How about the Secretary of the Treasury? Forgot to pay his taxes. Rangle forgot to pay his taxes.
Go right on down the line and get all of the corruption out of government.
Gee, Sandee, why don't you really complain abut the illegal things that are going on. You didn't even scratch the surface. Why not?
=================================
Glenn Beck hates 9/11 survivors. Shocking as Glenn Beck claimed that he hates 9/11 survivors. The Fox news personality and media clown has always been an outrageous demagogue, a pied piper to the illiterate, unwashed masses that make up the Fox news audience. Michael Stone,Examiner.com
So what you're saying is they ought to deal with gun shows the same way they do crack houses?
That could upset any number of city fathers, in who's buildings gun shows are held. I had street dealers more in mind, and bulldozing them is frowned on for some reason.
Surely you are not suggesting that teachers should be armed.
Security guards yes,but teachers? or some would even say students.
It is just not the solution
Why don't you explain *why* it's just not the solution? The pitiful amount of training in shooting skills given to police by budget-crunched departments might suprise you. OTOH, civilians, knowing that without the power of the State behind them, they had better get it right, take it upon themselves, by a huge majority to seek training that is often measureably superior to that of average police officers. Just once, get your head out of a soap opera script, and realize that reality isn't like that.
You are suggesting that individuals who get a weapon simply by going to a show and buying it with no check at all should walk around schools armed and you know that they will be more conscientious about learning to use it right and better than trained guards.
I would say get real, but you are not real. This is not a soap opera. You can get a new line. This is the story of horrible tragedy after horrible tragedy in real life.
OTOH, civilians, knowing that without the power of the State behind them, they had better get it right, take it upon themselves, by a huge majority to seek training that is often measureably superior to that of average police officers.
LOL!!
I sure did that, and I certainly know a fair number of others who did as well, but a "huge majority?" That's a joke. The volume of stupidity and ignorance I've personally seen on the part of gun owners and enthusiasts would fill an encyclopedia.
I sure did that, and I certainly know a fair number of others who did as well, but a "huge majority?" That's a joke. The volume of stupidity and ignorance I've personally seen on the part of gun owners and enthusiasts would fill an encyclopedia.
Lot's of anecdotal comparison going on here, might as well stay with them. Of the school shootings that were thwarted by armed civilians, I guess they got lucky, and drew smart ones all around? OTOH, real-world stats reveal that only the tiniest percentage of CHL holders wind up in any kind of trouble because of their guns. One would think that, based on all that stupidity and ignorance, that there would be "blood in the streets", just like the Liberals predicted!
Holy crap there wouldn't be a problem with gun crime in this country if the world as gus describes it were real.
If you think there is not a problem that needs to be addressed you live in la la land and its not a soap opera it's a loony bin.
So far in this thread, you have shown yourself to be abysmally ignorant of the factual realities of this issue, relying instead on Liberal urban-legend, talking points, and mis-information. That makes any sort of informative response nothing more than a large waste of time.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but CRIMINALS will always break the law.....that is why they are criminals, they have no regard for laws....if they can't get guns one way, they will find other ways. That is what criminals do!
well, if the buyer is a felon or prohibited for some reason not able to own a gun, then the buyer is breaking a law or laws....if the seller knows the buyer is a felon or not legally able to own a gun then the seller is breaking the law.
In addition, more than likely, the occasional gun seller has the gun registered in the sellers name....now how many people want a gun registered to them used in committing a crime? If the police get the gun, who do you think they will go to for committing the crime?
Just focus on the point of the article....how easy it is to walk into a show......even admit that you could not pass a background check and walk out with a weapon.
How about a law the absolutely forbids private sales at shows.........the gun show loophole needs to shut tight.
They should be required to show their permit for the gun before leaving the premises.
***********************************
I've learned that the people you care most about in life are taken from you too soon and
all the less important ones just never go away.
And the real pains in the ass are permanent.
What a bout a seller advertising on say Craigslist? How do you control that?
And then of course, there are the guns imported and sold on the streets by gangs, how could any tightening of sales rules at guns shows have any effect on those sales?
Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to background checks but, the point remains, criminals will always find ways to skirt the law.....
They will never stop them all, but as for gunshows it's a good start.
***********************************
I've learned that the people you care most about in life are taken from you too soon and
all the less important ones just never go away.
And the real pains in the ass are permanent.
it is easy to skirt that rule....sellers, and buyers just advertise "and other hunting gear" or similar statements.....then they just exchange the details in emails. I have bought a number of rifles and 2 hand guns on Craigs list.
It is perfectly legal to buy guns......well, at least it has been but with these jokers and clowns we have in DC right now that may be in jeapordy.....
Actually people like the wingnuts on the board plus Rush and Beck are driving indivdiuals to consider arming themselves when they consider having to deal with these nuts on the streets.
Last week we were driving down a highway in Nevada and there is a huge bulletin board with a picture of an AK47 saying come in and try me...............
America has got real problems and I firmly believe the gun proponents and the NRA are going too far.
I've learned that the people you care most about in life are taken from you too soon and
all the less important ones just never go away.
And the real pains in the ass are permanent.
Surely you are not suggesting that teachers should be armed.
It makes as much sense as blaming Columbine on gun shows and background checks, since the guns at Columbine were neither purchased at a gun show, nor without background checks...pffft.
~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~
I am pretty sure I am right about this . Some of the Columbine guns did come from a gun show purchase. The shooters had a girl who was over 18 go to a gun show and get them.
What we know so far: the eighteen year old girlfriend of one of the Columbine High School killers bought some of the guns they used at a gun show nearby. Another gun was purchased by a co-worker. The murder weapons were all legally purchased in the immediate area. According to an article in the Times last week, most crime weapons are bought, not stolen as the NRA claims.
I noticed years ago that this was true. Whenever you read an account of a mass shooting, you usually find that the killer bought the gun. The LIRR shooter bought his at a gun shop in California. The student who shot other students at a college in the Berkshires bought his weapon nearby on Route 7. And so on.
A study of the source of weapons found at New York City crime scenes showed that most were purchased at gun stores in the South. Virginia instituted a limit--no more than one handgun per month--because it was embarrassed to be the origin of so many weapons used in New York City crimes.
The Columbine killer's girlfriend was a "straw man," a legal purchaser who immediately transferred the weapons to someone who could not have bought them himself. This is also very common. A student who shot other high school students in the South some years ago had his uncle buy his weapon. New York City gang members enlist residents of Southern cities to buy their guns for them.
Gun shows are a special problem. They are a glaring loophole in the federal gun laws. The idea is that private citizens may sell guns to one another without the need of dealer licenses or background checks. Shows are a nexus for these private sales, like a flea market for guns.
Why not hold drug shows? We could all come to the Coliseum and exchange Seconal, Zoloft, Quaaludes. I don't need to be a physician or pharmacist, you don't need a prescription. Because its a private sale. If we permit it for guns, why wouldn't we do the same for drugs?
The Brady law never applied to gun shows. No five day waiting period or background check. Anyone who wanted a gun in a hurry, with no questions asked, just had to seek out a show instead of a store.
One of the guns used at Columbine was a Tec-9, a semiautomatic handgun once specifically advertised by its manufacturer as the most popular crime weapon in America. The Tec-9 was banned under President Clinton's semiautomatic weapon order some years ago and is no longer made, but the ones that are still out there can be legally sold.
The school shooting incidents of the past year and a half raise a unique problem. The Second Amendment purists said after earlier incidents-- and I heard at least one say the same after Columbine--that the solution is to put more guns in the schools. If every teacher, the principal, every fellow student was armed, I suppose they could have blazed away at the killers (and incidentally, each other) until the whole thing was over. Its not any kind of school I would care to send my child to, and the body count might have been just as high.
Like most parents, I would rather see fewer guns. One way to get there would be to close the gun show loophole, as President Clinton has promised to do.
***********************************
I've learned that the people you care most about in life are taken from you too soon and
all the less important ones just never go away.
And the real pains in the ass are permanent.
If every teacher, the principal, every fellow student was armed, I suppose they could have blazed away at the killers (and incidentally, each other) until the whole thing was over. Its not any kind of school I would care to send my child to, and the body count might have been just as high.
-------------------
So seriously Susan
You want teachers armed? You would feel safe sending your children to a school where weapons are the ultimate answer? You don't see the reason for gun free school zones?
If every teacher, the principal, every fellow student was armed, I suppose they could have blazed away at the killers (and incidentally, each other) until the whole thing was over. Its not any kind of school I would care to send my child to, and the body count might have been just as high.
LOL... Holy crap! Blood in the streets! Typical typical typical. I *just as easily* suppose,(and more in line with actual events) that a teacher(s), or a student(s) could have deterred the killers altogether with a show of weapons, *or* shot them if they had to, either *before* they could harm innocent people, or *before* they shot as many as they did. How's the *alternative* working out for you so far??? More dead people is a good thing? Just so we don't have too many nasty ol' guns around?
Just for the record, if I want to sell my neighbor a gun, it is perfectly legal to do so, as long as they are 18, and a resident of the state, with some qualifiers for both. Private citizens are NOT bound by federal laws such as background checks, and "straw man" purchase laws. Those laws are limited to federally licensed gun dealers. These guidelines are established by the frigging Constitution! *That* is what limits the power of the federal govt. with regard to what they can and can't do. Don't like it? Then repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Given the above, there is *also* no law governing the *number* of neighbors, or the *number* of guns I can sell. So if 5 friends get together at one's house, and sell and swap guns with each other, that's no different! Neither is 10 friends. So 20 friends won't fit in the house, so they make arrangements with the VFW hall to meet down there on Saturday, and swap and sell guns. At what point do we have a "gun show" going here? Charging admission? Nope, nothing illegal there. Selling "space"? Nope, flea markets do it all the time. A great number of sales at gun shows take place in the aisles among the people attending, and have nothing to do with anyone behind a rented table, dealer, or otherwise. So me selling my neighbor a gun is the very same "loophole" that the whiners are complaining about. Sorry whiners, it's a Constitutional right.
As a footnote. Up until a number of years ago, licensed dealers were NOT allowed to set up at gun shows. Federal law stated that the transfer of a gun *must* take place on the licensed premesis. Dealers circumvented the law by setting up a display at at a gun show. Then when a person agreed to buy a gun, they jumped in a car with the dealer, and drove down to his store to complete the sale! This was a lot of trouble, and very few licensed dealers bothered. Obviously, only local dealers even considered it. Then even the BATF saw the foolishness in all of this, and amended the law to allow dealers to do business at gun shows, provided they fullfilled all of the same requirements for a sale that were required of them at their store. It is my opinion that gun shows were more interesting, and more fun, back before the dealers invaded, and made such a business out of it. Nevertheless, it is all still perfectly legal.
gus.
This message has been edited by gus-mccrea on Oct 10, 2009 4:02 PM
I don't see anything in the second amendment about buying or selling guns, certainly nothing saying the government can't require reporting of the sale or confirmation of the eligibility of the buyer.
Care to give us the case law supporting your claim that the second amendment forbids this?
(Hint: You might have somewhat better luck with the commerce clause)
This message has been edited by jrooth on Oct 10, 2009 4:26 PM
I don't see anything in the second amendment about buying or selling guns, certainly nothing saying the government can't require reporting of the sale or confirmation of the eligibility of the buyer.
Yet you can with all clarity read that paragraph that says we can't pray in school? Just asking.
(Both subjects have been decided by later rulings...you can't discount one and stand by the other)
~~life isn't about how to survive the storm but how to dance in the rain~~
I don't see anything in the second amendment about buying or selling guns, certainly nothing saying the government can't require reporting of the sale or confirmation of the eligibility of the buyer.
Interpretation can work both ways. Does such reporting, or eligibility requirements constitute an "infringement"? The courts have established that it does *not* for a specific list of what I suppose would be considered undersireables, or deliberate forfeiture of rights cases, as in convicted felons. More or less not unlike the "fire in a crowed theatre" limitations on the 1st. Amendment. By implication then, again not unlike the 1st. those *not* singled out for exception can assume protection. A case in point might be the numerous attempts by the whiners to establish a gun-owner database from the information contained in the mandatory background checks. All these attempts have been rejected on what are basically the above assumptive grounds.
(Both subjects have been decided by later rulings...you can't discount one and stand by the other)
All I asked, Susan, is what later ruling or rulings interpreted the second amendment to prohibit regulation of private gun sales. I'm not aware of any such ruling, but since both Gus and you seem confident that they exist I thought you might be so kind as to let me know what rulings you're talking about.
Interpretation can work both ways. Does such reporting, or eligibility requirements constitute an "infringement"? The courts have established that it does not for a specific list of what I suppose would be considered undersireables, or deliberate forfeiture of rights cases, as in convicted felons. More or less not unlike the "fire in a crowed theatre" limitations on the 1st. Amendment. By implication then, again not unlike the 1st. those not singled out for exception can assume protection. A case in point might be the numerous attempts by the whiners to establish a gun-owner database from the information contained in the mandatory background checks. All these attempts have been rejected on what are basically the above assumptive grounds.
In other words, you don't know of any case law to support your interpretation.
As I said, I think you might do better with the commerce clause. Even though the courts have interpreted it rather extraordinarily broadly, I suspect an argument that private gun sales (at least between citizens of the same state) do not touch on interstate commerce would have substantial support.
In other words, you don't know of any case law to support your interpretation.
I don't know that there is any, specifically, because the attempts to create a database never reached the court challenge stage. Smarter legal heads prevailed in Congress when the attempts were made, everytime Brady was reviewed or amended.
As I said, I think you might do better with the commerce clause. Even though the courts have interpreted it rather extraordinarily broadly, I suspect an argument that private gun sales (at least between citizens of the same state) do not touch on interstate commerce would have substantial support.
That remains to be seen when the states that have passed sovereignty resolutions are challenged. Wyoming for sure, and I believe Tennessee, hold that federal firearms laws do not apply to firearms sales within the state. No doubt the fed will come after them based on IC.
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/JansRealm/wfelix.gif)
This is a BBQ. Couldn't enlarge it.