I have been noticing a progressive disconnect of federal legislative efforts from the will of the people. Congressmen and women are our representatives and are expected to vote as we would if we were there, carrying out the will of the majority. It seems that the leaders in congress are bent on their agenda regardless of the will of the people Today Michael Barone who writes for US News and World Report put it very well in a post to www.realclearpolitics.com:
Legislation currently under consideration on gun control flies in the face of the will of the people. Consider the continuing gush of gun sales and the ammunition shortages. They are still going on six months past the election. I am told that I am back-ordered two months on my recent order of 9mm ammunition. I understand that the manufacturers don't want to add permanent capacity increases because demand will subside, but six months and counting? Consider the Gallup poll from October 2008. Even 62% of self identified liberals believe Americans have a right to own guns. The same poll found that 34% of Americans say they personally own a gun, and less than 50% overall support tighter gun laws than we have now. I was also struck by the muted calls for tighter gun laws after the spate of mass killings in Alabama and New York. Consider the mounting evidence, year by year, of the reductions in violent crimes attributable to wider gun ownership. John Lott updates his county by county statistics from the FBI and as more and more states allow citizens to carry arms, violent crime continues to go down in those counties. His research even picks up an uptick in car thefts and burglary as criminals shift to non-confrontational crimes in those areas.
The Bobby Rush bill in the house (HR 45) and the Frank Lautenberg bill in the Senate (S 843) are an affront to the desire of the majority of Americans. Both bills seek to vet and register every gun owner in America and inventory every legal (presently legal that is) firearm in the country. After every gun is accounted for, any transaction between any two parties would have to go through a dealer and the buyer would have to undergo an Instant Background check before the deal could be concluded. Of course inventories would have to be checked against the list by local police on a continuing basis to check for compliance, and every owner would have to have their ownership permits checked and renewed every few years. Consider the paperwork and manpower requirements that would entail for 120 million guns and 100 million owners: More growth in government, and every name and weapon on a list in one spot for convenience. That is definitely tighter gun control of the legal guns and legal owners. But it doesn't solve the problem that illegal guns are used by criminals. I think more and more Americans are coming to realize that making the whole class stay after school for the poor behavior of a few doesn't change the behavior of the few.
Unfortunately, it seems the people's representatives in congress only pay attention to one statistic. It is the tally posted the day after an election.
 |
Comments
It matters not what they do, as far as this citizen is concerned. I will not comply with ANY new laws regarding gun control and only those already in effect when I can figure no way around them because of need for the cooperation of others who are in fear of state punishment.
I have taken my last step backward, I have granted the 'benefit of the doubt' my last time, I have seen their side of it my last time, I have used up all my patience waiting for them to discover principle, and I no longer care whether they do or not.
I do strongly urge them to leave free Americans alone. There are more of me now, than there has been at any time since I first realized that I had had enough.
They have overplayed their hands. It is time for them to fold or lose big.
Clearly the author has no clue what he's talking about. The Lautenberg bill (S. 843) doesn't register gun owners. It closes the loophole that let's anyone - no questions asked - purchase a gun from an unlicensed dealer at a gun show. Or maybe you want anyone, like the Columbine killers who got their guns from a gun show, to be able to purchase guns.
No RP, it is you who hasn't a clue. There are no unlicensed dealers at gun shows. If one is a dealer he is licensed. If one is a private individual who wants to sell a piece or two of his own property, that does not make him a dealer. One must be in the business of dealing firearms to be a dealer. Selling a gun one no longer has a use for, or selling it buy a different gun, or to reduce a repetition in a collection does not make one a dealer.
As for Lautenberg not registering gun owners, that is exactly what it does. You don't really think that just because the law forbids a registry of gun owners and their guns that the data base isn't kept, do you? The one bit of data they don't get at the moment is the transfer of a weapon from one private individual to another, in most cases. Some states do require a paper trail of such. Why do you suppose that is? Here's a clue, can you say registry? Oh and the law forbids it, but they still do it.
You are the one without a clue.
As for the obligatory Columbine remark, yes that is what I want. If it were as easy as you state we would like it to be, then just maybe bearing arms would hold more attractiveness for those administrators and legislators now opposed to it, and some of the dead at Columbine wouldn't be because unlike the cops, they didn't have the option of waiting till all the shooting had stopped, nor did they have the option of being able to hasten its ending with weapons in the hands of sane and responsible adults, because they weren't allowed to be armed. Klebold and Harris didn't play those rules. That type never does. Truncating or denying the rights of people who don't do such guarantees a helpless victim pool for monsters. Since all the posturing in world about violence avoidance and unpreparedness cannot stop the monsters, the only real option to actually stop or at least ameliorate the violence is to not interfere with sane and responsible person's right to arms with which to protect himself and other innocents.
If you had learned anything from Columbine, that is what you should have learned. That that tripe you just spilled all over the floor.
That that tripe you just spilled all over the floor. Correct to "Not" that tripe you just spilled all over the floor.
Maybe we shouldn't make it easier for the "monsters" to get guns, which is what the gun show loophole does. Again, you haven't read the legislation, have you? The definition applies to where 50 guns or more are sold. Not the selling of one or two guns. And yes, there are unlicensed dealers that sell 50 or more guns. So basically they should be treated just like a regular gun dealer. Kind of makes sense, doesn't it? In fact, you could argue that the gun show loophole hurts legitimate gun dealers because they don't have to be held from the same standard.
So if "monsters" are going to get the guns anyways, why make it easier for them?
"Not the selling of one or two guns. And yes, there are unlicensed dealers that sell 50 or more guns."
RP, you're kind of dense aren't you.
1. A person who is selling more than 50 guns is definately a dealer and is usually licensed as such. If you are selling that many guns and aren't licensed, then you are likely in violation of the law.
2. The Collumbine killers had "straw-man purchasers" buy guns for them. Learn the difference.
3. If I bring a rifle to a gun show and sell it to another private seller, that is what the "gun-show loophole" is trying to close.
4. Dealers and those who have tables at gun-shows typically have show their license to those organizing the show, because show organizers don't want illegal transactions to take place at their show, otherwise they might be criminally liable for it.
Your rhetoric is pointless, since you don't understand the practical realities behind what you are trying to speak about.
Thanks Steve.
You say a person that sells 50 or more guns is usually a dealer. Well, I hate to break it to you, that's not always the case. There a number of cases where someone is selling 50 or more guns and they aren't a licensed dealer. Hence, that's why they call it a loophole.
And Lautenberg's legislation explicitly states that this applies to where 50 guns or more are sold. Or did you not read the bill?
As for your issue about a straw purchase, the person that bought the guns used in Columbine purchased the guns at a gun show. She said that if she was asked to provide any background information, like what's required with licensed dealer, then she wouldn't have purchased the gun.
Try reading the bill and do a little better research next time.
Polson, you're an idiot. You reread the legislation and then get a third grader to explain what the words mean.
"And Lautenberg's legislation explicitly states that this applies to where 50 guns or more are sold."-Poison (not a typo)
Read your own statement again. Try for comprehension this time. Really, or ask the third grader helping you. You did notice the "where", didn't you? Do you know what that means? No? I didn't think so.
I will type slowly so you can understand. It didn't say "who" sells more than 50 guns. It said "where" more than 50 are sold. So, that means a man selling his daughter's .22 single shot Cricket so he can buy her a larger gun, perhaps a Marlin model 60, which she has grown into is now a criminal if he doesn't do a background check on the young father who wants to buy the Cricket for his 7 year old daughter or son because a group of other people there have sold collectively 50 guns or more. Remember, "where"?
From my perspective you have exposed your stupidity. You also have exposed your arrogance that you thought you could lie as you did and not be caught at it.
You also said, "You say a person that sells 50 or more guns is usually a dealer. Well, I hate to break it to you, that's not always the case. There a number of cases where someone is selling 50 or more guns and they aren't a licensed dealer. Hence, that's why they call it a loophole."
You are a liar. Simply put, you are a dishonest stupid liar. Anyone selling that many guns is in violation of the laws if he is not licensed, therefore, there is no loophole. Who do you think you are fooling with this crap that we should make it "illegaler" and that would solve everything.
Stupidity on parade seems to be your stock in trade. Another example "So if "monsters" are going to get the guns anyways, why make it easier for them? "-Poison (not a typo) A false premise from which you hope to fool others into believing you hold the moral high ground. The only problem with that is any thinking person knows it is a false premise. A monster intent on harming others is not deterred by laws, but somehow you are trying to convince the victim pool that making it more difficult for them to defend themselves and other innocents is the cure for the evil monsters do.
That, in itself, makes you one of the monsters.
Well Dan, it looks like you have a troll. They do make life interesting I suppose.
Mister Polson, I am forced to understand that you do not believe in unalienable rights. Only in privileges granted you by authorities.
I am not a dealer, but after I retired I sold roughly sixty five guns. Guess what? I don't care one iota if some dirtbag gets popped with one that I sold. All but two were sold to police and deputy's and anyone that gets shot by one of them probably has it coming IMO.
Oh, and what was your call sign at Columbine since you seem to know so much about the incident.
Thanks for the welcome guys.
Excellent correction straightarrow - the legislation does say where 50 guns or more are sold. Which means, where 50 guns or more are sold. So basically where an unlicensed dealer is selling 50 guns or more, then they should be required to make anyone that purchases a gun from them to go through a background check. As we all know, when you purchase a gun from a dealer, the purchaser is required to have a background check. You know because the law says we shouldn't sell guns to convicts and illegal aliens. A background check is easy. It's not that hard. It takes less than five minutes 95 percent of the time.
As for calling me a dishonest stupid liar for stating that it is legal for someone selling 50 guns or more without a license is against the law, well, I have to say that I'm confused. What law are you referring to? Just the "law"? Well, check this out Justice straightarrow, there is no law. Again, that's why they call it a loophole. I suppose you could say the person is in violation of the law in certain states where they have stronger gun laws, but what about in states where the gun laws are not as strict? There is a law, also known as the Brady Act, that requires background check on gun purchases from licensed dealers. But again, (sorry to keep repeating myself), this background check does not apply to unlicensed dealers at gun shows so, again, anyone can purchase a gun from one of these dealers. Anyone.
As for your last point that I must be a monster - rawr.
And Patrick, in answer to your question on why I know so much about Columbine, it's called reading. Give it a try. As for my call sign, call me Ice Man.
"Ice Man?" Okay, I get the picture. You are a mass media spoon fed troll in all probability. An honest answer would have been that you were not there, or part of the ensuing investigation; or by saying that anyone that was in fact involved is still bound by a court gag order. That aside, if memory serves me correctly, at a minimum eighteen laws were broken during the process of getting the weapons used by those miscreants. It's just speculation on my part, but I think that we were lucky that they were too stupid to go down to Colfax and Broadway and secure a few full auto weapons. Those kinds of weaponry are more suited to the spray and pray tactics that were employed.
Have a nice day!
If we just make it a little harder for monsters to obtain firearms we'll all be safer.
Think about that for a bit. It's obvious to the casual observer that you cannot prevent anyone with a serious desire to get hold of a weapon by any means from accomplishing that goal. Look at any of the classic weapons free jurisdictions for proof. Chicago, DC, Great Britain, any prison system, all are hotbeds of illicit weapons including firearms, edged weapons, and often even more deadly destructive devices. So all that making things "harder" does is raise the cost of doing business for the bad guys. Oh, and it does often limit and restrict access to defensive weapons for honest law abiding citizens. Which, if you're on the Brady team is considered a good thing. See, to them a defensive shooting is a travesty and horrible use of excessive force while a dead victim is just one more statistic.
So go ahead and ban all gun shows. After all it's just a bunch of gun nuts and their rights don't count for all that much anyway. It will have zero effect on access to firearms by criminals. They already are hooked into the black market for drugs and stolen property, so just one more item on their shopping list. But the burning question on my mind is, when this solution to all our woes doesn't work what will they target next? What is the next thing to take away from us so we can have the illusion that we're safer?
Welcome to the conversation Uncle Lar. Lautenberg's legislation doesn't seek to ban gun shows. It just seeks to make unlicensed dealers selling 50 or more guns to give the gun purchaser a background check. At gun shows there are plenty of licensed dealers that require a background check so how about we just go ahead and apply that standard to the unlicensed dealers as well. Kind of makes sense, doesn't it?
Patrick, I have no idea what you said.
Polson, you're lying. You may be too stupid to know it. But it is for certain you are too stupid to realize that we know it.
Yes, you are one of the monsters. Let me explain something to you. I know you won't understand it and further that you will cry foul under Godwin's Law, but I'm going to do it anyway because there may be people who aren't settled yet on their view and I don't want you victimizing them.
At Nuremberg after WWII we held accountable war criminals for "crimes against humanity". While those criminals deserved what happened to them and worse, it was still a dog and pony show.
Why? Someone might ask. Well, because not a damn one of those war criminals convicted of "crimes against humanity" could have done any of it had it not been for the accomodaters. Those people who held the opinion you now espouse. The opinion that the state is the ultimate authority and must not only be obeyed in all things, but that all things are under its purview. Databases must be kept, registries must be kept, every facet of everyone's life must be controlled. It can all be justified by "internal security" or "national security" or "public safety".
Accomodaters come in all stripes. Had it been up to me one person who was not indicted as a war criminal would have been. Guess who that was. Uh huh, Neville Chamberlain, that's right! The appeaser who accomodated the monsters and trained them to believe they would never be held to account. There was no need to stop there, though, all those non-Nazis who helped run the camps, who turned in their neighbors for the crime of being Jewish or impaired or gay or whatever, in other words all those "accomodaters".
For you see, without accomodaters the main monsters cannot rise, nor can they survive to work their evil. It is people like you who accomodate them who are the auxillary and enabling monsters.
You sir are a hypocrite. On the one hand you claim to care about the safety and security of the average citizen, then you reveal the other hand that would force the average citizen to surrender his ability to be safe and secure by his own efforts. That is hypocrisy. Worse it is treason.
Yes, you are one of the monsters. Only a monster would place men, women, and their children at the mercy of any state or criminal with no effective recourse. Yes, you are one of the monsters.
"Welcome to the conversation Uncle Lar. Lautenberg's legislation doesn't seek to ban gun shows. "
It doesn't seek to ban gun shows. But it does seek to legislate them out of existence by increasing the costs to organizers and attendees.
It's also a backdoor gun owner registry, because it requires gun show promoters to keep a registry of anyone who sells a gun, whether it's licensed dealer or someone who just wants to sell a private firearm.
"It just seeks to make unlicensed dealers selling 50 or more guns to give the gun purchaser a background check."
Incorrect. It seeks to make anyone selling a firearm at a place where more than 50 guns are being sold give the purchaser a background check. It doesn't matter if it's a place where 50 guys are selling one gun each or one guy is selling 50 guns. It doesn't matter if the sellers are dealers or not. In fact, the legislation doesn't even limit itself to gun shows as it redefines a "gun show" as being any place where 50 or more firearms are for sale, 20% or more of the exhibitors are selling firearms, or there are more than 10 exhibitors are selling firearms. That means a shooting competition can be a "gun show" if more than 10 of the competitors decide to sell a gun.
Using Columbine is a sham argument. It's unreasonable to think that just one more law would have prevented such a tragic but rare event. Especially when they broke so many to start with.
One in many millions of gun owners "go postal" so all 150 million American gun owners should be subjected to an Inquisition?
Especially when there are a lot more mundane dangers to worry about?
I recently read in AAA's magazine that traffic fatalities could be reduced 25% if everyone had to wear helmets in cars. Anyone want to guess how far a mandate for that would get?
Yet our Costitutional rights are slowly being stripped to prevent things that almost never happen, such as Columbine or terrorism (*cough* Patriot Act *cough*).
Security expert Bruce Schneier has a number of articles on this subject. One on Va Tech in particular. Google for Bruce Schneier Virginia Tech. His web site is fascinating.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!