View original post
View original postLow on time at the moment and we're getting long, so I'll just hit your final questions.
View original postView original posti think it helps me approach this idea of compromise if i understand why you think a compromise is required. i think my position is quite reasonable and does not put any kind of restriction on your freedoms, but you are telling me that you don't want your freedom restricted, so your arguments make little sense to what i think we're discussing. so, in all honesty and with all due respect, please help me understand why the following are so restrictive to your freedom to own a gun. i realize this post got kind of long, so if you feel the need to pick and choose a response to what i've said, this is the one i'm most interested in hearing about. please tell me why the following pose such a threat to your individual freedom to own a firearm that they require concessions and compromises:
View original postI read a very good
article on this recently I'll refer you to in the interests of time constraints on my end.
View original posti can admit that magazine capacity is not likely to pass, and the current incarnation excepted and grandfathered too much existing hardware to be effective as a deterrent to criminal activities. the question was why does this specifically need some large concession to pass through Congress? the only possibility would be if it required all large magazines and drums to be turned in in exchange for an equivalent number of legally limited clips. at that point we are talking about taking people's guns in an abstract sense, but we both know it would never get to that point without a major fight, probably both legislatively and literally.
Its is not meant as comment that a large concession is required, I didn't view those as large concessions and they're simply random examples inspired by being symbolic subjects. For the record though, I do consider this sort of thing a big concession on our end, if the dems offered up a federal ban on any law restricting magazine capacity i cheerfully trade double funding for PBS and the NEA with a minimum sunset of several decades. I'd say that illustrates the point that in trade a person can get something for $1 that's way more valuable to them, but leaves the other person feeling, legitimately, that it was they who got the better end of the bargain.
View original post
View original postNo point, as long as a person is not held legally accountable for what is done with a gun they bought which was lost or stolen, which would be unethical to do, I could go buy six guns and hand them off to criminals under the table for a 50% mark up and claim they were stolen if it ever came up. The re-sell issue is always tricky problem of who can buy what, as I mentioned to Ghav below, it sort of works for booze and smokes with kids, because they're consumable things you need a steady supply of, and even then the control it gives us is very limited and half-assed. You only need to buy a gun once a blue moon, not daily or weekly. But as i also said to him, background checks don't much bug me, I just view them as a waste of time, especially since I'm on the record for believing it is absurd not to let a 40 year old vote and own a gun because he spent ages 18-24 in jail for grand theft. There's nothing wrong with a background check option, felons, reformed or not, have little legit expectation of privacy about the fact that they were convicted of a crime.
View original postMy objection then is that I can't see it accomplishing much, yet it does represent an increased hassle for legal vendors and buyers, so it can easily be seen as red tape to know end or deliberate inconvenience to discourage gun ownership, so like Conceal permits it would all be about the language and specifics. I have no strong objection to this
View original postevery law has a loophole, even the strictest versions. it's a measure that's supposed to stop the least determined criminals from getting a weapon. i'm glad to hear you have no strong objections, as i think this is the single most important piece of the current crop of legislation.
The existence of loopholes isn't the same thing as a glaring open chasm you could steer an aircraft carrier through. I recognize the value of deterrence in terms of least determined criminals, and I am open to those sort of options, but I feel this one also does the same to citizens, but with greater effectiveness. I want people to own more guns, I feel it enhances their safety and their feeling of confidence and safety which is more important in my eyes, so deterring least determined buyers is something I have to weigh in the balance with that, because it is too easy for such measures to grow enormously excessive and costly in terms of time and money.
As I said, on this matter I'm receptive if wary.
View original post
View original postWhat do you mean by better? That's very vague. The law is the law, and should be enforced, at the same time, 'better enforcement' can get Orwellian real fast. Also, existing law enforcement isn't under congressional purview, it's the DOJ, state/local that does that. I don't think a piece of legislation is likely to include 'better law enforcement' without a prefix of
in the hope that this will allow...
View original postcurrently, the ATF only inspects gun dealerships once every 5 years for compliance with the laws. at best, they can only bring license revocations for the worst offenders, and only after they have repeat violations. in other words, a problem dealership can be in full violation of federal law, and the ATF can't do anything but suggest they have their license revoked, which can take 2 years, during which time they can continue selling guns as though there is no investigation. i would like to see the ATF have the power to perform the yearly inspection that the law already requires of them, and the ability to shut down problem dealers more quickly as i mentioned in the previous reply.
I've no problem with the ATF conducting annual checks beyond the fact that I don't really approve of them performing checks at all. I've a somewhat negative view of the ATF and as mentioned I don't think we should be investigating gun sales any differently the blenders, chainsaw, or toaster sales, but if the law requires annual, then they should be allowed to do annual and given the resources to do annual. The other aspect i would want to consider at greater leisure, I am not familiar enough with the details.
View original post
View original postAs above, prosecution of people violating the current law is not congresses concern, it's a matter for the local prosecutor, unless its a federal law, in which case its a matter for DOJ, not congress. I'm not generally going to object to trying anyone for a law they appear to have broken. So you're right on that one, you don't need to bargain with us, but then I can't recall the GOP or NRA saying we shouldn't prosecute apparent criminal action, regardless if we happen to think a given law is unjust. The thing is, I don't know what you mean by a history of selling to criminals, if they are selling to convicted felons by the drove it is a different story then if they are selling to a non-felon who is reselling, or if the purchases are being made by non-felons who then go become felons. These are all very different cases, which is why I said some of those examples were vague. Without some very detailed specifics I don't know if Tom's Gun Hut is selling guns ten times as often to criminal because they want to or if because the area just happens to have 10 times as many criminals and is a good gun spot because the high crime rate makes a lot of non-criminals want guns too.
View original postDevil's in the details. What phrasing of legislation did you have in mind to achieve better enforcement and prosecution of existing laws?
View original postin the grand scheme of things, i don't think it matters what the end user does with the gun if it is done with full compliance of the law. there is a shop called "Realco Guns" which sold 2500 guns used in crimes in and around the DC area. in one famous case, a convicted felon who was not allowed to possess a weapon took his girlfriend into the shop with him, pointed out which gun he wanted, had her fill out the background check, and went home with the gun even though it was registered in her name. this is the type of activity i am talking about when i say there should be better enforcement of existing laws. but since you also asked about specific legislation:
Yes, I believe such a thing happened and it was wrong that it did, unfortunately it is also pretty f'd up when we try to prevent such. As an example, some years back while visiting a friend in NY, we entered a liquor store with his sub-21 girlfriend (now fiancee I'm happy to say) and even though she was holding no alcohol, buying no alcohol, and in point of fact does not drink, she was asked for her ID and there were problems, whereas had she stayed in the car there would have been none. This is an example of a dumb policy that serves no point at all. Had the guy mentioned above stayed in the car, so to speak, no one would know to complain and we could do jack and squat. I also would have to recognize that an ex-con might genuinely have no intention of acquiring a gun but still have legit business taking his girlfriend into a store and advising her on a purchase because he knows about guns, and being unable to own one to protect her pressured her to protect herself. This is why I view restricted access to a minority for a given product an essentially futile method. It is unenforceable except by means that cross the moral event horizon and is only obeyed otherwise by those who chose to follow the rules, who are likely to be the ex-cons who aren't recidivist, whether by fear or genuine reform.
Anyway, I don't like getting dragged into these specifics but if the place isn't breaking the law hen its a non-issue and if they are then send in a plainclothes with a fake ID that will show up flagged and see what happens, if they sell, bust them. That's what we do for other stuff.
View original post#1: give the ATF a director. Obama included this as one of his executive orders, but so far it has yet to be implemented. republicans (along with a select few dems) have prevented the ATF from filling the director's position for about 5+ years now and it's time to let them do their jobs by filling the position.
I think I'd rather just dissolve the group and redistribute its duties.
View original post#2: repeal the Tiahrt amendment and give the ATF the power to fully enforce existing federal gun laws and collect data on guns used in crimes and gun safety for the sake of improving gun safety and improving existing regulations.
Gun safety isn't enhanced by collecting data, gun safety is a matter of training.
View original post#3: pass the current legislation dealing with gun trafficking and let the police go after straw sales.
I don't see how the police could go after straw sales. No criminal has any motivation to rat out the person he bought the gun from, unless we offered them a plea and I certainly wouldn't approve of giving an armed robber a reduced sentence to nail their vendor. "No, I just found the gun." "yeah I lost it" is pretty much case shut, and even "It was stolen" and "no I bought it from him" is fairly iffy since it revolves around a he said she said where one of them is a convicted felon. If the police want to pull a sting, then they're welcome to, and I don't think anyone is stopping them, certainly I am not.
View original postthis last one is something the NRA has historically refused to publicly get behind. the only reason i can think of for the lack of support is that it is in the NRA's best interests to allow criminals to continue to buy guns on the black market, or else the idea of a gun for self defense is not as powerful an argument as it otherwise would be. since the NRA gets a kickback on every gun sold in the US, it only makes sense they want more people to buy more guns. by allowing straw sales to go unchecked and unprosecuted, the NRA can stand on the side and say "look how dangerous our country is! criminals are buying guns on the street right in our neighborhoods! we need a gun for home defense to protect ourselves from this threat!"
That's a bit convoluted and demonizing for me, and kind of damages my reception of your other remarks. I consider the NRA a respectable and vital organization, much like the ACLU.
*NM*
- 22/03/2013 07:35:13 PM
567 Views