A 15 Year Old's Testimony on Gun Control Laws

Gun control legislation is on the agenda for the Senate tomorrow. Here's an opposing view from a 15 year old.

< Obama Issues 2014 DOJ Budget: More for Prisons and Drug War | One Year Anniversary of George Zimmerman's Arrest >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This is why (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 09:02:09 AM EST
    15 year olds aren't in charge of making policy. Thank goodness.

    Really?  There's no other way she could "go to a decent school" without a "shooting scholarship"?  

    Anything put out by a Minuteman group should not be taken seriously - aren't these the same groups that want to patrol the border and build a fence along the Rio Grande?

    35-85 year olds... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 01:12:56 PM EST
    making policy is no prize old pal, maybe we should give the kids a chance.

    What was hidden from the wise and prudunt shall reveal to the babe and suckling.

    Otoh, maybe not this particular suckling...but I do agree with her basic premise.  Guns are a scapegoat like drugs are a scapegoat...at the heart of the matter, we have people problems, and I don't know what can really be done to fix them except a government and society at large that is more loving and compassionate.


    Which, (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 01:16:20 PM EST
    As someone pointed out below, that if people are the problem, that is a MUCH stronger argument for background checks.

    I'm in the part of the country... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 01:34:35 PM EST
    where the easiest gun to buy is an illegal gun...background check, no background check, makes no difference in the black market.

    I'm all for reducing gun violence...but it feels an awful like what Congress is fixing to do is expand bueracracy and increase prosecutions and stimulate the black market economy, having little to no effect on the body count.  


    That being said... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 02:02:25 PM EST
    considering we live in a country where I can't cash my paycheck at Chase without giving two forms of ID and a fingerprint, background checks for all gun sales is not unreasonable.  I just think it doesn't really address our problem...it's just gonna make us feel better, make us feel like we "did something".  Like airport security measures.

    I'd rather we be able to buy and sell goods and cash checks and fly without all the security theater bullsh*t.


    you left out a detail (none / 0) (#69)
    by nyjets on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 05:31:49 PM EST
    If you do not have an account with chase, and I am assuming you dont, they have every right to protect themself by asking for ID.

    Fingerprints? (none / 0) (#101)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 02:00:54 PM EST
    One photo ID is reasonable...not two forms and a f8ckin' print and a 6 dollar fee and the broken record "open an account and we'll stop treating you like a criminal!" spiel.

    Once that check is cut it's my money...can't say I appreciate simulating a night at central booking to simply cash a check.  Nor do I wish such an experience on a gun customer.


    fingerprints is excessive (none / 0) (#105)
    by nyjets on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 02:58:17 PM EST
    The fingerprint is a tad silly i will grant you. However there is nothing wrong with demanding 2 forms of id. You do not have an account with them. They have no idea who you are or if the check is even good.
    Furthermore, the bank is under no obligation to cash your check unless you have an account with them. Therefore, they can do whatever they want and use whatever security sytem they want. And that includes a fee.
    IF you dont like it, you can go somewhere else as far as the bank is concerned.
    And I am sorry, if someone wants to buy a gun, for basic public safety, I want some system in place to at least make it harder to for a lunatic to get a gun.

    Lets break it down... (none / 0) (#106)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 03:08:49 PM EST
    "They have no idea who you are"

    - Sure they do, I cash checks there with some frequency.  Not every week, because I prefer the check cashing place (better class of ownership;), but enough for the tellers to know me by face.  And I'm on the reems and reems of surveillance tapes! ;)

    "or if the check is even good"

    - Sure they do, it is the bank where my employer keeps his accounts.  If they don't know, even god can't help 'em;)


    does not matter (none / 0) (#107)
    by nyjets on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 03:13:06 PM EST
    While I would agree that if your employeer has an account with them, cashing your check with only an id would not be unreasonable, they are still within their right to demand certain things.
    Also, it is easier and sensible for the banks to treat all not account holders the same, ie they do not know you.
    Sorry, if you do not like the security, you can always go elsewhere. The bank is doing nothing wrong.

    "I'm all for reducing gun violence" (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by ZtoA on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 11:24:56 PM EST
    I haven't been reading much here recently, so sorry if I missed it, but what ARE you FOR? I know what you are against, but what are you for? So many are for simply laying down and passively accepting gun violence or for addressing violence with more gun violence, so I'm glad to hear you are not advocating that.

    I'm for... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 08:12:54 AM EST
    life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  I'm for peace, love, and understanding.  Goodwill toward man, goodness for goodness sake.

    I'm for individual liberty as the default position. I'm for the government sticking to the basics.

    I'm anti-gun as they come, but I know what it is like when the government cracks down on your hobby or vice, what it's like to be criminalized. I'm trying to respect the liberty of others, because I'd like mine respected.


    You are probably for sunny weather too (none / 0) (#92)
    by ZtoA on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 09:35:49 AM EST
    But the topic was deaths from gun violence. You said you are all for reducing gun violence. Well, what are you for?

    I hope you are not putting forward a Jack Handey approach:

    It's easy to sit there and say you'd like to have more money. And I guess that's what I like about it. It's easy. Just sitting there, rocking back and forth, wanting that money.

    I see... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 10:25:10 AM EST
    I misunderstood your question.

    In an effort to reduce gun violence, I'm for education.  I'm for gun buy-back programs.  I'm for free confidential mental health treatment on demand.  I'm for surrendering the war on drugs.  

    I'm also for leading by example in regards to disarmament.  Cutting the military & law enforcement budgets.  Ceasing to arm law enforcement like paramilitaries.  Changing the "armed to the teeth" tone.  

    And perhaps most of all, spreading love and a sense of community.  Stop being so damned afraid.


    that's a good start (none / 0) (#97)
    by ZtoA on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 01:24:43 PM EST
    A week (none / 0) (#93)
    by lentinel on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 10:09:31 AM EST
    or so ago, as I remember the story, a four year old shot and killed someone with a gun found laying around his house.

    Presumably, the owner of the gun, his father, had or could have had all the background checks in the world - but if he is stupid or comatose enough to leave it around...

    I'm not saying that background checks aren't a good idea, but ultimately people and their complicated psyches are the problem.


    How many ways can it be said? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by NYShooter on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 12:02:36 PM EST
    We will never eliminate, 100%, death and injury by guns. But, we can certainly try to "reduce" that number.

    I (none / 0) (#96)
    by lentinel on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 01:08:33 PM EST
    also wonder what effect it would have if our government was less trigger-happy.

    lying around the house that children can pick up and shoot.

    Silly logic (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 02:49:39 PM EST
    Because a law doesn't prevent every crime it's targeting, it's useless.



    A toddler shot his (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Amiss on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 02:05:12 PM EST
    baby brother here in Jax and killed him last week.
    So sad..

    Her remarks about Chicago (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 09:50:32 AM EST
    are misleading.  Though a gun can't be bought in Chicago there's no preventing guns brought in from outside the city and that's probably what's happening - an underground gun market.

    It's why gun control measures must be federal.

    Uniformity around which pole? (none / 0) (#18)
    by cboldt on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 09:55:19 AM EST
    So, by your standards, the federal gun regulations should mirror Chicago's; or, if Chicago isn't the most restrictive, then where-ever is most restrictive, maybe NYC, or Washington D.C.

    Uniformity is the Point (4.00 / 4) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 12:24:53 PM EST
    Similar to when some state changes the drinking age to 21, it created a market and the ability to bypass the law, legally by leaving the jurisdiction.

    Of course the drinking age isn't a federal law, they just withheld funds to the states that didn't cooperate, same result.  States laws forced by the Fed.

    I agree with the uniformity, but the problem with that is that places like Chicago feel the pain of weak gun controls, while rural America doesn't and it seems like the rules shouldn't be the same.  The problem is that is doesn't work.

    So this will probably pass the Senate, but the more rurally represented House will never pass it IMO.  What really sucks, is the majority of people, including NRA members agree that background checks for everyone, is good.  But the gun industry doesn't, so the NRA doesn't, therefore the politicians they own, will not support it.

    Not how a democracy is suppose to work.


    You didn't answer the policy question (none / 0) (#41)
    by cboldt on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 12:52:00 PM EST
    At least, not directly.  You said that the existing patchwork is a result of "democracy not working," and if I get your drift, you think the most restrictive laws should be in place across the country, and the barrier to implementation is a dysfunction of the democratic process.

    Currently, it is a federal felony to sell or transfer possession to a person who is not allowed to possess a firearm or ammunition.  That holds even for in-state sales/transfers, and for private sales/transfers, and holds in all 50 states.


    Not quite (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 02:13:11 PM EST
    It's only illegal if the seller/transferor knows or has reason to know that the transferee is not permitted to have a gun.

    So without a background check, unless you happen to know (or have good reason to believe) the person can't own a gun, it's perfectly legal.  Precisely the reason for background  checks.


    And the flip side of that (none / 0) (#70)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 05:55:50 PM EST

    is that if you know the person is legal to possess a firearm, the background check is a waste of resources.

    That's funny (4.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:46:58 PM EST
    An exception for people who think they "know" the criminal/DV/mental health history of their gun buyers in such detail that they don't want to spend the $10 for a background check before they give them a gun.

    All three of them ...



    If they passed a background check earlier in the day then a second check is a waste of government resources.  If you are selling to a law enforcement officer whose employment would be terminated if not allowed a firearm, then a background check is a waste of resources.

    The Manchin-Toomey bill unlike the Schumer monstrosity allows a valid permit to purchase to satisfy the requirement.  You have to go through the very same background check for the permit.

    Requiring multiple background checks on the same person is overkill.  The government resources would be better used elsewhere.  

    BTW, where did you come up with the $10 dollar price?  The last internet sale I did the FFL charged the buyer $35.



    "Monstrosity" - heh (none / 0) (#125)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 11:18:39 AM EST
    I'm fine with law enforcement being exempt from the background check requirement, but that would be much narrower than your original category of "if you know the person is legal to possess a firearm."

    As far as CCL holders being exempt ... no way.  In many states, these permits last for years, so the fact that you passed a background check in the past does not mean you would pass a background check now.

    Requiring multiple background checks on the same person is overkill.  The government resources would be better used elsewhere.

    The fee is not a "government resource".  It's paid by the purchaser.

    BTW, where did you come up with the $10 dollar price?  The last internet sale I did the FFL charged the buyer $35.

    That's the charge in Tennessee.  It's also the amount that Colorado used to charge before it dropped the charge.  They're trying to reinstate the charge, but there's no indication if the amount will change.  In many states the FFL sets the fee and you just shop around for the lowest price.


    The FFL holder does the charge (none / 0) (#126)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 11:46:26 AM EST

    Gak! The $10 you mention is only what the state charges.  An FFL is going to charge that plus whatever his time is worth to do a transfer between two non-customers.  Do you think the FFL will work for free?

    So how about a person that passed a check at a dealer an hour before buying a gun from you?


    An hour would be fine (none / 0) (#127)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 12:38:21 PM EST
    ... but a lot can happen during the other 4 years, 364 days and 23 hours.

    It's a question of presumption and approval (2.67 / 3) (#71)
    by cboldt on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 06:02:18 PM EST
    The government does not trust the people.

    Why should the people trust the government?


    It's a question of misstating the law (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:53:57 PM EST
    Currently, it is a federal felony to sell or transfer possession to a person who is not allowed to possess a firearm or ammunition.  That holds even for in-state sales/transfers, and for private sales/transfers, and holds in all 50 states.

    No - that would be entirely legal, unless you know or have reason to know the person cannot lawfully own a gun - the very information background checks provide.

    It's not about the government "trusting the people".  It's about verifying a person getting a gun isn't a felon or have a history of domestic violence or mental health problems.


    Trust (none / 0) (#118)
    by cal1942 on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 06:25:34 PM EST
    but verify.

    That's Not True... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:32:52 PM EST
    ...so long as you don't ask, they don't tell and you aren't a dealer.

    I think we need tighter controls, especially on handguns.  And maybe controls is the wrong word, but every gun manufactured is legal, yet they find there way to criminals.

    I think gun owners, like myself, need to start hoisting some of the responsibility of owning instruments that are used to kill people.

    For example, failure to report a stolen gun should be a crime everywhere and if it's used in a crime, the liability falls on the owner.  It's not to much to ask in my opinion, that you check monthly to ensure all your guns are in your possession. And if not, report them lost/stolen.  And people who keep 'losing' them, lose their right to purchase more.

    Right now, owning a thousand guns and leaving them in an unlocked area is OK, if they get stolen, nothing.  Not cool and irresponsible as F. That's not the norm, but you get my meaning.  Guns should be locked up with the exception of home defense weapons and carry permits.

    I am all for control that make makes the owner equally responsible to the liability their purchases create.  The more you have, the more responsibility needed.  You own over 10 guns, you need them secured, or 10 is the limit.  Just common sense stuff that keeps guns out of circulation without restricting people who treat gun ownership like one should treat a deadly weapon.

    Or someone accidentally kills themselves with your gun because it's not locked up or you forgot to ensure it wasn't loaded.  Like jail, you lose you right to own a gun for a period of time depending on the severity of the idiocy.  A kid, a couple years, you idiot friend while you were gone, a month or two.

    And the assault riffles, fine, but make them a special class, if tone is stolen, no messing around, first offense you can't own another for 6 months, second one, 5 years, and after that, no more assault riffles.  Set up some sort of board of appeals, so if someone steals your 500lb gun safe, they can evaluate.  And people who use common sense aren't screwed by criminals.

    I would even expand the guns available, machine guns no problem, you will need an approved safe, jail time if comes up missing, and liability insurance is required.  One per person per lifetime.  Crooks gets it, sorry, you have your shot and blew it.

    Not pushing any of the ideas, more the point of making the responsibility of owning guns reflected in the law based on the liability.  There is more liability created with more guns one owns and the size and number of bullets they shoot.  The laws should reflect the difference in liability created.

    People who have proven their responsibility should be afforded more 'rights' then the guy who bought his first gun and 6 months later, it's stolen or accidentally shot the neighbors dog when he dropped it.  

    The problem, is no one wants to talk about common sense, it's ban this or that.  Which is dumb, but I support the bans because something has to be done, no doing anything and letting the gun industry run wild has left us with the highest gun murder rate of all industrialized nations by a long shot.

    Currently we restrict way more arms than we permit, so established law, and folks with a lick of sense, already realize that the 2A is not absolute.  Few will argue that SAM's or nearly every other weapon the military uses, should be sold to anyone, yet they are armaments, aka arms.  We don't allow felons to own arms either, so it's not a 2A issue, it's a debate about what each side thinks are acceptable weapons for it's citizens to own.  

    I say why not make the weapons society deems more dangerous, something you have to earn through being a responsible gun owner.  Nothing more.  And if you can't earn society's trust, you don't get the good stuff the responsible owners get.  And if you F it up, you get the 6" stuffed animal prize, a single shot 22.  Which doesn't infringe upon you 2A rights to bear arms.

    What about going after bullets, no gun registries, just bullets registries, that require a a Photo ID.  Stamp identifying numbers on the casings.  You sign for the bullets, which can not be transferred for any reason.  No crime in doing it, so you can lend you buddies/family bullets, but if they are used in a crime, you get an equally proportionate sentence.  Start with 10% of the actual crime and double it each time with the maxims be very low at first, but graduating.  Not knowing would certainly keep people from selling their bullets, because if they kill someone, you're doing time.  

    The ID used would be your state ID and criminal history would be validated at that time.  If you are convicted of a felony, the ID becomes invalid and the new one would not allow you to buy bullets.

    Anyone caught making, selling, or using or black-market unidentifiable bullets gets slammed, no breaks, even for possession.

    It's flawed, not sure how one keeps their casings at a gun range, but we should all be thinking of ways to reduce gun violence that doesn't restrict people who are responsible.

    Because the current, " No, ban" "no 2A" back and forth that got us to the point of having more gun murders, per capita, than nearly every nation.  We have the 16th highest gun murder rate in the world. LINK
    The countries with higher rates are 3rd world and places we would consider dangerous to visit.


    And, yet (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 01:58:14 PM EST
    It happens all the time.

    With no requirements for background  checks on most private transactions, a Times examination found, Armslist and similar sites function as unregulated bazaars, where the essential anonymity of the Internet allows unlicensed sellers to advertise scores of weapons and people legally barred from gun ownership to buy them.


    Seeking a glimpse into the largely hidden online gun market, The Times assembled a database and analyzed several months of ads from Armslist, which has become the dominant player in the arena, and examined numerous smaller sites.

    Over the past three months, The Times identified more than 170,000 gun ads on Armslist. Some were for the same guns, making it difficult to calculate just how many guns were actually for sale. Even so, with more than 20,000 ads posted every week, the number is probably in the tens of thousands.

    Notably, 94 percent of the ads were posted by "private parties," who, unlike licensed dealers, are not required to conduct background checks.

    Chicago is not suffering from weak gun laws (none / 0) (#122)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Apr 14, 2013 at 05:22:23 PM EST
    it is suffering from being Chicago. It is not fair to punish rural Americans because there is an epidemic of crime and violence in the cities like Chicago, Detroit, Philly, L.A., Miami etc...

    The problem with Chicago can only be solved by identifying what people are responsible for gun deaths in Chicago and under what circumstances and then going after those people and taking their guns away.
    Back ground checks at all gun shows in all states is a great idea.  No problem there.  But after that, the problem in Chicago is not "Assault weapons" or high capacity clips.  It is a broken society run by thugs and crooked politicians where decent people have no way to fight back.  The weapons doing the damage are hand guns with regular size clips in the hands of kids and criminals that have no right to them and all the back ground checks in the world will not stop that from happening.  You have to go after the problem where the problem is and you have to be willing to name the problem and stop blaming it on your average ordinary run enthusiast.


    You shoot many deer (none / 0) (#123)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 15, 2013 at 07:59:51 AM EST
    with AR-15's?

    compared with traditional deer hunting rifles. That said, the AR-15 platform is becoming more and more popular for dear hunting every year, as are AR-15/traditional deer hunting rifle hybrids.

    Her reference to the incident in China (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 10:12:58 AM EST
    is disgustingly deceptive.  

    NONE of those students died from their knife wounds.  Eight of the 23 were sent to a hospital because of slashes to the face, presumably for plastic surgery.

    The parents of those 23 kids will see their children alive and well.

    Twenty children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary school were killed by a semi-automatic rifle equipped with high capacity magazines.

    The parents and other family of those 20 kids as well as the families of the six adults will never see them again and those families will be scared for the rest of their lives in a way that no plastic surgeon can possibly heal.

    The first time she's held at gunpoint... (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 11:45:49 AM EST
    ...thinks she's going to get shot, pees her pants, just like I did, she'll change her tune, or she's just naive, ignorant and intellectually dishonest on a quite minor league level. Don't see the point.

    that depends.. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 12:19:46 PM EST
    she might come from a "next time, I'll be ready and make 'im pay" mindset..

    ..Not realizing that half the gun-toting criminals are motivated by their own fear-based grudges and vendettas.


    I was held at gunpoint (none / 0) (#76)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:37:11 PM EST
    And my life flashed before my eyes.
    And I find your stance abominable both in logic and in ethics.
    Please don't assume anything else about a crime victim's reaction, thanks. Just because you were one doesn't mean you speak for me. I've never claimed to speak for anyone but myself.

    She said guns (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Natal on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 12:21:44 PM EST
    aren't the problem but people are.  If that's the case isn't that the reason we need background checks?  

    Nope (none / 0) (#77)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:38:30 PM EST
    Not unless we do background checks of the people running the background checks.
    People are always the problem, esp when freedom is involved. And authoritarians always think they are the solution.

    Isn't that (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    About 37,000 too many kids affected by gun violence?

    Add to that the number of those kids parents who are victims if gun violence, whether through homicide, accidents, or suicide.

    So yes, I think it is a legitimate concern and not a "panic".

    The fact is (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jbindc on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 07:57:55 AM EST
    Americans are pretty clueless about what actual gun laws are on the books and the whole "we need to enforce those instead of writing new laws." This girl just proves it.

    Now, a new survey may provide some insight into that discrepancy. It turns out that Americans aren't too familiar with what laws are already on the books, typically thinking current regulations go much farther than they actually do.

    According to the survey of registered voters, which was conducted for the Democratic National Committee, 50 percent of respondents said the government should enforce existing gun laws but pass no new ones, while 43 percent said the government should create some new restrictions as well. That's in line with a recent CBS survey that found just 47 percent of Americans want Congress to pass new gun laws.

    However, the latest survey went further, asking follow-ups about specific proposals currently before Congress. Eighty-seven percent of respondents said they supported universal background checks for gun purchases, while "significant majorities" said the same about banning assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines. (The pollsters did not disclose the exact percentage of respondents who supported an assault weapons or high-capacity clip ban, and declined to do so when asked by Talking Points Memo for hard numbers.)

    Notably, even those who said they didn't want new gun laws frequently said they liked the specific proposals Congress is considering -- they just erroneously assumed those proposals are already the law of the land. Of the 50 percent who said they opposed any new gun laws, nearly half, 48 percent, said there was already a law mandating universal background checks, while another 10 percent said they had no idea if such a law existed.

    "In other words, about 6 out of 10 people who believe we just need to do a better job of enforcing existing laws don't realize that those laws are far weaker than they think," pollsters Joel Benenson and Katie Connolly wrote in a New York Times op-ed explaining their findings. "And just under half of those who want better enforcement don't know that military-style assault weapons are, in fact, legal."

    Yeah, and they're only "statistics" (4.20 / 5) (#65)
    by Angel on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 04:52:57 PM EST
    until one of the 35,00 is YOUR child, then the statistics go out the window and you'd be raising holy he!! asking why we can't have more and better gun laws.

    Actually Angel (1.00 / 7) (#79)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:44:38 PM EST
    Some people aren't hypocrites and they don't need you adding larger societal tragedy to their smaller personal one.

    And the suicides (3.67 / 3) (#52)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 01:46:44 PM EST
    Just a bad idea for most people to have guns....

    Universal checks perversity (1.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:50:38 AM EST

    If a gang banger steals a firearm there three possible outcomes:

    1. He can use it for his own nefarious purposes.

    2. He can sell it to another criminal for nefarious uses.

    3. He can sell it to an unsuspecting law abiding person, thus making the public safer than option 1 or 2.

    Universal background checks would only prevent the third (safer) outcome.  If stopping universal background checks saves even one life, is it not worth stopping?


    On one hand (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 10:17:37 AM EST
    I'd like to say that will probably be the most imbecilic comment posted here today, but on the other hand it's attitudes like yours that will help expanded background checks pass. Thus I find myself in a quandry, whether to ridicule your deductive skills or to thank you for your help.

    They don't usually steal them.. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 01:05:55 PM EST
    usually somebody they know travels to some state where they can scarf up a bunch from some patriotic, jobs-creating, gun dealer (who only has the well-being of his fellow Americans in mind.)

    Dub to the 100 Degree (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 01:28:04 PM EST
    I can't stop laughing at your suggestion that of all the places a law abiding citizen can acquire a gun, they would end up in front of a gang-banger.  And when I stopped laughing, I realized you believe this is legitimate reason not to enact legislation and realized, you are a GD lunatic if you believe that.  

    The good news is I don't think you are lunatic, because I know you don't believe a situation that is beyond rare, like your aunty gun lending non-sense is valid reason to not enact legislation.

    If background checks are what you say they are, why aren't the you demanding no checks for anyone, why only check on some people ?

    Having BG checks for some sales is like checking ID for alcohol sales at the liquor store, but not at the bar, where do you think people who can't drink leglly, would go to get a drink ?  The same type of place people who can't legally buy a gun at the gun store go, the place that doesn't validate ones credentials, be it your age or your ability to pass a BG check.

    For the record, it's illegal to sell/give a minor liquor, it's not illegal to sell someone who can't pass a BG check, a gun, so long as you don't ask.  That ain't right.


    Guns on the black market are cheeper... (2.00 / 1) (#53)
    by redwolf on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 01:48:27 PM EST
    than in the gun store.  If you're poor, or live in a place that makes it illegal to bear arms to defend yourself then buying it from a gang banger makes pretty good sense.

    Thank you Cassandra (1.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:43:17 PM EST
    From now on anyone who trusts the Federal Government with more power might as well just say they approve of Guantanamo and be done with it.

    This isn't a particularly pervasive issue, yet from most of the hysterical posts on this thread you'd think these people are scared to get out of bed in the morning.
    No bad thing should ever happen to a child EVER is neither realistic nor loving as growing up means making choices and choices mean RISK. Also the growing police state doesn't need more 'lists' not that I expect most of those here to give a care. They are perfectly fine with selling out some of their rights for pottage; indeed it helps some of them if they can 'stick it' to white people or males or rural people or any of the groups they hate. Surely this increased power won't be used against them.


    stick it to white people.. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 03:49:45 PM EST
    cuz yer minorites, yer liberal urban elites and immasculating femnists is the ones whose rights is always protected first in this country. Everybody knows that.

    Rather than making a fundamentalist, Manichean, eternal-dichotomy between an evil "federal government" and the citizenry, how about working to get back to the democratic, representative, "by the people, for the people" ideal?


    Very cute, jondee (none / 0) (#112)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 04:26:59 PM EST
    When you can tell me just what Branch of the current government is currently working or pushing candidates who are ready to work "by the people, for the people", I'll be sure to take your post seriously.

    As currently detailed on too many rightwing and leftwing sites to even begin to list the current government is operating "post constitutionally" in many ways, and our choices on Election Day always seem to boil down to either TweedleDeeAuthoritarian or TweedleDumAuthoritarian.

    Right now it's a a rigged game.


    I'm a regular Snuggles the bear.. (none / 0) (#129)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 11:40:32 AM EST
    it's a rigged game for one predominent reason: because the same people who keep claiming that money should forever be considered "speech", and the people who've attempted to demonize "the Federal Government" have gotten together and weilded their considerable combined power to nuetralize the voice of the aforementioned "we the people".  

    Her script writer (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 11:59:01 PM EST
    is quite dishonest.

    According to the NRA there is no college that gives shooting scholarships in this country (although the NRA gives a couple). And the very few collegiate club teams that exist use air rifles, air pistols, or 22's (not her bushmaster), and I know of no one trying to outlaw air rifles or 22's.

    If there was anything worthwhile after the first 25 seconds I don't know. There was too much BS in the first 25 seconds to want to continue.

    you should go back (none / 0) (#6)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:23:56 AM EST
    and listen.  She has the numbers that matter about who is really being murdered with guns, what type and where....making the focus on assault rifles and large capacity clips sound as useless as it really is.

    In case you haven't been paying attention (none / 0) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:53:47 AM EST
    the focus is on universal background checks (although as usual loopholes will surely be added)

    That won't stop law abiding gun owners from losing a loved one

    4 year old shoots his mother.

    6 year old shoots four year old

    But it will help in keeping weapons out of the wrong hands. Thankfully the vast majority of gun owners (and 90% of the country) are in favor of universal background checks. Hopefully a bare majority of comgress agrees.


    That is because (none / 0) (#12)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:32:27 AM EST

    The vast majority think "universal background checks" apply to sales.  The Schumer bill for example requires a background check, a fee paid, and travel to an FFL holder for a loan of a firearm to in-laws, uncles, aunts, and cousins with a few exceptions.  And another background check, a fee paid, and travel to an FFL upon return.  If you do the loan and return a month later, it is another pair of checks, fees, and travel.

    One would think that passing a background check should be good for at least a month.  

    The trouble with polls that do not define what the terms mean is that you can't tell what the responder favors.

    Is it really a good use of public resources to do a background check for a sale or loan to an FBI agent?



    Question (none / 0) (#23)
    by vicndabx on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 10:29:14 AM EST
    why would one need to "loan" a gun to a family member or friend and not be right there next to the person?

    Happens all the time (none / 0) (#44)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 01:08:51 PM EST

    The last competition firearm I sold one prospective buyer borrowed it for a week to try out at a couple of matches.  In competitive shooting, try before you buy is the norm in my locale, as is borrowed backup guns at major matches.

    In another more recent instance, I was making a trip to an out of town gunsmith and a friend who lived much farther away loaned me his firearm for delivery to the gunsmith.  One trip instead of two saves on CO2 emissions to boot.

    I currently have a 22 on loan to my 80+ year old mother-in-law who lives alone but needs a skunk dispatched from time to time.


    the Maryland lawmakers about the Maryland proposal, that proposal does not focus on universal BG checks.
    Establishing an exception to the prohibition against carrying a deadly weapon on public school property; making it a misdemeanor to possess or use specified firearm ammunition during the commission of a crime of violence; limiting the authorization for a person to wear, carry, or transport a handgun; designating specified firearms as assault weapons; prohibiting, with exceptions, a person from transporting an assault weapon into the State or possessing, selling, offering to sell, transferring, purchasing, or receiving an assault weapon; etc.

    doubt it was a scriptwriter (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 12:11:21 AM EST
    Her delivery suggests to me she wrote every word. She knew it too well for it to have been written by someone else. Unless she's an actress pretending to be a student.

    An actress - Really? (none / 0) (#16)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 09:33:20 AM EST
    When I was in jr. high school I acted in a couple of plays, including a lead role in one with many half page long passages.

    Are you suggesting 15 yr olds are incapable of learning lines?


    And I may be a bit early (none / 0) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 12:11:48 AM EST
    but congratulations to the Senate on likely coming up with the 60 votes needed to have a vote to close a loophole and add background checks on gunshow and Internet gun sales. It's about twenty years overdue but it's a start.

    Every gun show I (none / 0) (#4)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 05:29:44 AM EST
    have attended have had background checks.  Ditto with all guns I have bought over the internet they get shipped to a FFL.  

    me too, here in Pa (3.00 / 3) (#7)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:35:30 AM EST
    so extend it everywhere.  Works for me.  Now they should address the cities and guns in the hands of gang members, wanna be gang members, drug criminals etc.... that is where the majority of gun crime is happening.  
    If politicians are serious about lowering the number of gun deaths in this country they should start sweeping the cities every few days and taking the illegal guns away.

    "Sweeping"again ...oy (4.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 09:57:53 AM EST
    You keep promoting this idea.  How do you propose they "sweep" the cities fee of guns?  The police just search anyone they get the urge to search, out do they search everyone? The Constitution no longer applies if you live in a city?  Funny how easy it is for people to suggest that "those people" should be targeted and"their" rights should be ignored.  Just don't you dare go after the rights of us in the suburbs/country.

    Oyyy ...

    BTW - You might have a point about the kind of guns being used to commit crimes.  Following your logic, I guess the focus should beon handgun restrictions.

    Hmmmmm ....


    Yman (1.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:49:57 PM EST
    Please don't EVER complain of a potential civil liberties violation again.
    If you are for background checks for the exercise of a right, that's enough to tell me you have no idea what  a right is and merely want to protect rights that you value.

    I'll keep shoving this dichotomy in your face if you try to play civil libertarian in the future.


    What you're really arguing about is (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 03:31:07 PM EST
    whether the government has the right to regulate, and I think it's clear that it does; how much and to what extent is why we have courts.

    Is there a Constitutionally-granted right that has not been subject to regulation?  I mean, why do we have all these cases working their way through the courts on matters like free speech and privacy and search and seizure if the rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are inviolable?  

    If you want to argue that your right to bear arms is an unqualified one, be my guest; maybe eventually there will be a Supreme Court that agrees with you, but that doesn't seem to be where we are.


    Thank you Anne (none / 0) (#111)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 04:17:00 PM EST
    For actually engaging my argument.

    Since the Second is a fundamental right and is considered important enough to be put in the Bill of Rights, in my opinion the level of regulation that can be allowed is only the very minimum for some necessary government purpose. "Strict scrutiny" is the legal term I'm arguing for.

    Lots of people here seem to want guns to be like cars. You have to have enough money to pay for insurance. You have to pass tests (and in the case of driving you KNOW they can make these tests as arbitrary as they want) to show you can use them properly, you have to apply for the state to give you a license (and usually pay a fee for that too), you have to give all kinds of personal information and register the vehicle. The state knows everyone who is legally licensed to drive, it knows what model and even what specific vehicle you own, it has information as to who is on your insurance policy, etc.

    And if you ask WHY, you are told that driving isn't a right, it's a privilege despite how much of your taxes might have went to your local roads.
    In short, don't pay a fee every year or every few years - they'll revoke your license to drive.

    Despite all that - deaths by car at least equal those by gun, and there are far more injuries, so the people here - who seem to want to treat this right as if it is merely a public safety problem - should get cracking on making getting a license to drive even harder and more unaffordable and raising the cost of cars even more so they can put even more safety equipment in them.

    Me? I refuse to let fairly rare tragedies determine what my rights are, and as for cars, I still choose to drive when I can.


    So? (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 04:31:25 PM EST
    Despite all that - deaths by car at least equal those by gun, and there are far more injuries, so the people here - who seem to want to treat this right as if it is merely a public safety problem - should get cracking on making getting a license to drive even harder and more unaffordable and raising the cost of cars even more so they can put even more safety equipment in them.

    The usefulness/utility of a vehicles outweighs that of guns by orders of magnitude.  Not to mention the fact that millions of people drive cars every hour of every day.  Not so much with guns.

    Analogy fail.


    "Dichotomy" - heh (3.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:55:41 PM EST
    Yes, the "dichotomy" of supporting actual civil rights while failing to support the imaginary right to buy a gun without a background check, or the imaginary right to buy whatever type of gun you want.



    Yman (1.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 09:02:15 PM EST
    Please don't talk about the Constitution.
    It's obvious you know little of it, don't value it, and use it selectively as it suits you.

    The Second Amendment is a RIGHT.  So sayeth SCOTUS. So sayeth the fact that it is in the Bill of Rights.

    Once again, you want to run a background check on me for trying to buy a shotgun, well I'll support a politician running a background check on you before being able to publish things on the internet. Certainly you don't seem very smart or deserving of free speech and you seem to only use it to do harm via sophistry.

    Basically here's the thing: I'll defend your rights if you defend mine. If you can't be bothered then I can't be bothered and the only one who wins are those authoritarians in the government.


    The Second Amendment IS a right (4.20 / 5) (#84)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 09:39:31 PM EST
    Your interpretation of it is not.

    As for what you think I "seem" or my knowledge of the Constitution, well, ...

    ... that's even funnier than your usual nonsense.


    *pinches your cute lil cheek* (1.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 10:36:01 PM EST
    What other rights do you propose we treat like privileges and directly tax or add a fee? What other rights do you suggest we give up to the power of unelected, largely unaccountable bureaucrats?

    I seem to remember we had this thing called a 'poll tax'. It hurt poor people, but you do know that running elections DOES cost money, and there's always a slight security risk and some pollution when so many people get together to exercise a right. I suppose we should bring that back too.


    From your prior posts (1.00 / 6) (#86)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 10:37:58 PM EST
    What you know about the Constitution could fit comfortably in a single paragraph, double spaced and limited to 6 sentences or less.

    I begin to wonder what Cracker Jack box you got your 'law degree' from too.


    Heh, heh, heh ... (3.67 / 3) (#91)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 09:11:57 AM EST
    Slayer, what I know about the Constitution dwarfs your little fairy tales - not to mention your use of "logic" (quotes necessary).  Not that such a basic fact is very impressive...

    Yman (none / 0) (#99)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 01:35:59 PM EST
    Thanks for proving my point.
    I doubt you've been near a court room recently when you make such inept , inapt , wanna-be analogies.

    Heh, heh, heh (none / 0) (#104)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 02:54:42 PM EST
    Actually I've been in several hundred courtrooms,...

    ... which means several hundred more than you.

    But as usual, your claims are nothing more than baseless, fact-free speculation ... that somehow always turn out to be wrong.

    That must be hard.


    If someone is an identifible criminal... (none / 0) (#55)
    by redwolf on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 01:57:34 PM EST
    why not just arrest them instead of worry about the guns?

    I've never bought the progressive line on back ground checks, because practicing insane and criminal people control makes a lot more sense than trying to disarm/hassle decent non insane folks.  Given your total lack of interest in keeping dangerous people away from the public, I can only conclude that your goals are registration, followed by confiscation as was done in both the UK and Austral.

    Humans have a natural the right to defend themselves and there is no better tool used for this purpose than the fire arm.  And please before you start going on that guns are terrible for defense, remember that defense is the very reason you insistent that the cops should be armed.


    Well, I suppose we can (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 01:59:44 PM EST
    arrest all those who have served their sentences or are the subject of civil restraining orders for domestic violence....

    We really should never let anyone out of jail ever.


    There is some sense in that proposal (1.50 / 2) (#61)
    by cboldt on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 02:20:09 PM EST
    If you can't trust them with a gun, why do you trust them to be out among the general public?  Do you think the gun laws prevent them from getting a gun?

    Better build more booby hatches (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 02:28:32 PM EST
    for all the nutcases that need to be locked up too.

    I trust a lot of people out in public--so long as they don't have a gun.  In general, I think most people's need for a gun is playacting in a fantasy.....


    I hear what you're saying (1.50 / 2) (#63)
    by cboldt on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 02:39:04 PM EST
    But I don't think it is rational.  Are you saying you trust people who are willing to perpetrate violence, as long as they don't have a gun?  What if they have a knife, a rock, or a baseball bat?  What is it about the gun that makes you think causes people to "use it for kicks," where they wouldn't get their (hurt somebody else) kicks with some other instrument?

    Tongue in cheek, but is the police being armed (even off duty) an example of playacting in a fantasy?  If not, and think about the cops who are off duty, going about their business just as you do, how can THEY possibly be justified in being armed, under your sensibilities?


    You really see no difference (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 04:32:51 PM EST
    between a gun and knives, bats and baseball bats?

    Of course I see a difference (none / 0) (#66)
    by cboldt on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 04:54:10 PM EST
    But, the issue was whether or not you'd trust any of those people out and about in public.  You haven't answered the question.  Do you trust a whackjob willing to inflict violence with a baseball bat, just as long as they don't have a gun?

    I don't think your position and fear is rational, that's all.  Of course I'm more concerned about whackjobs with guns, like the DC snipers and assorted other evil malcontents.  But there is no way you are going to keep guns out of their hands, any more than you can keep baseball bats, rocks, bricks, and chains (and gasoline) out of their hands.  And I'm more afraid of fire than I am of gunfire.


    lol (none / 0) (#83)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 09:06:06 PM EST
    'civil restraining orders for domestic violence'...
    Well, David Letterman had one laid against him and in effect for awhile. I suppose we should arrest him...

    Then you obviously (none / 0) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:14:50 AM EST
    should have no problem with making background checks mandatory for all gun-show and Internet sales in the 33 states that have no rules on them at all.

    I have no problem with background (none / 0) (#11)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:27:02 AM EST
    checks.  As long as no Federal master list is involved.  You need to read up on internet sales.  Firearms transfers are regulated by the feds.
    From the ATF website:

    Generally, a firearm may not lawfully be sold by a licensed dealer to a non-licensee who resides in a State other than the State in which the seller's licensed premises is located. However, the sale may be made if the firearm is shipped to a licensed dealer whose business is in the purchaser's State of residence and the purchaser takes delivery of the firearm from the dealer in his or her State of residence. In addition, a licensee may sell a rifle or shotgun to a person who is not a resident of the State where the licensee's business premises is located in an over-the-counter transaction, provided the transaction complies with State law in the State where the licensee is located and in the State where the purchaser resides.

    Link here

    Even easier:
    I dare you to go to Buds Gun shop, or Gun Broker, attempt to purchase a firearm.  (Muzzleloaders don't count) and have it sent to you.  

    Do you have a link about the 33 states not regulating gunshows and internet sales?


    Tiring (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 10:25:23 AM EST
    As long as no Federal master list is involved.

    You register your car.  Why can't you register your gun?

    If the 2nd amendment grants a right to own firearms then a Federal Register should be no problem.


    Do you register (none / 0) (#24)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 10:31:03 AM EST
    your car with the Feds?

    Does it really matter? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 10:48:37 AM EST
    ... whether the registration is on the state or federal level?  Would you be okay with a state registration?

    (For the record, that's rhetorical.)


    I obtained some auto insurance quotes (none / 0) (#25)
    by vicndabx on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 10:32:40 AM EST
    yesterday using my wife's name and DOB.  Every site was able to locate her car w/nothing more than these two pieces of info.

    You're hung up on licensed dealers (none / 0) (#14)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:58:21 AM EST
    I can advertise on the Internet and sell the three I own to anyone in Florida and violate no state or federal rules.

    Where is the link for the 33 states? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 10:33:23 AM EST
    Can you find any advertisements anywhere offering to sell guns to anyone in their own state?  How about a link for that.

    Okay (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 11:31:42 AM EST
    Here's your link describing the problem

    As for buying a gun advertised on the Internet. I'm a bit dumbfounded as the first state I grabbed (Texas) had me gun shopping for an hour. Amazingly all I need is a Texas driver's license to be legal for a cash and carry with no background check and no forms to sign from a private unlicensed seller. There are 167 Bushmasters I have my choice from with no record of the purchase as a private sale on this one site alone.

    I honestly had no idea it was this easy.


    Quick, move out of Texas (none / 0) (#32)
    by cboldt on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 11:37:00 AM EST
    Then your problem of being able to buy a gun with no more than a TX driver's license will vanish.

    I'm not in Texas (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 11:46:43 AM EST
    I'm in Florida. I can buy them here as a private sale too in 64 of the 67 counties with no background check and no drivers license, but sadly I only have 115 Bushmasters to choose from on that same one site

    You have 17 states to choose from (2.25 / 4) (#35)
    by cboldt on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 11:51:14 AM EST
    So, rather than complain about the state you live in, and 32 others that you don't live in, why don't you pack your bags and move to one that has more restrictions on its citizens, since that is more to your liking?

    I asked above, to a poster who thought the problem in Chicago was that surrounding areas have looser gun laws, and the way to fix that is to federalize the gun laws.  My question there, and I invite you to answer it too, is which pole do the federal laws coalesce around, the lax restrictions, or the tight ones?  Are you advocating NYC-like, or Washington DC-like, of Chicago-like regulations for the entire country?


    Love it or leave it (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 01:14:21 PM EST
    There are many potential reasons why someone would choose to stay in their current state and advocate stricter gun controls rather than move to another state - job, family, friends, etc.  Why should someone pick up and move rather than argue for additional gun control measures like background checks?  Not to mention the fact the states withless strict gun laws often avg as source states for the flow if guns into other states, so moving doesn't solve the problem.

    The gun laws coalesce around (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 01:50:20 PM EST
    the pole voted for in Washington D.C.

    Just like pollution.  It doesn't recognize state boundaries.


    I am really over Texas (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 01:45:39 PM EST
    Once upon a time when Ralph Yarborough was the Senator from Texas, it was not the bassackwards place it aspires to be today.

    And all my relatives are from Texas and one of my first memories was going to a game with my grandfather and watching Darrell Royal's wishbone.  And relatives going back generations....

    But it is well past time to grow up now.

    I would recommend watching the movie Lone Star a couple of time....


    Every gun show I (none / 0) (#67)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 05:05:29 PM EST
    Have been at in VA requires a background check to purchase. Didn't see VA on the list.  Makes me wonder how accurate the article is.

    The reason VA isn't on the list ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:29:59 PM EST
    ... is because they are one of the states that doesn't require background checks when buying from a private seller (i.e. the "gunshow loophole").  The VA legislature just rejected a bill to change this.

    Additionally, do you really want the (none / 0) (#27)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 10:38:04 AM EST
    feds involved in all intrastate commerce?  Think of Marijuana grown and sold in CO.  

    Or produce sold at a (none / 0) (#28)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 10:39:57 AM EST
    local farmer's market.

    Probably (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Yman on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 10:57:57 AM EST
    If broccoli was bring used to kill 10,000+ people every year and wound 50,000+ others.

    I'd prefer that produce (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 01:57:36 PM EST
    sold at a local farmer's market not have e-coli.

    You're so demanding (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 02:15:27 PM EST

    Wile: FFL? (none / 0) (#8)
    by DFLer on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:45:09 AM EST
    federal firearms license?

    yes (none / 0) (#10)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:14:00 AM EST
    The first GOP proposed filibuster (none / 0) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 12:29:21 PM EST
    in the Senate does a crash and burn quickly with a 68-31 vote to move to debate on the expanded background check bill.

    Actually, as a point of comparison... (none / 0) (#68)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 05:19:33 PM EST
    Drinking water and other environmental standards involving toxicity and health-related standards typically are based upon lower risk than what you cite.  Oft times, the standard may be based on risk to health at one-in-a-million and similar levels of risk.  You might want to check comparable standards, as the "statistic" you generate would easily be used to establish exactly the opposite of a low risk.  Interesting.

    and (none / 0) (#117)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 05:27:47 PM EST
    they didn't use a gun