PDA

View Full Version : He wins..



HideHunter
01-16-2013, 01:38 PM
Well, he just surpassed Bill Maher as my most disliked celebrity/public figure. Pelosi is still right in there, but she's just an idiot. This guy is smart enough to be sneaky.

I know this isn't a very informed commentary on the speech.. I won't deny it.. it's visceral..

I feel like I need a shower.

LJ3
01-16-2013, 01:46 PM
uhhhh, Gene? WTF are you talking about? Who? huh? What'd they say? ANSWER ME?!?!?!

Buckrub
01-16-2013, 01:54 PM
I'm telling you. I'm NOT a conspiratist or other b/s idiot.
But the chasm is now uncrossable. We're headed for some bad stuff soon. The idiots have taken over the asylum.

I hate this.

HideHunter
01-16-2013, 02:03 PM
I'm not saying any names LJ.. I fear the black helicopters. :D

BarryBobPosthole
01-16-2013, 02:05 PM
We're not advanced enough in Oklahoma for helicopters. Its black suburbans here. Unless its a real high official, then its an escalade. With spinners.

BKB

Buckrub
01-16-2013, 02:06 PM
23 executive orders, without even attempting to pass laws.

I hate big egos more than any other trait. But this is the biggest elitist idiot I've even encountered. I truly thought Slick Willy would go down in history as the worst at that. But he can only aspire to 2nd place now.

And how the people bow down!

Buckrub
01-16-2013, 02:08 PM
Interesting.

Another group from Newton, CT is heard from:

http://news.msn.com/us/gun-group-chief-says-industry-didnt-cause-newtown

DeputyDog
01-16-2013, 02:21 PM
That's what scares me most about all this discussion. The fact that he said from the start that the proposals probably can't pass Congress, so he will just use Executive Order to do what he wants. So much for checks and balances.

I know he's not he first to use them and all Presidents do, but it still scares me with all the attacks that have been happening on the Bill of Rights in the past couple of years.

Big Skyz
01-16-2013, 02:36 PM
I truly wish he had not been re-elected.

Buckrub
01-16-2013, 03:12 PM
I truly wish he had not been born....in wherever.

BarryBobPosthole
01-16-2013, 03:16 PM
I think I will bow out of you all's pity party.

Have a nice day

BKB

Big Skyz
01-16-2013, 03:17 PM
Buckrub I'm sure the Jews feel the same way about Hitler in that regard.

Buckrub
01-16-2013, 03:20 PM
I'm sure they do.

And I realize I don't pity the same things that other, more enlightened, folks do. I'm not very smart.

Buckrub
01-16-2013, 05:35 PM
Here. Go 'sign' this petition to make Obama and his kids more safe.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/eliminate-armed-guards-president-vice-president-and-their-families-and-establish-gun-free-zones/6RDGkxLK

Tightline
01-16-2013, 07:42 PM
Just watched a video, explaining what constitutes an "assault rifle". Deadly stuff like flash suppressors, pistol grips, and collapsible stocks. Dumbasses!

Tightline
01-16-2013, 07:48 PM
And Posthole, you are one trusting soul. I hope your govt doesn't let you down. It's already let me down.

BarryBobPosthole
01-16-2013, 08:11 PM
My second amendment beliefs are likely the same as yours. Beyond that my beliefs in the references to Hitler, the junior supreme court justices that have spring up everywhere in the country, and the general exaggeration of almost everything anyone tries to do to attempt to address the issues we have in our country may not be in agreement with anyone on here. Plus, I really don't think discussing my beliefs or disbeliefs with anyone moves anything forward on the matter. So, its best I just keep my bidness to myself on the whole thing.
That doesn't mean nobody else shouldn't though.

BKB

LJ3
01-16-2013, 08:18 PM
Curmudgeon :)

Buckrub
01-16-2013, 08:21 PM
You know, I think I was wrong about the "Obama's kids" thing. They are not at fault. They are way more at risk simply because of who their father is, and on reflection, I think the NRA ad about them is wrong.

And I admire Posthole's moderation. I wish I had more of it. I TRY not to be a "Sky is Falling" on everything, but when Obama surrounded himself with kids to make signing 23 "executive" orders sound like a great thing for all of us, the analogy is just too eerily similar to write off. I know, some folks, like Posthead, just cannot grasp that there is truly anything wrong. And I get that. I actually am 'fighting' some crazy radicals (in arguments) that see a snake under every rock. But this is just too much. It really is.

And I never have been very good at keeping my bidness to myself on anything. That's my shortcoming, I realize.

LJ3
01-16-2013, 08:31 PM
We are who we are, Bucky. No apologies required.

I think I may be too tired, or something. It's not apathy or a sense of powerlessness. I just don't care as much as I used to about political issues. I'm trying to figure out why but I'm not sure that THAT'S very important to me, either.

Can apathy be stress inducing?

BarryBobPosthole
01-16-2013, 08:43 PM
They pure unadulterated hatred this issue has spawned disgusts me.
BKB

Buckrub
01-16-2013, 08:47 PM
Is nothing worth hatred? Not sure mine is pure and unadulterated, but I do dislike Elitists that are Ignorant. Worst combination of traits is Ignorance and Arrogance.

And this guy tops the list of all the people I've ever known about. Is that not worth some passion on my part?

I seem to remember you saying that you hated GW Bush, and would hate him even if he cured cancer. It seemed to me that belief was little, and beneath you, and unfounded. Yet you were passionate (for some reason). You thought him a liar, etc. Your hatred was justified.

Why is mine not?

BarryBobPosthole
01-16-2013, 09:15 PM
I wasn't talking about you, Bucky. I was talking about the myriad of hateful reactions, including bringing the president's kids into the argument, cops stating they would never enforce laws enacted that they felt weren't Constitutional, governors who stated they wouldn't enfore federal laws passed by the congress or executive actions intitiated by the president, and the large of my Facebook friends who basically showed their asses publically. Its disgusting and dismaying. We've had an assault weapons ban before, and it didn't result in any meaningful drop in crime statistics that I'm aware of anyone ever publishing. It didn't stop Columbine. And it also didn't result in any meaningful infringement on our second amendment rights. Nobody took anything away from us. In fact, nobody that matters, including the president, has ever mentioned taking ANY weapons away from Americans. I actually support closing the gun show loophole, and I actually support background checks for mental health issues because I believe that we should first and foremost enforce the laws we have before we enact others. Clsing the loopholes in the current laws are part of that (IMO). I don't see arrogance or elitism in any of that. I also don't see it in any of the 23 executive actions he signed today.
and if the right were at Bunker Hill, we'd have shot our muskets at the British before they got off their boats. This was much ado about nothing, stirred up by the NRA and the 'lamestream' media as you like to call them.

What Obama did was drop this grenade right in the laps of the Congress. that was about as surehanded a political move as I've ever seen someone make. Now let Boehner and his bunch deal with facing the Newtown backlash in congress. He's one upped them is what he's done.

BKB

Buckrub
01-16-2013, 09:58 PM
May they all have rotten teeth, irritable bowels, and make bad investments.

I am so sick of Washington. I want the capital to be Omaha. Or Dubuque. Or Somewhere. Start over.

But he IS an elitist. I hate that part of him. I ask forgiveness if I said I hated him. I have no right to hate any man. But I hate his actions. Vehemently. Whitewashing them won't help me. He's a scoundrel, and he hates what I love.

P.S.
I don't think there IS a "gun show loophole". At gun shows there are two types of booths. Private seller booths, and FFL guys. If the FFL guys make a sale they must abide by all registration laws just as if they'd have sold it at their store. The private guys do not, any more than if they sell a gun to their brother in law at home the next day. How do you want the government to enforce making Barry P. Posthole fill out the proper paperwork and ENSURE the proper background check for selling to Buckrub P. Deerslayer? Do you want to do that?

I want the government out of my life, is what I want.

And I want sensibility restored to common thinking.

Oh yeah, another thing. I'd settle for background checks on individual gun sales if we can have background checks on POTUS candidates!

BarryBobPosthole
01-16-2013, 10:06 PM
Well, there is a huge gun show loophole. Guns transactions there should go through the same process any licensed firearm dealer goes through when they sell them. Its not difficult to find an FFL person when you want to sell a gun. That won't completely stop illegal gun sales, nothing will. But it makes no sense to not have the same rule just because its a gun show. You can still buy your throwing stars and samurai swords without a hassle.

BKB

Buckrub
01-16-2013, 11:44 PM
You didn't answer my contention whatsoever.

I don't MIND a "gun show loophole closing".

But I don't see how to do it, and you didn't provide any way that I see.

I buy a table at a gun show. You buy a gun from me. Where is the FFL? If an FFL dealer has to be 'found', then A) FFL dealers will be the only folks at gun shows, and it'll just be a gathering of folks who already have to do the paperwork for ALL sales, wherever they are, and B) Private sellers will keep selling in the parking lot, newspapers, whatever, and not do any registrations. Are you actually and seriously proposing that private FTF sales undergo some registration process? Seriously?

What is the deal with registering a gun SALE anyway? What is there about a gun changing hands that makes everyone demand some registration? I have about 25 guns that are LEGALLY not registered. If I sell one to you, it's still not registered. If you make me go find an FFL dealer just to sell one of those, then I ain't ever gonna sell you one.

There IS NO LOOPHOLE to close. If there is, explain it to me in detail.

BarryBobPosthole
01-17-2013, 12:00 AM
I don't see how you could ever have a check on person to person sales. But gun show sales aren't person to person. Its easy enough to get a FFL and there's no reason those folks shouldn't follow the same rules. Since you like analogies, its the same thing as saying its okay to practice medicine without a license as long as its at a doctor show. Look, none of these deals are 100%. But it'd be a big improvement. There's no way of knowing if criminals buy guns at gun shows. And anyone who says they know is lying. But its a big gap.

BKB

Buckrub
01-17-2013, 11:07 AM
GUN SHOW SALES ARE VERY MUCH INDEED PERSON TO PERSON.

I already said that. There are TWO types of booths at these shows. One is FFL dealers. NO CHANGE for them. Gun Show, or Store, same/same. I admit that. It is the truth. It is what they do.

The OTHER booth IS INDEED PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, not FFL dealers. So the only way you can make them change their sales tactics to get registration involved, and background checks involved, is to REQUIRE THE REGISTRATION OF EVERY GUN IN THE WORLD. Sorry to holler, but some folks are just dense. Trust me, I know dense! So, if every gun is NOT registered (as it is today), then there is NO Gun Show Loophole. If there is, please tell me exactly what it is.

OK, the 'hollering' is tongue in cheek. But to me, discussing this with you is like discussing it with my liberal friends. You guys just seem uninformed, and don't get it.

(Man, it's great to find SOMETHING that I know that you don't! This has made my day! *beaming*)

Buckrub
01-17-2013, 11:14 AM
P.S.
I just found out that the ATF won't even do a background check for an individual.............

BarryBobPosthole
01-17-2013, 11:19 AM
Forget it. I'm tired of arguing about it. so there is no gun show loophole. You're right. Sorry for taking up your time.

Seriously, you are deranged.

BKB

Buckrub
01-17-2013, 11:35 AM
I am deranged for being right?

THAT is your argument? Seriously?

Look, Jack. (per Si)......FFL dealers at Gun Shows have to do background checks on all sales done there, already. Individuals do not. So where is the loophole?

I am not deranged for being right, no matter how much you ostrich.

BarryBobPosthole
01-17-2013, 11:37 AM
You are deranged. I stand by my comment.

so read carefully. ANYONE who sells a gun at a gun show needs to have a FFL and needs to perform said checks. ANYONE. that's the GD loophole.

Go try to sell hamburgers at a gun show without a food service license. Try it. You'll get thrown out on your ear.

BKB

Buckrub
01-17-2013, 11:50 AM
You have no clue how Gun Shows work, and your argument seems to be to simply call me names for not agreeing with your incorrect belief.

YOU CAN HAVE a private booth at a gun show. You do NOT have to have an FFL to have one. And if you do have an FFL, those guys already have to do the same paperwork that they would do at their gun store. What part of this are you just refusing to see?

Get over it.

But from now on, you can either choose to discuss things with me or not. But stop calling me names, especially for being correct.

BarryBobPosthole
01-17-2013, 12:12 PM
I didn't call you a name. I called you an adjective. If I'd called you a name I'd have called you a moron (only an example).

And closing the loophole means the individual sellers, private booths, whatever, at a gun show would all have to be licensed and o a check on whatever they sell. that seems easy enough to comprehend.

BKB

Buckrub
01-17-2013, 12:48 PM
A) Yes you did.

B) The ATF will not accept inquiries for background checks from individuals.

C) Since you apparently haven't read, or haven't comprehended, anything I've said here, I'm done with this one here. Pearls before swine, and all that.

Thanks.

Niner
01-17-2013, 01:02 PM
Quite an interesting discussion boys. I have always wondered what this "gun show loophole" thingie was. So, BBP, what you are saying is that the "loophole" is that someone INSIDE the gun show that has purchased table space from the promoters are the source of this alleged "loophole"? If I am reading you right, you are saying that everyone who sells/buys a gun at a table INSIDE a show needs to have a NICS check done on them? If that is what you are saying, then I have no problem with that. But I imagine "they" would need to modify the laws so that (I guess) the promoters are the ones required to file the "yellow forms"? OR since it is basically a FTF sale maybe no "yellow forms"? Maybe they should run a NICS check on folks as they come into the show? Maybe the ATF needs to make it a whole lot easier to get an FFL than it is now???

ONE thing that the FFL dealers do here, and I assume in (some) other states, is if you have a CCW permit, then they do not have to run a NICS on you. That's at a show or in their store. NOW....Face To Face sales between two individuals, say at my house, or in a parking lot, or wherever...that a whole nuther story. I don't want the camel putting his nose under that tent. Also, there's a couple of forums here that have a For Sale section, most folks that list stuff on there won't sell to an individual who doesn't have a CCW. Of course here a CCW is very easy to obtain, because our we are a "shall issue" state. What that means is that you go down to the courthouse, fill out the form, go to the police station and they take your finger prints. The prints are sent of to either the GBI or FBI...I forget which. And in a few weeks your CCW arrives in the mail.

I don't know how the gun shows work in other parts of the country, and I have not been to one around here in prolly 15 years. The last time I was at a show was when I bought my 1911, and that was through a dealer.....and was before (I think) the NICS went into effect. I do remember filling out a "yellow form" though.

Down here the gun shows have mostly morphed into dealers pulling stuff that's not moving off of their shelves and hauling it down to the show and trying to sell it for more than its worth. From what I understand there are very few "private sellers" at gun shows around here any more.

DeputyDog
01-17-2013, 01:08 PM
The only way to stop this "loophole" as it's called would be to ban all individual sales of firearms and require that all sales go through a FFL. We all know that isn't practical and won't ever happen. It may happen, but it won't stop private sales. No one would ever know if and to whom I sold any gun I own to.

Doing a trace on a gun through the ATF usually only shows which distributor it went to from the factory, which store or dealer they sold it to, and then the first sale of that gun through the dealer. If the original purchaser of that gun sold it to a private individual, the trace ends there. I've ran traces on numerous guns in my career and rarely if ever have it show more than the original purchaser.

BarryBobPosthole
01-17-2013, 01:19 PM
Niner, those are great ideas. closing the gun show loophole doesn't do anything for private sales. That ain't it. Its is redefining 'private' sales from some guy at a gun show though and forcing anyone who's selling at one to have an FFL. And I agree also that any sale at a gun show or gun shop have a NICS check ran on the purchaser.

I think this would also do a lot to discourage the sale of stolen guns. There's no teeth whatsoever in gun traces, like DD said. that needs to be enforced at pawn shops, guns shows, everywhere. Its really as simple as finding ways to enforce the laws we have to degree.

As we've discussed on here before, there also needs to be enforcement of laws on shipping guns across state lines so they are FFL to FFL whether its a private purchase or not.


BKB

LJ3
01-17-2013, 02:57 PM
When people refer to the "loophole" they're talking about preventing private gun owners from selling to other private citizens without a background check. I don't care if that is prevented at gun shows. It seems a very wasteful thing to focus on to help people feel better.

The only thing that will occur as a result is citizens finding other ways to buy and sell guns to one another. It's not illegal, should never have to be recorded or tracked in any way, and will do nothing to help anyone actually be safer or control guns more "responsibly".

The reason we're allowed to buy and sell guns as citizens of this country is because the 2nd Amendment was created to arm civilians and allow them to shoot at a Tyrannical government, if needed. So, allowing the government to involve itself in the middle of a private gun purchase is not something we should be allowing. Sort of defeats the purpose of keeping the citizenry armed if you track who has all the guns. Poopooing any opinion concerned about that fact is pretty shortsighted.

Just my opinion.

BarryBobPosthole
01-17-2013, 04:29 PM
From Wiki..

In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[18] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations."[19] These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations."

LJ3
01-17-2013, 04:55 PM
A gun show is a venue. Close it to private sales if that's what will make people think a huge loophole has been rectified and no more shootings will occur.

Private gun sales can't be regulated.

BarryBobPosthole
01-17-2013, 05:01 PM
I'm not advocating shutting down private sales. I'm advocating closing the damned gun show loophole where 'private citizens' sell tables full of guns to make a lot of money and could give a shit about their stewardship of the transaction is more than just a fucking check. Its no different than if they did the exact same thing on the corner of fifth and main with a table full of guns. you think that would be good? Is it 'unregulatable' because its in a civic center?

Sorry, I just don't get the obtuseness on this topic.

BKB

DeputyDog
01-17-2013, 07:07 PM
I'd be interested to see the conviction rate from those investigations of the gun shows that you posted Barry. I've had ATF agents refuse to take a case of a felon possessing a gun, because it wasn't a big enough case. Just a simple felony conviction for assault on a police officer and the guy had been waling around town with a rifle scaring the hell out of people. Not because he was pointing it at anyone, just because they knew who he was and didn't think he needed to have a gun. I don't think it would reduce the rate of felons or other "undesirable" people from buying guns. If they really wanted a gun from a gun show, they would just use a straw purchaser.

Didn't you ever give a guy a few bucks to buy you beer before you were legal to buy it yourself. Probably didn't have a problem finding anyone willing to do it for you either?

He didn't meet the state statute of a serious violent felon, so there were no state charges we could arrest him for. The agents said that the AUSA (Assistant US Attorney) wouldn't file the case because it "wasn't splash enough" to get any attention from anyone above him to forward his career. The case for them was simple, I'd confiscated the gun from the guy and called them. All they needed was my report and his criminal history and the case was done.

They current laws need to be enforced before new ones are passed that won't be enforced either. Just a waste of time but it makes everyone think something is being done. "Fast and Furious" is a classic example of doing investigations and then not making arrests. Makes for good stats that they can show how US gun dealers are responsible for the Mexican Cartel violence.

Buckrub
01-17-2013, 07:13 PM
No one is apparently interested in hearing the truth about this stuff, DD.

BarryBobPosthole
01-17-2013, 07:38 PM
Oh bite me. Don't act as if I'm misinformed and you aren't. I think I've said plenty of times that we need to enforce our current laws.

BKB

LJ3
01-17-2013, 08:11 PM
I don't disagree with you, BBP. I'm just saying that if private, unregulated gun sales are banned from gun shows (I honestly don't care if they are) it isn't going to change anything, just shift private gun sales back to how they were conducted before gun shows were popular. I do feel strongly that private gun sales between two citizens should always be allowed. And to me, that seems to be more in line with the thinking behind "closing the gun show loophole", they just haven't thought thru to the next step.

When the next mass shooting by some sick fuck is investigated, it's determined the sick fuck bought the gun from me that I advertised on a bulletin board somewhere, and the hand wringing begins again until someone finally stands up and says "the government should regulate all private gun sales, period. And hey, while we're at it, record their address, gun type, and other information. At least they'd have to speak an honest intent at that point.

BarryBobPosthole
01-17-2013, 10:06 PM
I just think that instead of findingten reasons why we shouldn't do something that we could for once find some ways to do something real that makes it harder for the wrong people to get access to guns. The easy way out is to lie in the friggin weeds and say 'I told you so when your sole contribution to the thing was to just sit back and moan.
It creates the perception that you accept the deaths in these incidents as the cost of gun ownership and liberty. If that were the case, I'd give them all up in a heartbeat.

BKB

LJ3
01-17-2013, 10:11 PM
Admittedly, I have no better ideas. But I really would not care if gun shows could only host licensed FFL dealers. It may make it less easy for a crazed fuck to get a gun quickly. Most of the crazy fucks seem to have laid out quite the plan for their suicide though. Not sure anything would stop the determined crazy fuck.

Buckrub
01-17-2013, 10:21 PM
Well, and so we part.

I'm not willing to give up any of my blood-paid freedoms so you can decide who is the 'wrong' person to own a gun. Even if you're great at making that decision, your follower might not be. Safety is wonderful. But it's not as great as Freedom.

That's not accepting of these deaths, as much as I'm sure you will deem it so. It's accepting of the reality that says doing something in name only is not the same as doing something worthy. How can I argue about the rights and wrongs of owning an assault rifle with those who don't know what one is? How can I argue the merits of gun show rules with those who don't know what they are to begin with? How can I argue my core beliefs with someone who abhors them?

We'd ALL give up our guns if it saved anyone's lives, especially kids. But because it would not in even the slightest, we choose not to bow to pre-existing political agendas so someone somewhere can feel good.

Matthew 7:21-23

King James Version (KJV)

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Recognizing a problem is first. But it's not enough to just recognize it and wish it away. You have to actually know what is the right thing to do, and you have to actually do it.

Course, I'm deranged, so I'm sure I'd be first on many folks' list.

HideHunter
01-17-2013, 10:27 PM
I just think that instead of findingten reasons why we shouldn't do something that we could for once find some ways to do something real that makes it harder for the wrong people to get access to guns. The easy way out is to lie in the friggin weeds and say 'I told you so when your sole contribution to the thing was to just sit back and moan.
It creates the perception that you accept the deaths in these incidents as the cost of gun ownership and liberty." If that were the case, I'd give them all up in a heartbeat."



BKB

Okay help me understand you.. If *what* were the case? In what scenario would you willingly give up your guns? .. in a heartbeat?

BarryBobPosthole
01-17-2013, 10:38 PM
If I thought it would actually prevent these things from happening. Giving up our guns won't. Sharpening our pencil on enforcement and finding ways to make sure criminals don't have easy access will help.

And Bucky, you sure were happy to give up your liberties and mine with the Patriot Act. The fit you're throwing now is disengenuous considering how you rolled over on those liberties. It almost seems like this is moreabout politics than it is about guns.

BKB

Buckrub
01-17-2013, 10:59 PM
I never commented to you on the Patriot Act that I can remember. I couldn't even tell you what it entailed. I do know that you think it restricted liberties. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. But I'd not concede the point that it did without knowing. Your argument is common debate tactics.......assume your opponent is inconsistent by incorrectly applying prior sentiments. Liberty and Freedom is not 100% unconditional, I'll concede that point. But I am strongly opposed to having the line drawn by those whose core beliefs are so opposite of mine.

And I just said it was more about politics than liberties. It wasn't me that suggested changes in laws, so it isn't about my politics. Besides, just being about politics is not in and of itself wrong, anyway. Something can be about politics AND about guns, can it not? Seems the Left certainly thinks so, as does your post insinuate. Whether this discussion is 'more' about one than the other is.......well, disingenuous, I think.

There are thousands of gun laws on the books now. Making 23 more vague EO's is not the answer, and I think even you know it. Me personally, I don't understand folks' easy willingness to forego freedoms, especially those that are so clearly codified, just to make vain attempts to force safety on others.

If there are valid deterrents to these rare crimes, then let's discuss those. But if your ideas are shown to be ineffective, you can't hold to them inordinately. Disingenuous to me is the fact that we spend so much time discussing this type of crime, and let the truly abhorrent, and more easily fixable, ones slide. I guess we think we are in a Reality Show. It's hot now, so let's ride it. The single most item used in homicides, according to the FBI, is a baseball bat. But no one will even discuss that. It's dismissed as silly to even bring that up. Cars cause way more deaths than guns, but we don't discuss the 'need' to have a V8 in cars vs. a 4 cylinder. V8's cause a lot of deaths, if they were banned, we'd be safer.

Do we want to be safer? Or do we want to politically emasculate all gun owners due to some inane fear?

Course, I'm deranged, I realize.

BarryBobPosthole
01-17-2013, 11:14 PM
Yes. Deranged and Disingenuous. You're working through the D's.

BKB

Buckrub
01-17-2013, 11:17 PM
Add Disappointed.

Good night.

Niner
01-18-2013, 12:03 AM
"Those who surrender freedom for security wil not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

B Franklin

LJ3
01-18-2013, 08:22 AM
As responsible gun owners, we should participate in discussions that address preventing criminals and crazy fucks from getting guns.

My personal line is the 2nd Amendment as I believe it is intended. That doesn't mean it remains a binary issue. There is middle ground to be had.

BarryBobPosthole
01-18-2013, 09:14 AM
Niner, I've seen that tired old mis-attributed quote trotted out in almost every discussion on gun regulations that I've ever seen. and yet, we still had the alien and Sedition Act, we still took liberty away from the Japanese in WWII, we had the Patriot Act, Abe Lincoln himself waived habeas corpus durinig the civil war, and George Bush and the Congress pass the Patriot act which took away many of our liberties and made it legal for our government to spy on its own people: all in the name of national security. And what's the budget of the Homeland Security department nowadays, $57 billion? It started at $18 billion right after 911 and not one single solitary dime of it, by the way, was 'paid for' by cuts elsewhere. when it comes to our security we compromise many of the things we claim to hold dear. So I don't buy it. Yes, to prevent mass shootings of people I think we should be willing to give up something. I mean heck, we're willing to have teachers walk around in kindergarten class with firearms, we're willing to arm administrators and have armed cops patrol the halls of our schools. Isn't that giving up something?
come on. let's have a real discussion about it.

BKB

Chicken Dinner
01-18-2013, 09:34 AM
There's a parallel here somewhere to the discussion about our 5th Amendment Rights against self-incrimination which gave us "Miranda". I've often heard, and agree, that it's better for 100 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be jailed. When it comes to Free Speech, I personally find Nazi hate speech to be repugnant. But, I'd defend their right to say what they want. When it comes to Freedom of Assembly, I hate the idea of the Klan marching through a predominantly black neighborhood. But, I'd defend their right to do it. So, why are some so willing to limit our Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the name of the so-called public good? Lots of our Rights have negative consequences, but the whole idea when the Constitution was being written was that certain Individual rights (bestowed upon us by God) could not be subjugated by the tyrrany of the masses.

BarryBobPosthole
01-18-2013, 09:51 AM
Hank its because, at least from a homicide by gun statistics standpoint, there are fewer per capita gun deaths in places like South Africa, Phillipines, Chile, etc than there are in the United states. We claim to be freer but we're not. Ask any bank teller who's been robbed at gun point if we're freer. Two thirds of our violent crimes are committed with guns.
I do NOT agree with the assault weapon ban and never have. We tried it once and there was no difference. We keep trying to do things that we know don't work and statistically aren't proven. Of the 11,000 people killed by gun homicide in America every year (yeah, three times those killed on 9/11) only about five hundred are killed by long guns of ANY kind. So what will the assault weapon ban do for us even if it is wildly successful beyond our wildest dreams? Not much. What I'm arguing for is to have the argument. Instead of comparing our president to Hitler or quoting dead patriots we need to be figuring out how to do this. But we won't even have the discussion. Its not possible because nobody else knows the truth like we do. Nothing is wrong. Carry on. Blame something else, even though countries that have gun control and have taken their guns away from their citizens have one-fortieth, yes forty times less guin violence and homicide than we do. and here's a news flash, they are free countries where their citizens enjoy the same freedoms we do (Germany and England). Personally, I don't want to be Germany or England. But I do think we can't ignore the numbers and the truth. We have a problem and we need to fix it. Unfortunately, we can't even have that discussion.

BKB

Chicken Dinner
01-18-2013, 10:03 AM
There's a lot if things I'd love to have an honest discussion about. Let's start with Race. Just not sure it will ever happen.

BarryBobPosthole
01-18-2013, 10:06 AM
NASCAR starts up next month! and that'll be one of the best races of the year!

BKB

Buckrub
01-18-2013, 11:17 AM
Since you discredit me, and my attempt to have a discussion on this subject, I will allow Hank to be my spokesman on this subject to you and all concerned. It appears he shares my views, best I can tell, and you seem to be willing to have a discussion with him without name calling.

Hank, you have it. I'm out.

LJ3
01-18-2013, 12:14 PM
So... the three of us can hammer it out :)

Over a nice ribeye, perhaps?

BarryBobPosthole
01-18-2013, 12:41 PM
We mustn't forget the beverage though.

BKB

Niner
01-18-2013, 01:34 PM
How many of those 11K deaths are gang and/or drug related?
How many of them are in Chicago and other locals that forbid gun ownership?
Don't Israel and Switzerland have real assault weapons in nearly every home? OK I'm pretty sure they are military reservists, but you get my point.

Why is it a, to quote the Vice Pres, "Big Fuggin' Deal" when a madman shoots up a theater, or a school room....but it's just "workplace violence" when an Army officer opens fire on his fellow unarmed soldiers? That's an inconsistency I cannot understand....and food for a whole nuther thread.

Maybe we could start with things like Deppity Dawg spoke about....putting felons in jail instead of letting them walk?

Not to bash the police (local or federal), but they do seem to let a lot of shit go...while concentrating on other "stuff". BBP, you have first hand knowledge of this from when your truck got broken into. I can only guess their workload is astounding vs the manpower they have. God bless those willing to work in law enforcement, its a job I certainly could not handle.

Maybe its because the courts are too busy?
Maybe its because the jails are too full?
I seriously doubt its because there are not enough Krispy Kreme outlets. :)

There seems to be a lot more violence in the "inner city"....or in "big towns" in general. Why is that? I don't know. When there's a murder around my little burg...and it DOES happen from time to time, it is front page news. I do know that back when I lived on the north side of A-town, I almost always carried when I left the house....now that I live in the boonies I rarely do.



(OH! I figgered I'd get a rise out of BBP with that old BF quote. :) :) :) )

BarryBobPosthole
01-18-2013, 01:45 PM
Well, EXACTLY. I'm not sure if it's ATF, FBI, or whatever, but in those situations like DD described, the ATF ought to be staffed and accountable for following up and prosecuting those cases where people illegally obtain firearms. It has to be a priority, not just in legislation, but in how we manage our day to day law enforcement. And we have to close the loopholes and enforce the whole access to firearms by bad guys issue. By the way, I don't believe in gun registration at all. I see no beneficial effect on law enforcement by simply knowing who all possesses a firearm. enforcement needs to be at the entry point.

and Niner, you're one of the few who used that BF quote correctly. I believe he was, in fact referring to arms too, since I think when he made that quote it was about indian attacks in western PA at the time. Unless I'm mistaken, which I obviously am quite often.

and to answer your other question, I think they don't work those cases because they aren't a priority. If we want to do something about our gun crime, we need to make it a priority.

BKB

Niner
01-18-2013, 02:07 PM
HEY!!
Isn't this our first four pager on the new site????

Chad
01-19-2013, 08:37 AM
It's seven on my phone.

LJ3
01-19-2013, 09:49 AM
7 on my google browser. I think niner may be lung deep in some medical weed :)

Niner
01-19-2013, 10:39 AM
Prolly cause I have my settings tuned for 20 per page.

DeputyDog
01-19-2013, 10:45 AM
The biggest problem is that the Prosecutors don't prosecute. Every one of them is able to decide what they will and will not prosecute. So I can arrest a whole bunch of people on various types of crimes, but if the local Prosecutor decides for what ever reason he doesn't want to prosecute the offender, the charges go away.

A prime example of this is David Gregory of NBC and the 30 round magazine he used as a prop on Meet the Press. It is illegal to possess a large capacity magazine in DC, but yet he does on national TV and the Prosecutor decides not to file charges.

Another example on a different crime, a few years back, the video gambling machines were a big thing in bars, restaurants, convenience stores in this area. The Prosecutor in my county was all for tracking them down and prosecuting the owners of the businesses for illegal gambling. The problem was that there are two towns in my county that stradle the county line. The Prosecutor in that other county, didn't think it was a big deal and would not prosecute anyone for having the machines and did nothing about them. There was a big outcry because in both of those towns, it just decided which side of town you were on whether or not if was "legal" for you to have them. The businesses that were in my county had to remove the machines and claimed that they lost business to the ones across town that happened to be in the other county that were allowed to remain. In one case it was two bars that we right across the street which is the county line from each other.

The biggest thing is that they all make themselve imune from any civil liability for doing or not doing their jobs, unlike the police officers who do the hands on work. My biggest complaint is that the police are always blamed for not doing anything about certain crimes or being told that we shouldn't be stopping speeders because we should be arresting drug dealers or child molesters or other "real" criminals. What I always tell people is that I did my job when did a complete investigation and made an arrest. If the Prosecutor of Judge drops charges or gives them a light sentence, it's not my fault, blame them. Any by the way, they are both elected, so if you don't like what happened, don't vote for them the next time.

Buckrub
01-19-2013, 11:51 AM
Clearly, DD, this is the very problem even at the Federal Level. While we argue which laws we should and shouldn't pass, they aren't prosecuting any now. And they won't.


Biden to NRA: We ‘don’t have the time’ to prosecute gun buyers who lie on background

During the National Rifle Association’s meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and the White House gun violence task force, the vice president said the Obama administration does not have the time to fully enforce existing gun laws.

Jim Baker, the NRA representative present at the meeting, recalled the vice president’s words during an interview : “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”

Submitting false information on an ATF Form 4473 — required for the necessary background check to obtain a firearm — is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison, depending on prior convictions and a judge’s discretion, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Baker, the NRA’s director of federal affairs, told TheDC that he was given five minutes to present the NRA’s concerns and the approach the group saw as being the most effective to prevent another massacre like the Newtown, Conn. shooting. During those five minutes, he said, he mentioned the need to prosecute existing gun laws.

He pointed to the low number of prosecutions for information falsification and the relatively low felony prosecution rate for gun crimes.

Biden was apparently unmoved by Baker’s concern.

In 2010, prosecutors considered just 22 cases of information falsification, according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice by the Regional Justice Information Service. Forty additional background-check cases ended up before prosecutors for reasons related to unlawful gun possession.

In all, prosecutors pursued just 44 of those 62 cases. More than 72,600 applications were denied on the basis of a background check.


“We think it is problematic when the administration takes lightly the prosecutions under existing gun laws and yet does not seem to have a problem promoting a whole host of other gun laws,” Baker told TheDC.

“If we are not going to enforce the laws that are on the books, it not only engenders disrespect for the law but it makes law-abiding gun owners wonder why we are going through this exercise we are going through now,” he added.

Gun prosecutions in 2011 were down 35 percent from the previous administration’s peak in 2004, according to Justice Department data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

Gunther
01-19-2013, 02:24 PM
WE NEED THIS.

We also need laws to keep alcoholics from getting booze, fat people from getting too much food, perverts from looking at nekkid wimmins, the asians from driving, rap music, toyotas, reality tv and well, whatever else I deem that I don't think is proper according to my whimsical mood at the moment. BTW, I am exempt from these laws of course.