The Goat Pen

Jungle Rat wrote:We are all law abiding citizens. Until we aren't.

exactly, but this is a free country...until we aren't

Like I said before, we seem to accept real threats to our freedom (Patriot Act, SOPA, torture, habeas corpus suspension, stop and frisk rules) easier than some basic gun restrictions. It's a part of our cultural DNA, this fascination with - and extreme protectionism regarding - guns, but I still say its a straw man. We are adamant about protecting this "freedom" at all costs, all the while we are less free than we were 20 years ago and the general public does not notice it. Don't make them stop selling weapons at gun shows with nary a check of the buyer for fear of "don't tread on me" rants, while some elderly lady outside of Tampa loses her right to vote because she doesn't have a driver's license and nobody blinks.

Gun shows in Alabama require a background check for pistols. The only people who don't get checked are people who buy privately. In other words, an ad in the paper or whatever.

Yep, it's statutory, I know. I was being very general, as many states have laws on the books about the level of scrutiny (and wait periods) involved in firearm purchases. Some are more restrictive than others. I just didn't feel like looking up the most lax restrictions out there. I just remember reading different stories or seeing 60 Minutes types of programs dedicated to the way people circumvent background checks and other issues and seeing how ridiculous it was. However, for a multitude of reasons, we can't even have a sensible conversation about tightening up who is allowed to purchase firearms.

We have everyone buying in to taking their shoes off before entering airport gates (for no good reason), but heaven forbid a poiltician say we need to police firearms more effectively. It's political suicide in 90% of the country. You will never win a statewide (or greater) election with that quote available in the marketplace.

I agree with much of what you say. I think the issue is that many people look at the number of gun laws in place now (hundreds) and think, "Will the people who are committing these crimes and atrocities be concerned with a new gun law? Are they concerned with any of the laws on the books now?"

I've never been to a gun show in Alabama but every gun show I've ever been to requires the retail gun seller to have an FFL and do a background check, while a private seller is selling a gun as an individual.

Many people bring guns to guns shows and tape a piece of paper onto the gun with a description and a price as they walk around. Cash and guns are exchanged in the aisles by individuals. My brother and I were actually planning on buy a table at the gun show and selling between us perhaps 10 -12 guns. Its perfectly legal to do so in Ohio and Kentucky.

The BATF is almost always certainly there keeping a watchful eye on the gun dealers but there is very little they can do against an individual selling guns.

John McCain went after this "loophole" a few years back teaming with a democrat to write a bill to prevent it and was soundly defeated.

That's exactly how shows are here, eCat.

AlabamAlum wrote:I agree with much of what you say. I think the issue is that many people look at the number of gun laws in place now (hundreds) and think, "Will the people who are committing these crimes and atrocities be concerned with a new gun law? Are they concerned with any of the laws on the books now?"

I hear you on that. For me, I say let's not just add a better law, let's get rid of some of the ridiculous or unenforceable ones? I'm not sure of the laws, but I bet a huge percentage of them are not even enforced by law enforcement or prosecutors. Just strike them down and work on something that is meaningful.

It'll never happen, though. The stakes are too high politically and the money is too great (for companies and pols) to change things.

AlabamAlum wrote:No limits or restrictions of any kind? Unfettered access to any kind of weapon?

hmmmm. That would include a tank, missiles. Most of these mass murderers were legal until they started killing. Man, think of the damage he could do. Nuclear bomb? Dirty bomb? For defense of their home of course. Own a biologic weapon to prevent someone from robbing them (forget the fact that under the law, you can't shoot someone for stealing your possessions, but only for a reasonable belief that you or a loved one is at risk for serious bodily harm.

" we can't even have a sensible conversation about tightening up who is allowed to purchase firearms."

because the conversation isn't about who is allowed to purchase, its really about about how much and what kind. We already know who can - law abiding citizens. Who can't are people that don't pass the background check.

Who and who can't is actually where I break from the NRA. I don't agree a mentally ill person should own a firearm, just like I don't think they should drive a car, fly a plane or throw bowling balls off the top of skyscrapers

But when a crazy person drives over a bunch of people on a sidewalk, you don't hear this nationwide debate about mentally ill people driving cars.

Romney's going to beat this aide:

Romney Advisor Says Offensive Thing Right Before Olympics

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-advisor-sa ... 22739.html

We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have”.

lol at his Anglo-Saxon heritage quote.

Owlman wrote:

AlabamAlum wrote:No limits or restrictions of any kind? Unfettered access to any kind of weapon?

hmmmm. That would include a tank, missiles. Most of these mass murderers were legal until they started killing. Man, think of the damage he could do. Nuclear bomb? Dirty bomb? For defense of their home of course. Own a biologic weapon to prevent someone from robbing them (forget the fact that under the law, you can't shoot someone for stealing your possessions, but only for a reasonable belief that you or a loved one is at risk for serious bodily harm.

so your basis for gun control is that everyone is a potential mass murderer so no one should have a gun. or do you just want to limit their ability to kill innocent citizens by giving them firearms that that give them the opportunity to take out only 3 or 4 as opposed to 12?

A biological weapon would not be reasonably applied to self defense for a multitude of reasons. I've given specific examples of where an high capacity gun has served or would have served as a defense weapon in times of civil disorder.

No, my basis for gun control is that there are some weapons that don't and shouldn't be made available to the public. Weapons that can shoot down planes for examples. I don't want those openly sold at a gun show. Tanks.

Will likely be ignored in this Presidential year and will never be passed with Republicans in control of at least one House (both Houses probably after the election).

Ex-Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill: ‘Split up’ the big banks

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/wall ... 40039.html

Owlman wrote:No, my basis for gun control is that there are some weapons that don't and shouldn't be made available to the public. Weapons that can shoot down planes for examples. I don't want those openly sold at a gun show. Tanks.

but you're ok with 100 round assault rifles?

The killer thought through the many consequences of his actions....except maybe for this.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... z21eC5WpMO

Owlman wrote:Romney's going to beat this aide:

Romney Advisor Says Offensive Thing Right Before Olympics

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-advisor-sa ... 22739.html

We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have”.

I thought Mitt was Mexican.

Owlman wrote:Will likely be ignored in this Presidential year and will never be passed with Republicans in control of at least one House (both Houses probably after the election).

Ex-Citigroup CEO Sandy Weill: ‘Split up’ the big banks

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/wall ... 40039.html

You either break them up or you don't bail them out.

based on 2004 statistics, in the time we've talked about this gun debate (over 2 days) , 64 people in the United States have died by homicide by a gun, another 10 have died by accidental or police shooting, another 80 committed suicide.

I have no idea how many of those people were criminals who would not pass a background check but I can say with some certainty that almost none of the people died by a weapon capable of shooting more than 13 shots without reloading.

The 12 people killed by the Aurora shooter is a tragedy but unfortunately doesn't even register in the yearly statistics of homicides by guns in this country. Over 29,000 people in America died from gunshot in 2004. For that matter, a Boeing 727 being shot down from a missile by an Idaho militia group would barely move the needle.

Banning assault rifles is a red herring, and is a gateway ban to the behind the scenes goal of real gun control by removing all but simple small caliber hunting rifles from the national landscape.

If your goal is to stop a random act of violence every 2 - 5 years where on average 7 or more people die (and let me add that the shooter will most likely be white male shooting victims that will most likely include white males and females) then a ban on assault rifles makes sense while ignoring that anywhere from 8K to 30K people will die from handguns in that same period of time , I don't see the logic of engaging in a debate specifically limiting the types of weapons made available to the public under the guise of limiting senseless gun violence. Admittedly my numbers in this last paragraph are loose and on the fly but you get my point.