Gun Vote " Shameful Day," Obama Says

[notmyself]

Where would the NRA be on a list of political donors?

[NeverSure]

Issue is getting too wide.

Does the US have a gun problem?

Yes. There's been a shortage of ammunition.

[NeverSure]

Where would the NRA be on a list of political donors?

From where do you think the NRA gets the money to donate? The answer would be millions of voting members who pay dues so the NRA can represent them.

The NRA is nothing more than millions of member voters. NRA money is dues paying voter money.

[ClutchClark]

My opinion is that constitutional law principles applied to the second amendment allows reasonable restrictions on gun purchase and ownership. We seem to be in complete agreement. Maybe what I posted was confusing. There are many people arguing that the second amendment means there can be no restrictions on their right to purchase and own a gun.

The argument should be about what are reasonable restrictions and the criteria is the proper balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of society. Should a person be able to go to a gun show and buy a gun with no background check. Should there be a registry of gun owners, etc. Reasonable people can differ, but there is no reason in simply saying the constitution grants an irrevocable right to gun ownership. Hence my pejorative "second amendment nuts".

Gun Show Background Checks State Laws

Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks.

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law clearly defined private sellers as anyone who sold no more than four firearms per year. But the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act lifted that restriction and loosely defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

Check the map out in the link.

As a lifetime gun-owner, I am 100% in favor of closing this loophole yet most gunowners are afraid that even one small bit of legislation will snowball into the army storming into their homes and taking their guns. The NRA started this propaganda and fear mongering back in the 1970's when it started to become radicalized. I remember it happening.

To this day, I know reasonable men who are completely unreasonable in this single area of their lives.

There is nothing unique about any "gun show loophole." It is a red flag talking point repeated by nuts who are anti-gun in general.

The idea is that guns can be bought and sold at gun shows with no paperwork - just exchange money and gun.

I just made a long post above stating that private parties can buy and sell guns anywhere without going through formalities. They don't need a Gun Show. They can advertise the gun online, on the local Nickle Ads, or in the local paper.

I also explained what responsible, law abiding citizens do when they transfer firearms.

You are talking about people committing crimes at a gun show unless they get ID and assure that the buyer and seller each live in the same state. They'd better keep a record of who they sold that gun to, in case it's later used in a crime.

Criminals don't obey laws and they don't need "loopholes" to do what they do.

Edit: I guess if we're going to use the term "nuts" to describe each other here, I might as well get in on it. I'm debating anti-gun nuts,

I am saddened that we cannot even agree on the point that gunshows are a notorious conduit for guns getting into the wrong hands. This is a well proven fact but I am not going to waste effort looking up details. The mindset of everyone anymore is not to consider others points of view as valid or worth consideration but rather just a room full of people trying to shout louder than the next. In this regard, I am perhaps unique because I don't agree with many of your posts however I have genuine respect for you knowledge and I have modified my own position at times based on good argument by reasonable people.

I do not consider you a gun-nut. I am a gun owner and I use the expression gun nut when it fits and there are times it most definitely does. Example: I see no reason why suppressor devices are needed by gunowners and guys that feel they need these accessories or that need high-cap 30 round mags for their handguns fall under my personal definition of nuts.

Your recent post above is largely correct; however, there are exceptions made for the sale of firearms between family if memory serves me.

Lastly, I continue to see your position of criminals not obeying laws...etc etc.

I believe we can atleast agree on this point. Criminals do not obey laws. I consider this the driving force behind my own argument why restrictions must be made on accessibility. If every gunowner in America was like you then we would not have a gun problem in the US.

[notmyself]

Excuse my ignorance as I am not an American. What percentage of the voting public would like to see stricter gun regulations?

[ClutchClark]

Excuse my ignorance as I am not an American. What percentage of the voting public would like to see stricter gun regulations?

Unfortunately its difficult to answer that because every poll has defined a variety of different possible restrictions.

It seems from my reading that the majority of Americans would like to see some type of legislation that attempts to limit the endemic gun violence in our culture but as soon as we attempt to name "specific" legislation then the consensus shifts depending on the specifics.

Don't know if I said that in an understandable way.

I think the issue of closing (or enforcing lax) gunshow loopholes has been asked and the opinion of most Americans is they want to see efforts made.

I think Americans recognize that fellow Americans do not need simple access to fully automatic weapons and there is restrictive legislation pertaining to possession of automatic weapons. Those restrictions have not resulted in a confiscation of everyones' other guns but strangely this is still the connection made by gunowners--that even the smallest legislation immediately snowballs into total confiscation of all guns.

[NeverSure]

There is not a gun show loophole. It works like this.

1. Private parties may buy and sell guns with other private parties if they both live in the same state without registration or a background check.

2. That includes everywhere and is not limited to gun shows.

3. Gun show loophole is a disingenuous term invented and promulgated by anti gun nuts with an agenda.

[NeverSure]

This thread has been going for a year. It started when Obama got his butt kicked by his own Democrat controlled Senate which refused to pass a gun law Obama wanted because they wanted to get re-elected. They knew the voters would have crucified them, and Obama wasn't running for re-election again.

Now for all of you anti-gun nuts: Your side lost more than year ago. Give it up. You're truly losers in the real since - losers in the gun debate in America.

[notmyself]

Excuse my ignorance as I am not an American. What percentage of the voting public would like to see stricter gun regulations?

Unfortunately its difficult to answer that because every poll has defined a variety of different possible restrictions.

It seems from my reading that the majority of Americans would like to see some type of legislation that attempts to limit the endemic gun violence in our culture but as soon as we attempt to name "specific" legislation then the consensus shifts depending on the specifics.

Don't know if I said that in an understandable way.

I think the issue of closing (or enforcing lax) gunshow loopholes has been asked and the opinion of most Americans is they want to see efforts made.

I think Americans recognize that fellow Americans do not need simple access to fully automatic weapons and there is restrictive legislation pertaining to possession of automatic weapons. Those restrictions have not resulted in a confiscation of everyones' other guns but strangely this is still the connection made by gunowners--that even the smallest legislation immediately snowballs into total confiscation of all guns.

That seems to match up closely to what I have heard.

This snowballing is being whipped up by politicians whose campaigns are being paid for by the NRA as far as I can see. I saw Sarah Palin some months back (could be a year I suppose) where she stated as fact that any restrictions or regulations means that nobody can have a gun. 10s of thousands of people there and they all agreed, or at least cheered. This kind of situation has nothing to do with political affiliation or even culture. Dialectically speaking, anyone who cheered at this piece of illogic should not be able to hold a gun never mind own one.

[notmyself]

There is not a gun show loophole. It works like this.

1. Private parties may buy and sell guns with other private parties if they both live in the same state without registration or a background check.

2. That includes everywhere and is not limited to gun shows.

3. Gun show loophole is a disingenuous term invented and promulgated by anti gun nuts with an agenda.

I agree with that. The term was likely introduced to tone down the actual truth which is that in almost all states, any person can legally sell a gun to another person without any checks including which state they come from. I do believe that there is an age restriction though in that you have to be at least one day old. No doubt some states restrict this to the time of conception.

[chuckd]

Excuse my ignorance as I am not an American. What percentage of the voting public would like to see stricter gun regulations?

Unfortunately its difficult to answer that because every poll has defined a variety of different possible restrictions.

It seems from my reading that the majority of Americans would like to see some type of legislation that attempts to limit the endemic gun violence in our culture but as soon as we attempt to name "specific" legislation then the consensus shifts depending on the specifics.

Don't know if I said that in an understandable way.

I think the issue of closing (or enforcing lax) gunshow loopholes has been asked and the opinion of most Americans is they want to see efforts made.

I think Americans recognize that fellow Americans do not need simple access to fully automatic weapons and there is restrictive legislation pertaining to possession of automatic weapons. Those restrictions have not resulted in a confiscation of everyones' other guns but strangely this is still the connection made by gunowners--that even the smallest legislation immediately snowballs into total confiscation of all guns.

That seems to match up closely to what I have heard.

This snowballing is being whipped up by politicians whose campaigns are being paid for by the NRA as far as I can see. I saw Sarah Palin some months back (could be a year I suppose) where she stated as fact that any restrictions or regulations means that nobody can have a gun. 10s of thousands of people there and they all agreed, or at least cheered. This kind of situation has nothing to do with political affiliation or even culture. Dialectically speaking, anyone who cheered at this piece of illogic should not be able to hold a gun never mind own one.

Google is your friend.

Here's a link to get you started doing your own research. Just follow the bouncing ball.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082

Break a leg, as they say.

[NeverSure]

There is not a gun show loophole. It works like this.

1. Private parties may buy and sell guns with other private parties if they both live in the same state without registration or a background check.

2. That includes everywhere and is not limited to gun shows.

3. Gun show loophole is a disingenuous term invented and promulgated by anti gun nuts with an agenda.

I agree with that. The term was likely introduced to tone down the actual truth which is that in almost all states, any person can legally sell a gun to another person without any checks including which state they come from. I do believe that there is an age restriction though in that you have to be at least one day old. No doubt some states restrict this to the time of conception.

Incorrect. Federal law makes it a crime to sell to anyone who doesn't live in the same state. The reason they can't control that is because that sale wouldn't be interstate commerce which they constitutionally control. It's intrastate commerce and none of their business.

Both buyer and seller might be committing a serious Federal crime if they didn't assure that they both live in the same state, and engage in illegal interstate commerce. Therefore it would be unheard of for them to not get the other's ID and make record of it. They would be responsible for any crimes later committed with that gun too if they broke that law.

I think you'd be surprised just how careful and responsible lawful gun owners are, and they aren't a problem. It's criminals who are the problem.

Laws won't control criminals.

[notmyself]

Excuse my ignorance as I am not an American. What percentage of the voting public would like to see stricter gun regulations?

Unfortunately its difficult to answer that because every poll has defined a variety of different possible restrictions.

It seems from my reading that the majority of Americans would like to see some type of legislation that attempts to limit the endemic gun violence in our culture but as soon as we attempt to name "specific" legislation then the consensus shifts depending on the specifics.

Don't know if I said that in an understandable way.

I think the issue of closing (or enforcing lax) gunshow loopholes has been asked and the opinion of most Americans is they want to see efforts made.

I think Americans recognize that fellow Americans do not need simple access to fully automatic weapons and there is restrictive legislation pertaining to possession of automatic weapons. Those restrictions have not resulted in a confiscation of everyones' other guns but strangely this is still the connection made by gunowners--that even the smallest legislation immediately snowballs into total confiscation of all guns.

That seems to match up closely to what I have heard.

This snowballing is being whipped up by politicians whose campaigns are being paid for by the NRA as far as I can see. I saw Sarah Palin some months back (could be a year I suppose) where she stated as fact that any restrictions or regulations means that nobody can have a gun. 10s of thousands of people there and they all agreed, or at least cheered. This kind of situation has nothing to do with political affiliation or even culture. Dialectically speaking, anyone who cheered at this piece of illogic should not be able to hold a gun never mind own one.

Google is your friend.

Here's a link to get you started doing your own research. Just follow the bouncing ball.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082

Break a leg, as they say.

Yep. It would be fair to say that most everyone in the world who has even a slight understanding of the US gun problem knows it already. If the NRA can buy politicians then what point one person one vote?

Like I have said a number of times on this thread... restrict the manufacture (even on a personal level) and sale of ammunition. If you start seeing the mass killing of schoolchildren by being clubbed to death with an empty .45 then you will know a mistake has been made.

[ClutchClark]

There is not a gun show loophole. It works like this.

1. Private parties may buy and sell guns with other private parties if they both live in the same state without registration or a background check.

2. That includes everywhere and is not limited to gun shows.

3. Gun show loophole is a disingenuous term invented and promulgated by anti gun nuts with an agenda.

Just had a convo a month ago with a hunting buddy of mine ( we used to hunt hogs together) that his 20-year-old grandson went to a gunshow with his pals in Arkansas and his pals were not from Arkansas and did not have the required Proof of residency (drivers licenses) so they got another pal from Arkansas to straw purchase the guns. The group of wannabe gunbuyers gave the legal buyer cash in privacy and they all walked up to numerous displays and chose the pistols they wanted and their legal buddy bought them right there and the sellers witnessed the whole thing but since the legal resident pulled the money out of his own pocket the sellers took the money and ignored the rest. Money talks at gun shows.

Yes, straw purchases are illegal.

Yes, gunshows offer a huge "one-stop-shop" for gunbuyers (legal & illegal).

Yes, it is illegal for a seller to dell a firearm if they suspect a straw purchase.

Yes, most sellers follow this rule.

Yes, enough don 't so that it is a problem that has been identified.

And as most of the gun enthusiasts here gloss over the facts the first thing they are going to respond, likely the only response they will give is, "Well, why didnt your buddies son report the incidents?".

So before this predictable and obvious response is asked, I will say it is because these were college buddies of his and he was not going to spend the next year in federal court as a witness against his buddies and he was not going to have his name in some ATF file. So he walked away as any smart man would.

Gunowners need a new paradigm. They aren't interested in such. This post and all my others are a waste of time.

The definition of stupidity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. I don't expect any different outcome from my posts so I am not stupid that way--I am just an idiot for wasting my valuable time that I could be out gardening and enjoying the outdoors. Or sleeping ;-)

[NeverSure]

Yep. It would be fair to say that most everyone in the world who has even a slight understanding of the US gun problem knows it already. If the NRA can buy politicians then what point one person one vote?

Like I have said a number of times on this thread... restrict the manufacture (even on a personal level) and sale of ammunition. If you start seeing the mass killing of schoolchildren by being clubbed to death with an empty .45 then you will know a mistake has been made.

Your spin continues to be disingenuous.

Why don't you substitute the acronym NRA with what it really is? It is a group of millions of dues paying voters. Why don't you say something accurate such as:

"Millions of dues paying, pro-gun voters collectively contribute to the election campaigns of politicians who support their beliefs?"

If a similar group of millions of voters who oppose gun ownership wanted to collectively contribute to their candidate, they would be free to do so. The problem is that they aren't out there.

Obama's Democrat controlled Senate didn't refuse to vote for his gun control bill because anyone bought anyone. The NRA doesn't contribute to those people. They refused to vote for Obama's bill because they knew if they did the voters would massacre them in the next election.

This thread started more than a year ago because Obama's Democrat controlled Senate shot down his gun control bill. They did that because they knew that the majority of voters in their district would have kicked them out of office.

It's about the majority of voters. No one buys them or forces them to contribute their money to things they believe in.

The NRA is a group of voters.

[NeverSure]

Oh, and I already agreed that the US has a gun problem.

I also have an ammunition problem. I got a brass rifle cartridge stuck in a die in my reloading press because I forgot to lube it.

[ClutchClark]

This thread has been going for a year. It started when Obama got his butt kicked by his own Democrat controlled Senate which refused to pass a gun law Obama wanted because they wanted to get re-elected. They knew the voters would have crucified them, and Obama wasn't running for re-election again.

Now for all of you anti-gun nuts: Your side lost more than year ago. Give it up. You're truly losers in the real since - losers in the gun debate in America.

For a guy that was hesitant to use the expression nuts just a short time ago, you've sure taking a liking to it ;-)

I make a distinction that not all gun-owners are gun nuts.

Are you willing to concede that just because someone wants gun legislation, that wish alone does not make them an anti-gun nut?

Heck, I don't care really. I would say you know more about some things than me but I am the wiser because I am done with this thread. I would have a more productive day if I started hitting myself in the head with a piece of 2x4.

Theres a sunset with your name on it NeverSure. If you only listen to me this one time--go ride into it ;-)

Theres more enjoyable ways for you and I to spend our time.

[Scott]

Troll posts and replies have been deleted.

[neverdie]

Neverdie, the US doesn't really care much whether or not you visit and if you need to go, you can probably pick up a used flak jacket if you need one. In general, though, it's best to stay out of the slum areas and certain sections of large cities. You might want to do a little research before you go.

I personally know more people who were killed by lightening than I do from guns.

It's a big, big country and plenty of areas are safe.

Credo,

Who is the US? Do you mean you, or someone else, because how do you know that the 'US' doesn't really care if I visit? In any such case, I couldn't care if anyone else didn't care about where I want to visit.

Now, I'm going to lay down because I'm not too sure if I've cleared that up or confused myself attempting to clear that up.

Statistically speaking, the. lightning thing, doesn't gel.

In 2013, just 23 people died directly as a result if being struck by lightning in the USA. In 1943, 432 died as a result of lightning strikes. Amazing stuff

[Credo]

Sorry if I have confused you and caused your head to start spinning. You are a good poster and your contributions to many threads are appreciated, even if I don't agree with all of them. Your a bright and caring person with a practical side, but you are getting a little too wound up on the US gun issue.

I am not the US, but if you visit, I don't think you need to worry too much.

As for lightening, I was speaking from my personal experience only. Living in the countryside we did have people struck by lightening. We also had a lot of guns round, but for some reason not many murders or accidental shootings. But that was some years ago. It may have changed.

[notmyself]

Yep....

[notmyself]

Gun Violence In America: Facts And Figures

700.jpg

http://o.onionstatic.com/images/26/26484/original/700.jpg?2191

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. Before the invention of the gun people still died but nobody was killed with a gun.

Yep, I was wondering how long before one of you gun nuts were forced to dig up an old thread since there was no mass murder in the last few days to feed your need to talk about your guns.

I just wish you could come up with some new material instead of falling back on the worn out bumper sticker slogan from the 70's about guns don't kill people, people do.

Don't you have anything fresher? ;-)

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[Scott]

Inflammatory post removed.

[CMNightRider]

Guns are already the most heavily regulated product in America. Maybe the anti-gun nuts should focus their attention on people with mental illnesses.

[beechguy]

Yep....

Nope.

[ClutchClark]

Guns are already the most heavily regulated product in America. Maybe the anti-gun nuts should focus their attention on people with mental illnesses.

Seems like a good place to start...

[wolf5370]

The assault weapons ban was defeated by a vote of 60-40, with Democrats voting for the defeat.

The background check was not able to garner enough votes to defeat the filibuster rules.

Perhaps the Senate simply decided to get to work on what the American people seem to think is important.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gallup: Only 4% of Americans Think Gun Control is an Important Problem

April 16, 2013

By Michael James

(CNSNews.com) – Only 4 percent of Americans think guns and gun control are an important problem facing the country, according to Gallup, and far more Americans are concerned about the economy, unemployment and the federal debt.

Respondents answered in the following order:

Economy in general 24%

Unemployment/Jobs 18%

Dissatisfaction with Government 16%

Federal budget deficit/Federal debt 11%

Healthcare 6%

Ethical/Moral/Family decline 5%

Immigration/Illegal aliens 4%

Education 4%

Guns/Gun control 4%

Situation with North Korea 4%

Lack of Money 3%

Welfare 2%

Lack of respect for each other 2%

Poverty/Hunger/Homelessness 2%

Foreign aid/Focus overseas 2%

Taxes 2%

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-only-4-americans-think-gun-control-important-problem

The stats shown do not match the conclusion you (they) have given. "Only 4% of Americans Think Gun Control is an Important Problem" - this is not what this shows at all, it simply shows that those polled thought other thongs listed were more important.

If I made a poll and said, which is more important: Gun control, giving all immigrants green cards on arrival, would that then show it was important? Comparisons show preference they do not show support. If the poll said: Gun Control is important to me, yes or no? - then it would show importance.

Lies, darned lies and statistics!

[notmyself]

Guns are already the most heavily regulated product in America.

I don't see how that makes an argument and I question whether it is even true.

What is in second place?

Maybe the anti-gun nuts should focus their attention on people with mental illnesses.

Such as finding out why the population has such a fanatical desire to own guns

[NeverSure]

The stats shown do not match the conclusion you (they) have given. "Only 4% of Americans Think Gun Control is an Important Problem" - this is not what this shows at all, it simply shows that those polled thought other thongs listed were more important.

If I made a poll and said, which is more important: Gun control, giving all immigrants green cards on arrival, would that then show it was important? Comparisons show preference they do not show support. If the poll said: Gun Control is important to me, yes or no? - then it would show importance.

Lies, darned lies and statistics!

I think you're mistaken about that. I think you should read it again. Both the headline and the first phrase in the article say this:

"Only 4 percent of Americans think guns and gun control are an important problem facing the country,"

Then it goes on the say that many more than 4% are concerned about other things. So with that verbiage, 4% could think guns are a problem, 96% not agree, and still among the group 50% could hate watermelons.

But it's clear that "only 4 percent of Americans think guns and gun control are an important problem facing the country,"

By your interpretation, it would need to say that only 4% of Americans think guns and gun control are the most important problem...