Go ahead, Feinstein, MAKE MY DAY

[WriterDom]

Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have joined Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and victims and family members of the Virginia Tech tragedy, to introduce legislation to eliminate the private transfers of firearms and close the nation's "gun show loophole."

 

[JMohegan]

Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have joined Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and victims and family members of the Virginia Tech tragedy, to introduce legislation to eliminate the private transfers of firearms and close the nation's "gun show loophole."

My understanding of the issue (found here and here) is that gun show vendors are unlicensed and currently not required to do background checks of any kind. Buyers hand over cash, anonymously, and just purchase whatever they want.

“Allowing sales at gun shows without identification, without accountability and without knowing whether the buyer is a felon or mentally ill, is unacceptable,” Feinstein said in a statement. “This legislation proposes common sense protections that do not limit the rights of law abiding citizens to own and purchase guns.”


In your view, what's wrong with her statement? What's your rationale for opposing the bill?

 

[Netzach]

I think ANYTHING that takes away the right of someone to own a deadly weapon on demand is abominable. Instant universal access on demand is the ONLY allowable American thing.

But we should have 24 hour waiting periods on a woman's decision she's probably thought about agonizingly. Just because women are too stupid to do that.

 

[WriterDom]

"But the bill has a tough road ahead. The National Rifle Association, which opposes the proposal, is a juggernaut of political influence in Washington, and Democratic leaders, including President Obama, have all but conceded that gun reforms are likely going nowhere this year."


It's a losing issue for democrats. In fact, Obama was the first dem I remember in years that didn't do the required "Hunting photo op." I was hoping we'd get eagle eye Hillary shooting at some ducks.

After all her shooting fun with Grandpa as a child.

 

[Netzach]

"But the bill has a tough road ahead. The National Rifle Association, which opposes the proposal, is a juggernaut of political influence in Washington, and Democratic leaders, including President Obama, have all but conceded that gun reforms are likely going nowhere this year."

Because most Dems have moved on to other things and honestly are looking the other way.

Only Feinstein and cronies are hopping mad about these distractionary issues that a third of the country is freaking out over. You know, the third that's still waiting for Obama to pull out his secret Muslim prayer rug and bend to Mecca.

Actually - *smirk*

If anything he's secretly a Jew. You know technically according to OUR laws he's...

 

[JMohegan]

"But the bill has a tough road ahead. The National Rifle Association, which opposes the proposal, is a juggernaut of political influence in Washington, and Democratic leaders, including President Obama, have all but conceded that gun reforms are likely going nowhere this year."


It's a losing issue for democrats. In fact, Obama was the first dem I remember in years that didn't do the required "Hunting photo op." I was hoping we'd get eagle eye Hillary shooting at some ducks.

After all her shooting fun with Grandpa as a child.

Politics aside, do you agree with Feinstein's statement? If not, why?

 

[WriterDom]

Yeah gun sales are through the roof now. Bullets can't keep up with the demand. I'm buying my first handgun in a couple of weeks. Not that I'm worried, I just like shooting guns and have a free place to do it.

 

[Netzach]

Politics aside, do you agree with Feinstein's statement? If not, why?

I agree in theory, but I don't care. I don't see it as a compelling reason to legislate anything at all, because the net effect of this legislation is window dressing to criminals and keeps the only protection some people can get out of their hands. Bad and crazy people will maintain the ability to do bad and crazy things, period.

 

[WriterDom]

Politics aside, do you agree with Feinstein's statement? If not, why?

I'm not opposed to background checks. But I think I have every right to buy from my brother in law's arsenal. I wouldn't be surprised if he has $100,000 worth of guns. Assuming I'm not a convicted felon or insane.

 

[JMohegan]

I think ANYTHING that takes away the right of someone to own a deadly weapon on demand is abominable. Instant universal access on demand is the ONLY allowable American thing.

But we should have 24 hour waiting periods on a woman's decision she's probably thought about agonizingly. Just because women are too stupid to do that.

The same people who go ballistic over the idea of non-citizens obtaining driver's licenses apparently don't give a fuck about the ability of those same non-citizens to walk into gun shows and arm themselves to the teeth.

Such hypocrisy, and idiocy to boot.

 

[Netzach]

The same people who go ballistic over the idea of non-citizens obtaining driver's licenses apparently don't give a fuck about the ability of those same non-citizens to walk into gun shows and arm themselves to the teeth.

Gun show culture does nothing but nothing to be accepting to anyone who's darker than a sheet of legal paper or doesn't have a dick. At least in my limited "he's an arab!" sector of experience. This may be different in other locales. McVeighs of the world are going to do well there, but no one outside that demographic is walking away unquestioned. The weirdest experience of my life was being in a gun shop with "Panzer Division re-enactment" flyers on the bulletin board. Egad.

So when they wonder why people like me give their rights only the most grudging support there's your answer, geniuses.

 

[JMohegan]

I'm not opposed to background checks. But I think I have every right to buy from my brother in law's arsenal. I wouldn't be surprised if he has $100,000 worth of guns. Assuming I'm not a convicted felon or insane.

You'd be allowed to buy his car, though of course the state would be notified of the title transfer. Would you be okay with that type of system for guns?

What is the bill proposing, with regard to this type of sale?

Gun show culture does nothing but nothing to be accepting to anyone who's darker than a sheet of legal paper or doesn't have a dick. McVeighs of the world are going to do well there, but no one outside that demographic is walking away unquestioned. The weirdest experience of my life was being in a gun shop with "Panzer Division re-enactment" flyers on the bulletin board. Egad.

So when they wonder why people like me give their rights only the most grudging support there's your answer, geniuses.

Oh christ.

I guess mentioning Title II of the Civil Rights Act would be counterproductive.

Hmmm. Funny how selective they are in their zeal for defending American rights.

 

[ZRT]

Gun dealers of the licensed variety are still required to perform all standard paperwork processing and background checks, regardless of whether or not they're selling out of their store, a gun show, or their own house.

What this regulates is the ability of a private citizen who sets up a table at a show to make a sale on their personal guns, when that ability is not regulated anywhere else but at gunshows.

The 'gun show loophole' is bogus, another creation of the Brady Campaign and their ilk.

As to why cars are more heavily regulated than guns, it's because negligently used cars kill far, far more people than negligently used guns. With all the regulations, required training, and enforcement, vehicular incidents still kill in excess of fifty thousand people a year. The number for gun accidents is waaaaaaaay lower.

Criminal use of firearms is an issue, of course, but regulation doesn't solve that issue because criminals by definition don't abide by regulations.

 

[Netzach]

Hmmm. Funny how selective they are in their zeal for defending American rights.

Despite the fact that the people I agree with on the Second tend to be total dicks, I continue to agree with them. I'm constantly tempted to look into pink pistols (GLBT's who carry.)

When I start seeing more black kids at Ted Nugent's camps kinds of things, I'll change my mind about the movement. Richard Pryor STILL said it best when it came to "a well regulated militia".

For now, it tends to exclude anyone who actually might need to worry about their personal safety the most.

 

[Homburg]

My understanding of the issue (found here and here) is that gun show vendors are unlicensed and currently not required to do background checks of any kind. Buyers hand over cash, anonymously, and just purchase whatever they want.

“Allowing sales at gun shows without identification, without accountability and without knowing whether the buyer is a felon or mentally ill, is unacceptable,” Feinstein said in a statement. “This legislation proposes common sense protections that do not limit the rights of law abiding citizens to own and purchase guns.”


In your view, what's wrong with her statement? What's your rationale for opposing the bill?

I am going purely by my own experience here, but I've been involved in shooting my whole life. I have owned guns since literally before I could walk, as my grandmother bought me a revolver before my folks brought me home from the hospital (a tradition she kept up with every one of my cousins). When I hit the age of majority, I bought my own guns. I have been to literally hundreds of gun shows.

Without exception, the dealers selling guns there MUST comply with the same level of regulations they comply with in the gun stores in the local area. This means, in VA at least, ringing up the State Police for an Instant Background check. VA has been doing this FAR longer than the NICS system has been in place, and NICS was partially modeled after our system.

Private citizens can sell firearms at gun shows same as they can sell firearms through the paper, out of their house etc. There are limits on legal transactions though, and any volume above a certain amount require an FFA. Gun shows here locally will not allow someone to rent a booth/table to sell guns sans a valid FFA.

So you will sometimes see Joe Public wandering the show with a rifle slung over his shoulder that has a "for sale" flag on it. That's it. And, yeah, it's anonymous and has no checks. Can't do too much about it, honestly. How do you stop him from selling it to his neighbour? Probably the same way you stop the guy a few blocks over from selling drugs, right?

The "gun show loophole" is politi-media hype in many place. I'm sure there are still states where such practices occur, but other places have already put their own kibosh on it. This current round of "gunshow loophole" nonsense is just another attempt to stop private sales entirely. Good luck with that.

--

I think ANYTHING that takes away the right of someone to own a deadly weapon on demand is abominable. Instant universal access on demand is the ONLY allowable American thing.

But we should have 24 hour waiting periods on a woman's decision she's probably thought about agonizingly. Just because women are too stupid to do that.

THIS.

--

Gun show culture does nothing but nothing to be accepting to anyone who's darker than a sheet of legal paper or doesn't have a dick. McVeighs of the world are going to do well there, but no one outside that demographic is walking away unquestioned. The weirdest experience of my life was being in a gun shop with "Panzer Division re-enactment" flyers on the bulletin board. Egad.

So when they wonder why people like me give their rights only the most grudging support there's your answer, geniuses.

I can agree to a point. It's not totally pervasive though.

Relating anecdotal experience, but down here, gun shows do not particularly discriminate. I've seen the occasional dealer with an attitude, but most will sell to anyone that can legally buy. And, honestly, no more polite and integrated an environment exists. I've seen serious, scary old redneck white dudes having jovial conversation with the most roughneck looking black guy you've ever seen. Then again, this area is like that. Hell, we even have black people working in gun stores, and gun stores owned by black people. Crazy, I know.

There was one guy around here that creeped me out. Mild mannered old white guy what owned a tiny little gun shop near my parent's house. You walked in, and he had a tolerably good selection, but you could not miss the LOADS of actual Nazi uniforms, pariphenalia, antique firearms from that era, etc. His explanation was that he was a collector, and that was his area of expertise. Me? Creeped me out more than a little. I took my business to a town over, where the "collector" was a Boer War nut with a huge collection of Martini Henry's.

 

[JMohegan]

Despite the fact that the people I agree with on the Second tend to be total dicks, I continue to agree with them. I'm constantly tempted to look into pink pistols (GLBT's who carry.)

When I start seeing more black kids at Ted Nugent's camps I'll change my mind about the movement. For now, it tends to exclude anyone who actually might need to worry about their personal safety the most.

I don't understand the resistance to background checks of citizenship, criminal record, and mental health status. I have yet to hear a single argument in opposition to this simple step that makes any sense. It all sounds like pointless, obstructionist, attempted badassery to me.

You wanna set up a table at a gun show and sell your shit to any guy who walks up and passes your good ole boy smell test? Fine, but on the off chance that your instincts are faulty or your greed gets the best of your judgment, compliance with the state's non-criminal, non-mental case rules should still apply.

 

[Netzach]

I can agree to a point. It's not totally pervasive though.

Relating anecdotal experience, but down here, gun shows do not particularly discriminate. I've seen the occasional dealer with an attitude, but most will sell to anyone that can legally buy. And, honestly, no more polite and integrated an environment exists. I've seen serious, scary old redneck white dudes having jovial conversation with the most roughneck looking black guy you've ever seen. Then again, this area is like that. Hell, we even have black people working in gun stores, and gun stores owned by black people. Crazy, I know.

There was one guy around here that creeped me out. Mild mannered old white guy what owned a tiny little gun shop near my parent's house. You walked in, and he had a tolerably good selection, but you could not miss the LOADS of actual Nazi uniforms, pariphenalia, antique firearms from that era, etc. His explanation was that he was a collector, and that was his area of expertise. Me? Creeped me out more than a little. I took my business to a town over, where the "collector" was a Boer War nut with a huge collection of Martini Henry's.

Reason #2484 the South deserves some credit and the Midwest maybe a little less.

 

[ZRT]

For now, it tends to exclude anyone who actually might need to worry about their personal safety the most.

To an extent I'll agree with you, but there's been serious efforts in the movement to get women trained for self defense, which is definitely needed. Sadly enough, the original acts of gun control in this country were intended to keep minorities disarmed and vulnerable.

But that is what it's about for me- the people who need it the most. Pink Pistols is an excellent example. The woman who owns the store and carries her cash deposits out at night. The single parent on the bad side of town. Take your pick, I want them able to defend themselves, because the police are neither capable of doing so, nor legally required to do so.

Gun stores are like any other small business with niche clientele- it's dependent on the personality of the owner. If the owner is an idiot, he'll get idiot clientele.

 

[ZRT]

I don't understand the resistance to background checks of citizenship, criminal record, and mental health status. I have yet to hear a single argument in opposition to this simple step that makes any sense. It all sounds like pointless, obstructionist, attempted badassery to me.

Uh, the NRA was promoting an instant check system years before the Brady law was enacted.

The most rational resistance to such things is due to the fact that the Brady bunch are admitted practitioners of the incremental approach, which is why the NRA pre-empted them by supporting instant check.

You wanna set up a table at a gun show and sell your shit to any guy who walks up and passes your good ole boy smell test? Fine, but on the off chance that your instincts are faulty or your greed gets the best of your judgment, compliance with the state's non-criminal, non-mental case rules should still apply.

So should that be the case for all transactions? Are you willing to create the infrastructure that would support me running a background check on the guy that answered my ad in the paper for a sale? Because that's what you're arguing for, the regulation of private sales. If you're willing to foot the bill, I'm not necessarily adverse to it. I just don't see the point, because most guns used in crimes are acquired by illegal means (theft and fences) anyway.

 

[JMohegan]

I am going purely by my own experience here, but I've been involved in shooting my whole life. I have owned guns since literally before I could walk, as my grandmother bought me a revolver before my folks brought me home from the hospital (a tradition she kept up with every one of my cousins). When I hit the age of majority, I bought my own guns. I have been to literally hundreds of gun shows.

Without exception, the dealers selling guns there MUST comply with the same level of regulations they comply with in the gun stores in the local area. This means, in VA at least, ringing up the State Police for an Instant Background check. VA has been doing this FAR longer than the NICS system has been in place, and NICS was partially modeled after our system.

Private citizens can sell firearms at gun shows same as they can sell firearms through the paper, out of their house etc. There are limits on legal transactions though, and any volume above a certain amount require an FFA. Gun shows here locally will not allow someone to rent a booth/table to sell guns sans a valid FFA.

So you will sometimes see Joe Public wandering the show with a rifle slung over his shoulder that has a "for sale" flag on it. That's it. And, yeah, it's anonymous and has no checks. Can't do too much about it, honestly. How do you stop him from selling it to his neighbour? Probably the same way you stop the guy a few blocks over from selling drugs, right?

The "gun show loophole" is politi-media hype in many place. I'm sure there are still states where such practices occur, but other places have already put their own kibosh on it. This current round of "gunshow loophole" nonsense is just another attempt to stop private sales entirely. Good luck with that.

This story takes place in Richmond, Virginia.

Omar Samaha's ability to walk into a gun show and walk out one hour later, with 10 guns and no questions asked, is the issue.

Good luck with that? Though I find opposition to background checks totally disgusting, I'm not so stupid as to think pushing for this legislation makes any sense. I like Virginia blue, and want to keep that way. We can save more lives by reforming health care.

 

[Netzach]

To an extent I'll agree with you, but there's been serious efforts in the movement to get women trained for self defense, which is definitely needed. Sadly enough, the original acts of gun control in this country were intended to keep minorities disarmed and vulnerable.

But that is what it's about for me- the people who need it the most. Pink Pistols is an excellent example. The woman who owns the store and carries her cash deposits out at night. The single parent on the bad side of town. Take your pick, I want them able to defend themselves, because the police are neither capable of doing so, nor legally required to do so.

Gun stores are like any other small business with niche clientele- it's dependent on the personality of the owner. If the owner is an idiot, he'll get idiot clientele.

Me too. Whether I choose to carry or not doesn't matter. I live somewhere police actually show up when you call. I understand all too well living somewhere where that does NOT happen. The people who really want regulation tend to live further outside the gun violence likely demographic than I have or even do now. This is a small area of empowerment that blue collar and poor people have at their disposal, should they need it.

 

[JMohegan]

So should that be the case for all transactions? Are you willing to create the infrastructure that would support me running a background check on the guy that answered my ad in the paper for a sale? Because that's what you're arguing for, the regulation of private sales. If you're willing to foot the bill, I'm not necessarily adverse to it. I just don't see the point, because most guns used in crimes are acquired by illegal means (theft and fences) anyway.

Yes, that should be the case for all firearm sales.

It could be paid for the same way documentation requirements relating to the sale of homes, cars, boats, land, etc. are paid for - with taxes or fees on the sale.

Do you have a source for data on means of acquisition/gun crimes statistics? That's something I'd be interested to see.

 

[Netzach]

This story takes place in Richmond, Virginia.

Omar Samaha's ability to walk into a gun show and walk out one hour later, with 10 guns and no questions asked, is the issue.

Good luck with that? Though I find opposition to background checks totally disgusting, I'm not so stupid as to think pushing for this legislation makes any sense. I like Virginia blue, and want to keep that way. We can save more lives by reforming health care.

All the gun control in the world and you still had Dunblane.

 

[JMohegan]

All the gun control in the world and you still had Dunblane.

Inadequate gun control, and you had Virginia Tech.

 

[Netzach]

Inadequate gun control, and you had Virginia Tech.

I don't see that as the cause.

The guy was completely off his rocker nuts. I think he would have found guns eventually. A more interesting piece would be how many guns I can buy for five grand in North Minneapolis. I could probably have several contracts out on people and still have money for dinner at Palomino.