Connecticut (et al)

[Blind groper]

Seth, you do realize that you've actually just issued a threat to me and others of like mind? (e.g., those of us who are trying - within our legal right - to change the laws)

I have been trying to understand Seth's weird views for some time now. There is nothing rational or sensible about them. I have come to the conclusion that Seth's views on guns are essentially religious. He is a member of the Church of the Gun, which meets on gun ranges, and talks of killing people. His religious views are strong and emotional.

Due to the emotions, his statements are excessive and ridiculous. Due to the religious nature of his beliefs, you cannot change his mind. Like any fundamentalist religico, mere facts and solid data will be rejected any time they interfere with religious faith. So when he claims the old west had more guns and fewer murders, that falls into religious faith. Despite several of us posting clear cut factual and historical material showing the murder rate was horrendous, Seth rejects this, since it fails to conform with his religious faith.

We cannot get Seth to accept anything sensible on this subject, any more than we could get a fundamentalist Christian to accept Darwinism.

[Seth]

And how do you come to equate "liberty" with "semi-automatics with high capacity magazines, howitzers, tanks, M2 machine guns, and whatever else you and your friends have"?

Because it is our right to keep and bear them, and therefore we are at liberty to do so. That's an essential aspect of liberty because it is those arms that guarantee all of the other rights that Congress is prohibited from infringing upon by the Constitution.

My possession of arms is a danger to no one but criminals, traitors and enemies of the Republic and the Constitution, so there is no reason to bar me from having them unless you are a criminal, traitor or enemy of the Republic and the Constitution. Indeed, in my view, attempting to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms makes you a criminal, a traitor (if you're a citizen) and an enemy of the Republic and the Constitution because the only possible reason that someone would have to do so is to weaken me and our Republic and make us all vulnerable to criminals, traitors and enemies of the Republic and the Constitution.

(Bold mine)

Seth, you do realize that you've actually just issued a threat to me and others of like mind? (e.g., those of us who are trying - within our legal right - to change the laws)

No, a threat would be saying "I'm going to hunt you down and kill you." I have never made, nor will I ever make such a threat. That would be against the law.

What I stated was my opinion on the character and nature of those who seek to disarm the citizenry.

What can, should or will be done about them is something entirely different, and I have not suggested any illegal actions against anyone. I would prefer that their activities be criminalized by the same right you claim to advocate for changes to the law, and that then they either cease their treason and criminality or pay the consequences that the law dictates for those crimes.

[Jason]

And how do you come to equate "liberty" with "semi-automatics with high capacity magazines, howitzers, tanks, M2 machine guns, and whatever else you and your friends have"?

Because it is our right to keep and bear them, and therefore we are at liberty to do so. That's an essential aspect of liberty because it is those arms that guarantee all of the other rights that Congress is prohibited from infringing upon by the Constitution.

My possession of arms is a danger to no one but criminals, traitors and enemies of the Republic and the Constitution, so there is no reason to bar me from having them unless you are a criminal, traitor or enemy of the Republic and the Constitution. Indeed, in my view, attempting to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms makes you a criminal, a traitor (if you're a citizen) and an enemy of the Republic and the Constitution because the only possible reason that someone would have to do so is to weaken me and our Republic and make us all vulnerable to criminals, traitors and enemies of the Republic and the Constitution.

(Bold mine)

Seth, you do realize that you've actually just issued a threat to me and others of like mind? (e.g., those of us who are trying - within our legal right - to change the laws)

No, a threat would be saying "I'm going to hunt you down and kill you." I have never made, nor will I ever make such a threat. That would be against the law.

What I stated was my opinion on the character and nature of those who seek to disarm the citizenry.

What can, should or will be done about them is something entirely different, and I have not suggested any illegal actions against anyone. I would prefer that their activities be criminalized by the same right you claim to advocate for changes to the law, and that then they either cease their treason and criminality or pay the consequences that the law dictates for those crimes.

Nope. You said you're a danger (with yer guns) to criminals and enemies of the republic then went on to define anyone who attempts to 'infringe' (such as anyone who would want assault weapons banned, CCW permits revoked, etc.) as a criminal and enemy of the republic ipso facto stating they're in danger from you (and yer guns).

Can't wiggle out of that one.

[Seth]

Seth, I couldn't help noticing that in your response you ducked the issue of background checks: y'know, the entire point of the post that you responded to?

Something to chew on: Illegal purchases at gun shows have replaced theft as criminals' preferred method of obtaining firearms.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/tupfour.htm

Ninety-something percent of the public favors 100% background checks on all weapons sold. Three-quarters of NRA members favor it as well. The NRA leadership does not. Where do you stand? I suspect it is actually with the majority of the public - in which case you are, indeed, in favor of more restrictions (quite a bit more, considering 40% of all guns sold in the US require no background checks), despite having claimed that you are in favor of fewer restrictions.

Something else to ponder: why do you suppose the NRA leadership likes to keep this rather huge loophole open? Is it ideology, or because they know which side their bread is buttered on?

Wrong. Nothing coming from the VPC can be considered reliable. Fact is that 0.7% of criminals surveyed obtained their weapons from gun shows.

And I said I favor a background check system. What we have now is not a background check system, it is a covert and illegal collection of gun registration data that Congress has specifically forbidden.

Yes, the buyer's background gets checked, but the serial number and other information about the firearm, along with the information about the buyer is taken and entered into the system. This links the firearm to the individual and the individual to the information on address and other data collected. This is gun registration. Anyone that thinks the BATFE is not secreting these records away ILLEGALLY in a covert database in direct defiance of Congress needs to go do some research and discover that they've been caught doing so several times, and always have some excuse ("Oh, we didn't know we couldn't keep the data for auditing the operation of the programs...", "We HAVE to keep the records so we can properly audit the system..." etc.) for violating federal law.

A background check only system would be a) available to any member of the public free of charge who wishes to sell a firearm; b) would intake ONLY information on the buyer sufficient to run an FBI NCIC criminal history check; c) would require NO information from the seller; c) would require NO information on the firearm being transferred; and d) would be automatically waived if the approval or denial takes more than three minutes.

There is no reason whatsoever to restrict such checks to licensed FFL dealers other than to put them on the hook if the applicant is disqualified or uses false identification and to funnel all transactions through FFL dealers to facilitate the collection of gun registration data (Form 4473) which the dealer is REQUIRED to keep forever, and allow the BATFE to rifle through at will for "gun traces."

Moreover, the law does not COMPEL an FFL to run the check for non-customers, and many, if not most FFL's WILL NOT DO SO, nor will they process outside out of state transfers because of the paperwork burden and the liability that attaches.

This makes the current system an effective means of (theoretically) preventing private transfers because there is no legal way for private individuals to make a transfer if there is no convenient FFL willing to cooperate.

If the system were configured to do what the gun-banners SAY they want it to do (keep the guns out of the hands of criminals) then it would be a convenient minutes-long phone conversation that anyone can use to ensure they aren't selling to a criminal.

But that's NOT what the gun banner's agenda actually is. It's transparently clear that they are trying to move the NICS system towards universal gun REGISTRATION, which is always a prelude to gun confiscations and bans.

That I will not tolerate, so no, I do not support background checks, as the NICS system currently operates, for private sales of firearms. If that means that criminals get ahold of guns, so be it, the blame lies with the gun banners who are being duplicitous and dishonest in their intentions and who refuse to agree to a system that CANNOT be used as a covert tool for universal firearms registration.

If the gun banners want to be honest and try to achieve the legitimate goal of reducing the ability of criminals to get firearms illegally without using it as a Trojan horse for gun registration and bans, I'm willing to cooperate fully.

[Seth]

And how do you come to equate "liberty" with "semi-automatics with high capacity magazines, howitzers, tanks, M2 machine guns, and whatever else you and your friends have"?

Because it is our right to keep and bear them, and therefore we are at liberty to do so. That's an essential aspect of liberty because it is those arms that guarantee all of the other rights that Congress is prohibited from infringing upon by the Constitution.

My possession of arms is a danger to no one but criminals, traitors and enemies of the Republic and the Constitution, so there is no reason to bar me from having them unless you are a criminal, traitor or enemy of the Republic and the Constitution. Indeed, in my view, attempting to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms makes you a criminal, a traitor (if you're a citizen) and an enemy of the Republic and the Constitution because the only possible reason that someone would have to do so is to weaken me and our Republic and make us all vulnerable to criminals, traitors and enemies of the Republic and the Constitution.

(Bold mine)

Seth, you do realize that you've actually just issued a threat to me and others of like mind? (e.g., those of us who are trying - within our legal right - to change the laws)

No, a threat would be saying "I'm going to hunt you down and kill you." I have never made, nor will I ever make such a threat. That would be against the law.

What I stated was my opinion on the character and nature of those who seek to disarm the citizenry.

What can, should or will be done about them is something entirely different, and I have not suggested any illegal actions against anyone. I would prefer that their activities be criminalized by the same right you claim to advocate for changes to the law, and that then they either cease their treason and criminality or pay the consequences that the law dictates for those crimes.

Nope. You said you're a danger (with yer guns) to criminals and enemies of the republic then went on to define anyone who attempts to 'infringe' (such as anyone who would want assault weapons banned, CCW permits revoked, etc.) as a criminal and enemy of the republic ipso facto stating they're in danger from you (and yer guns).

Can't wiggle out of that one.

Yup, the minute it becomes illegal to advocate infringement of the 2nd Amendment, or the minute that anyone tries to physically seize firearms in violation of the Constitution, I'm a danger to them. But I didn't say what KIND of danger, did I? Nope. I've never advocated or threatened any sort of illegal action against anyone. It's my opinion that such people are criminals and traitors to the Constitution, and it's my First Amendment right to so state.

How YOU interpret what I say is not my concern.

[Jason]

Seth, I couldn't help noticing that in your response you ducked the issue of background checks: y'know, the entire point of the post that you responded to?

Something to chew on: Illegal purchases at gun shows have replaced theft as criminals' preferred method of obtaining firearms.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/tupfour.htm

Ninety-something percent of the public favors 100% background checks on all weapons sold. Three-quarters of NRA members favor it as well. The NRA leadership does not. Where do you stand? I suspect it is actually with the majority of the public - in which case you are, indeed, in favor of more restrictions (quite a bit more, considering 40% of all guns sold in the US require no background checks), despite having claimed that you are in favor of fewer restrictions.

Something else to ponder: why do you suppose the NRA leadership likes to keep this rather huge loophole open? Is it ideology, or because they know which side their bread is buttered on?

Wrong. Nothing coming from the VPC can be considered reliable. Fact is that 0.7% of criminals surveyed obtained their weapons from gun shows.

Where are you getting that number from Seth? Source?

[Seth]

By "early years" I presume you mean prior to and immediately after the Civil War.

Nope, I was referring to the first few decades of the US. When the 2nd Amendment was new.

So what regulations, other than denying slaves access to weapons in the slave-holding states are you referring to, specifically?

The 2nd Amendment has never been stronger and interpreted more favorably for firearms owners than today, and we're not going to let it go backwards to fit some hoplophobe's idiotic notions.

Thus you're admitting that it is interpreted very differently from what the founders had in mind.

No, I'm saying that it's being interpreted more closely to original intent than it has been since before the Civil War.

So quit bitching about the intent of the amendment if you know full well that it is thoroughly misinterpreted by gun lovers like you today.

No, it hasn't, as Heller and McDonald prove.

You like to wave it around because it is tilted favorably towards you today. That's fine, but you shouldn't wave it around as proof that the law will always be on your side. It wasn't always, and I don't think it always will be.

Maybe, maybe not. The law is an ass from time to time.

Good luck not getting anything at all to go backwards though. In think you're in for a frustrating year.

No question there, there are battles to be fought for the future of the Republic to protect it from evil and those who would disassemble it in favor of a Socialist state, but then again freedom is never free.

[Seth]

Seth, I couldn't help noticing that in your response you ducked the issue of background checks: y'know, the entire point of the post that you responded to?

Something to chew on: Illegal purchases at gun shows have replaced theft as criminals' preferred method of obtaining firearms.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/tupfour.htm

Ninety-something percent of the public favors 100% background checks on all weapons sold. Three-quarters of NRA members favor it as well. The NRA leadership does not. Where do you stand? I suspect it is actually with the majority of the public - in which case you are, indeed, in favor of more restrictions (quite a bit more, considering 40% of all guns sold in the US require no background checks), despite having claimed that you are in favor of fewer restrictions.

Something else to ponder: why do you suppose the NRA leadership likes to keep this rather huge loophole open? Is it ideology, or because they know which side their bread is buttered on?

Wrong. Nothing coming from the VPC can be considered reliable. Fact is that 0.7% of criminals surveyed obtained their weapons from gun shows.

Where are you getting that number from Seth? Source?

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report

Firearm Use by Offenders



November 2001, NCJ 189369

Revised 02/05/02

--------------------------------------------------------------
This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables.
A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format
(.wk1) and the full report including tables and graphics in
.pdf format are available from:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------

By Caroline Wolf Harlow, Ph.D.
BJS Statistician

----------------------------------------------------------------
Highlights

Percent of prison inmates
Type of firearm State Federal
Total 18.4 % 14.8 %
Handgun 15.3 12.8
Rifle 1.3 1.3
Shotgun 2.4 2.0

Characteristic of
inmates who Percent of prison Inmates
carried firearms possessing a firearm
Offense State Federal
Violent 30.2 % 35.4 %
Property 3.1 2.9
Drug 8.1 8.7
Public-order 19.1 27.3

Gender
Male 19.1 % 15.5 %
Female 7.3 6.2

Age
24 or younger 29.4 % 19.1 %
25-34 16.5 15.5
35 or older 14.8 13.6

Criminal history
First-time offender
offenderntence 22.3 % 9.5 %
Recidivist 17.2 18.4

Percent of State inmates
possessing a firearm
Source of gun 1997 1991
Total 100.0% 100.0%
Purchased from -- 13.9 20.8
Retail store 8.3 14.7
Pawnshop 3.8 4.2
Flea market 1.0 1.3
Gun show 0.7 0.6
Friends or family 39.6 33.8
Street/illegal source 39.2 40.8

Percent of prison inmates
possessing a firearm
Use of firearm State Federal
Total 100.0 % 100.0 %
Fired 49.1 12.8
Killed/injured victim 22.8 5.0
Other 26.3 7.8
Brandished to -- 73.2 46.2
Scare someone 48.6 29.3
Defend self 41.1 24.9

Emphasis added.

Other sources cite about two or three percent:

Denver congresswoman Diana DeGette says that 70 percent of guns used in crimes come from gun shows. The true figure is rather different, according to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. According to an NIJ study released in December 1997 (“Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities,” a report that covers much more than homicide), only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows.

That finding is consistent with a mid-1980s study for the NIJ, which investigated the gun purchase and use habits of convicted felons in 12 state prisons. The study (later published as the book Armed and Considered Dangerous) found that gun shows were such a minor source of criminal gun acquisition that they were not even worth reporting as a separate figure.

At the most recent meeting of the American Society of Criminology, a study of youthful offenders in Michigan found that only 3 percent of the youths in the study had acquired their last handgun from a gun show. (Of course some criminal gun acquisition at gun shows is perpetrated by “straw purchasers” who are legal gun buyers acting as surrogates for the individual who wants the gun. Straw purchases have been federal felonies since 1968.)

According to the educational arm of HCI, the group’s own survey of major-city police chiefs found only 2 out of 48 who said that guns from gun shows (both “legal and illegal sales” according to the questionnaire) were a major problem in their city.

[Jason]

Thanks. I found it at http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[Blind groper]

The importance of where criminals get their guns is the background check. Whether gun show or pawn shop, it is very clear that the vast bulk of them bypass the need for a background check.

Clearly a law change is needed to require background checks before any change of ownership of a gun. Nor do I have any problem with the government keeping records. Those records are invaluable when it comes to determining who commits gun crime. In fact, I would say that a law change is needed to require authorities to keep full records, and make them available to any police investigating gun crime.

I would go further than that, and say it would be a very useful exercise to gather ballistics records of every gun before it is sold, and have the authorities keep those records for investigations into gun crimes.

This is not a threat to freedom, since the only people who will suffer loss of freedom from those records are criminals.

[JimC]

Off duty cop with CCW stops potential killing spree in its tracks, only local media reports: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_ ... z2GOP72zBX

Wonder why major media doesn't pick up stories like that.....

It's your media. I guess these stories don't sell well to the majority of the public? Maybe the majority of the public doesn't like CCW regardless of these rare occurrences for which you cannot provide statistics. Dunno. But the important point in this instance I bolded, then underlined just one word so even a gun-nutter could see it.

Not the civilian cool hero NRA member that is the delusional saviour from bad men with guns...

[Svartalf]

Pretty much. A civilian militia is a bad joke.

We need to make a distinction between a civilian militia, and a properly organised Army Reserve, where there is regular yearly training, and it is controlled by the regular army.

The Swiss seem to disagree with Pord.

The Swiss have an army?

Haven't been invaded in about 8 centuries... and used to export mercenaries by the thousand.

[Seth]

The importance of where criminals get their guns is the background check. Whether gun show or pawn shop, it is very clear that the vast bulk of them bypass the need for a background check.

Er, that's because they are criminals. Derp

And they bypass it primarily through theft.

Clearly a law change is needed to require background checks before any change of ownership of a gun. Nor do I have any problem with the government keeping records. Those records are invaluable when it comes to determining who commits gun crime. In fact, I would say that a law change is needed to require authorities to keep full records, and make them available to any police investigating gun crime.

Not gonna happen because gun registration is always the prelude to gun bans and confiscations. We know that all too well, so we're not going to register our firearms and make that possible.

I would go further than that, and say it would be a very useful exercise to gather ballistics records of every gun before it is sold, and have the authorities keep those records for investigations into gun crimes.

They thought of that already and tried it in several states, where it wasted millions of dollars, didn't work and never solved a single crime. Which is why it's been mostly abandoned.

This is not a threat to freedom, since the only people who will suffer loss of freedom from those records are criminals.

Except for all those people from whom guns are confiscated after they've been duly registered, as happened in New Jersey.

We're not so stupid as to give the government a list of where to go to confiscate our arms, that's the first step of despotism.

[laklak]

Pretty much. A civilian militia is a bad joke.

We need to make a distinction between a civilian militia, and a properly organised Army Reserve, where there is regular yearly training, and it is controlled by the regular army.

The Swiss seem to disagree with Pord.

The Swiss have an army?

'Course they do. This is their standard issue sidearm:



The Italian Army carries these:

[Wumbologist]

I would go further than that, and say it would be a very useful exercise to gather ballistics records of every gun before it is sold, and have the authorities keep those records for investigations into gun crimes.

You've been watching too much CSI, my friend. Ballistic "fingerprinting" is unreliable, easy to foil, and has rarely, if ever, been used to solve any crimes. It's not worth the massive expense of creating and maintaining such records for such poor results.

Not the civilian cool hero NRA member that is the delusional saviour from bad men with guns...

If she were a cop in most of the places you folks cite, she wouldn't have been able to carry off-duty. And cops don't have any sort of monopoly on firearms training or skill, many shoot just enough to qualify at minimum standards, whereas many civilian CCW holders shoot on a regular basis to keep in practice.