grasping at straws, hoping you caught something.. I ignored you there because it was obvious you had no clue what you were talking about.. I'll show you where there was a potential 3rd suspect.. But there, not here..

I like how now it's a "potential" third suspect!

2 suspects went to the hospital.. and they were looking for another.. That makes 3.. And all suspects are "potential".. Get your head on straight..

Link? I guarantee there isn't a story that alludes to a 3rd suspect, potential or otherwise. You saying so, doesn't make it so. Prove it.And why are you doing it here? Why not do it in the other thread. You know, the one you just told me we should discuss this in?

Bump it up and I'll go there, I'm not looking for it.. I really don't care.. I'm sure you could easily find an article telling you they were looking for a suspect.. It was actually in one of the first few articles linked..