Does The NRA _WANT_ Criminals To Have Access To Firearms?

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

102 posts / 0 new

Sorry for the original confusing title. My question is how can we know the NRA's true agenda? Is it to protect gun owners legitimate rights? Is it to create a civic religion around invented gun rights to use as a political power base? Or is there a more insidious agenda to insure increasing gun sales by ginning up fear... first with gun owners with a constant barrage of paranoia jack-booted government thugs are out to take your guns... AND ginning up fear with the 2/3eds American households who don't yet have guns by sabotaging gun control laws to insure criminals will always have access to a ready supply?

It should come as no surprise that we should pay no attention to the words spoken by public officials or companies. They are often designed to put a respectable face over some despicable action. But if we know they're probably lying, how do we deduce their true agenda?

For instance the GOP has passed round after round of irresponsible tax cuts always under the guise of high principle such as "the surplus proves we're over-taxed"; "tax cuts are necessary for job creators"; "you can't pass a tax increase during an economic boom since it will threaten the economy'; and "we can't pass a tax hike during a bad economy". Yet there's always some level of internal consistency that underlies all the outward contradictions. In this case... we must always be passing (or protecting) tax cuts no matter what... even if revenue has been essentially below 2000 levels for most of the past 13 years. But why?

We COULD assume the GOP can't understand second grade math, or we can look for a more cynical motive they can never admit to: that they are deliberately trying to sabotage the fiscal health of the Nation. But why would they want to act in such traitorous manner? That's easy. They could never honestly run on this platform and win, but if they create a fiscal crisis, it's the best cover they have to weaken or dismantle safety net programs they've always opposed. Their manufactured crisis will start to convince some who otherwise might not even consider these far right arguments. And this is what the GOP is now doing... going in for the kill.

So if we look at the NRA we KNOW they will always place a respectable face on whatever they do. They could never portray themselves as extremists or unreasonable. They will claim they are out to protect the legitimate Second Amendment rights of gun owners. But they also claim to support the instant background check system (NICS). But they support NICS as long as there are gaping holes in the system that can allow criminals to circumvent the checks.

Because NICS doesn't contain complete mental health records from perhaps half the states, the NRA claims they don't want what a "defective" NICS system extended to gun shows and other private sales. Yet the NRA claims to support the NICS system the intent of which to prevent some from obtaining firearms!

If the NRA truly wanted to prevent as many criminals and those with relevant mental illnesses from obtaining firearms, the NRA has two choices. They COULD use their considerable political power to strengthen NICS instead of complaining about it... The second is choice is extended NICS gun shows and individual sales. It the intent is to keep as many guns out the hands of criminals, even without complete mental health records, this WOULD CATCH MANY MORE CRIMINALS!!! Isn't that one of the main reasons the NRA claims it supports NICS? But do they only support it if it's full of holes? Would we believe a politician who claimed s/he wanted to go after tax cheats then tried to sabotage IRS funding and enforcement by the back door?

So how do we weed through the bizarre if not seemingly contradictory statements the NRA's makes to look for that level of internal consistency which is their true agenda they can never admit to?

If true, and knowing it's an agenda they could NEVER admit to, would the NRA be acting any differently if they WANTED criminals to have a steady supply of guns? It seems there may be more evidence for this hidden agenda than their public claim they don't want to inconvenience gun hobbyists and enthusiasts. But then that's pure madness. Why would any responsible organization want criminals to have reliable access to a supply guns?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Comments

The first thing to realize is that all guns start out as legal guns (that is, unless the NRA and gun manufacturers admit that they sell guns directly to criminals, which some would argue they already do via gun shows, etc.).

The second thing to realize is that this represents the best of both worlds as far as the NRA and gun manufacturers are concerned.

When the market is saturated with guns, this ensures that criminals have plenty of guns (many of which were stolen during burglaries, etc.), which then scares all the law abiding citizens into purchasing even more guns because they perceive a need to arm themselves for protection from the criminals (not to mention replace the guns that were stolen from them).

BTW, I recently read a story where a man who advocated open carry and so went around with a gun on his hip was held up and relieved of said gun. Apparently he was targeted by the thief specifically for his gun!

Gary the Gun Nut
Joined:
Feb. 3, 2013 2:16 pm

First of all no one wants criminals to have easy access to guns, they do want easy access for law abiding citizens.

On a side note why is it a irresponsible tax cut why not irresponsible spending on social engineering programs that ensure the poor will always be dependent on the government

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 8:52 am

FO said "First of all no one wants criminals to have easy access to guns, they do want easy access for law abiding citizens."

As I said, all guns start out as legal guns...

Gary the Gun Nut
Joined:
Feb. 3, 2013 2:16 pm

Wifebeaters and no-fly list suspected terrorists are groups the NRA is proud to support. Get a court appointed restraining order and you might get a free year's dues compliments of the NRA. A good advertisement could be made with the wifebeaters all wearing their flag lapel pins and holding their assault rifles. "I was convicted of assault, that's why I choose an AR-15 it speaks assault to everyone not just your wife. Try one and know good assault can feel" "Assault, it's not just for court dockets".

Become a member of Assault Patriots Enterprises, personal testimony is remarkable: "When I became an APE, I found I was not alone. They also have benefits for members. Those calluses you get on your knuckles from dragging on all the different pavement surfaces? APEs don't have that problem. Some lye ointment at night softens your knuckles within a week, so they won't catch on your trigger guards when your protecting your squaws from nosey sherrifs trying to enforce restraining orders"

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote firearm owner:First of all no one wants criminals to have easy access to guns, they do want easy access for law abiding citizens. On a side note why is it a irresponsible tax cut why not irresponsible spending on social engineering programs that ensure the poor will always be dependent on the government

So in your mind all companies, political parties, organization and people tell the truth? Amongst all your other obvious faults we add the most naive gullibility. Hell, I don't believe a word of what you say... not that you ever go beyond making unsubstantiated claims. I look for the underlying message of consistency that explains your venomous postings here and your inability to own up to any stupid thing you say... and your inability to even know what constitutes proof in a discussion. I see a person who needs to insure the working poor beneath him are ground down so he can feel morally superior to them and general delusions of infallibility... all of which reek of deep personal insecurity. Which probably explains why you identify yourself here as a gun owner. Insecurity needs to conceal itself with power.

But getting back to the NRA... if we ignore what they say and just look at where they put their energy... it's NOT keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill. Yes they want that cover to appear responsible... but if THAT were the goal, they'd want to close the loophole that keeps some states from complying with updating the mentally ill database in NICS... AND they'd want to close the loophole for private sales because they KNOW this is an easy way for criminals to get guns in some states. Last they'd not fight laws to make gun trafficking illegal... unless you believe those involved in the criminal use of guns have second amendment rights, which you probably do. After all... who better needs a way to defend themselves against the power of the state than criminals.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:First of all no one wants criminals to have easy access to guns, they do want easy access for law abiding citizens. On a side note why is it a irresponsible tax cut why not irresponsible spending on social engineering programs that ensure the poor will always be dependent on the government

So in your mind all companies, political parties, organization and people tell the truth? Amongst all your other obvious faults we add the most naive gullibility. Hell, I don't believe a word of what you say... not that you ever go beyond making unsubstantiated claims. I look for the underlying message of consistency that explains your venomous postings here and your inability to own up to any stupid thing you say... and your inability to even know what constitutes proof in a discussion. I see a person who needs to insure the working poobeneath him are ground down so he can feel morally superior to them and general delusions of infallibility... all of which reek of deep personal insecurity. Which probably explains why you identify yourself here as a gun owner. Insecurity needs to conceal itself with power.

But getting back to the NRA... if we ignore what they say and just look at where they put their energy... it's NOT keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill. Yes they want that cover to appear responsible... but if THAT were the goal, they'd want to close the loophole that keeps some states from complying with updating the mentally ill database in NICS... AND they'd want to close the loophole for private sales because they KNOW this is an easy way for criminals to get guns in some states. Last they'd not fight laws to make gun trafficking illegal... unless you believe those involved in the criminal use of guns have second amendment rights, which you probably do. After all... who better needs a way to defend themselves against the power of the state than criminals.

So because they are not actively trying to limit people's rights by making it hard to if not impossible for law abiding citizens to live free. They are actively trying to give guns to the criminals. Yea cause that make a lot of sence Ibet you believe that dictators just want to help their people too by killing the outspoken ones.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 8:52 am
Quote firearm owner:First of all no one wants criminals to have easy access to guns, they do want easy access for law abiding citizens. On a side note why is it a irresponsible tax cut why not irresponsible spending on social engineering programs that ensure the poor will always be dependent on the government

Just because you're a law abiding citizen doesn't automatically mean you should posess a gun. There are millions of good, law abiding citizens who should never have access to a gun. They are careless and irresponsible. You see evidence of this every single day. At the end of the day, guns in the hands of the right people are not a problem. It's guns in the hands of everyone else that creates problems.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Bush_Wacker,

You make a good point! There are lots of law abiding citizens out there who should not be allowed to own a gun due to severe mental problems. They should not be allowed to own a gun should their medication stop working or should whatever other means of controlling their problems begin to fail. I am myself trying to be law abiding, but I should never own a gun due to the unpredictable nature of my mental problems. I myself believe in background checks to stop gun sales to convicted felons, and people who are not criminals but still have mental problems.

Now there is the issue of what to do with all of the guns already out there. Now, background checks will not stop the illegal gun traffic already happening, but it will at least be something that will make it somewhat more difficult to obtain a legal gun purchase for those who shouldn't. Background checks will not solve everything, I do concede, but it is a start.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 3:57 pm

It's not just mental illness Micah. Just like driving 18 wheelers and heavy equipment or flying planes, there are millions of people who don't have what it takes to do it safely. A gun is very dangerous and in the wrong hands it's potentially lethal to innocent strangers, family and ones self. We are promoting a culture where we act as guns are a novelty or a toy. A couple of weeks ago in my little town of 70,000 people we had one guy shoot himself in the hand while cleaning his gun, one guy shot himself in the leg while trying to adjust his holster while sitting in a car and we had one wacko shooting signs at the mall. They are all law abiding citizens. This unreasonable fear of the confiscation of guns is leading to way too many people buying them just for the sake of buying them. Most of them not realizing that they have actually made their lives more dangerous than had they not bought one at all.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Bush_Wacker,

You make a point about the issue of "criminal incompetence" when it comes to purchasing and owning a gun. However, with out a definitive and unambiguous conceptualization of such "incompetence" on the part of a gun purchaser, there would be problems determining just who is a competent gun owner. What steps can be taken to alleviate people of that incompetence so they can purchase a gun? What punishment will there be for incompetent people who try to purchase a gun anyways? What protections will there be to assure all citizens of this country that no one will be declared "incompetent" concerning gun rights in a way that is politically expedient? What should be done if someone is kept from purchasing a gun because they were declared incompetent because someone in the government had a personal grievance that corrupted their judgment?

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 3:57 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote firearm owner:First of all no one wants criminals to have easy access to guns, they do want easy access for law abiding citizens. On a side note why is it a irresponsible tax cut why not irresponsible spending on social engineering programs that ensure the poor will always be dependent on the government

Just because you're a law abiding citizen doesn't automatically mean you should posess a gun. There are millions of good, law abiding citizens who should never have access to a gun. They are careless and irresponsible. You see evidence of this every single day. At the end of the day, guns in the hands of the right people are not a problem. It's guns in the hands of everyone else that creates problems.

That same philosophy can be applied to people who drive, have kids, and vote. Rights are rights they do not need to be justified and a background check will not tell you if a person is not responsible or careless. It will only tell you if they have been convicted of a crime.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 8:52 am
Quote firearm owner:
Quote Pierpont:

But getting back to the NRA... if we ignore what they say and just look at where they put their energy... it's NOT keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill. Yes they want that cover to appear responsible... but if THAT were the goal, they'd want to close the loophole that keeps some states from complying with updating the mentally ill database in NICS... AND they'd want to close the loophole for private sales because they KNOW this is an easy way for criminals to get guns in some states. Last they'd not fight laws to make gun trafficking illegal... unless you believe those involved in the criminal use of guns have second amendment rights, which you probably do. After all... who better needs a way to defend themselves against the power of the state than criminals.

So because they are not actively trying to limit people's rights by making it hard to if not impossible for law abiding citizens to live free. They are actively trying to give guns to the criminals. Yea cause that make a lot of sence Ibet you believe that dictators just want to help their people too by killing the outspoken ones.

Wasn't it the NRA who demanded there be INSTANT background checks so not to "limit rights"? So you're saying the NRA's pet program limits the rights of those who buy firearms at federally licensed dealers? Then I take it you're AGAINST the current NICS background check system?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:
Quote Pierpont:

But getting back to the NRA... if we ignore what they say and just look at where they put their energy... it's NOT keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill. Yes they want that cover to appear responsible... but if THAT were the goal, they'd want to close the loophole that keeps some states from complying with updating the mentally ill database in NICS... AND they'd want to close the loophole for private sales because they KNOW this is an easy way for criminals to get guns in some states. Last they'd not fight laws to make gun trafficking illegal... unless you believe those involved in the criminal use of guns have second amendment rights, which you probably do. After all... who better needs a way to defend themselves against the power of the state than criminals.

So because they are not actively trying to limit people's rights by making it hard to if not impossible for law abiding citizens to live free. They are actively trying to give guns to the criminals. Yea cause that make a lot of sence Ibet you believe that dictators just want to help their people too by killing the outspoken ones.

Wasn't it the NRA who demanded there be INSTANT background checks so not to "limit rights"? So you're saying the NRA's pet program limits the rights of those who buy firearms at federally licensed dealers? Then I take it you're AGAINST the current NICS background check system?

I am not against the background check system it keeps people that are convicted of a crime from buying fire arms.

What you are proposing is not that, from what I gather you want to add anyone who has ever talked to a mental health professional for any reason to that list because some time in the future they may break the law maybe. It also seems to me that you are saying anyone who wants to buy a fire arm is afraid of his own shadow and therefore not trustworthy enough to own a fire arm.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 8:52 am

Now here's an interesting article that makes the case:

NRA: A lobby for criminals The NRA is a twisted, paranoid organization whose main achievement is to have made law enforcement harder

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/nra_a_lobby_for_criminals/

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Al Quida LOVES the Gun Show Loophole:

"America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms," Gadahn says in the clip. "You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"

The comments by Gadahn, an American spokesman for al-Qaida, refer to the so-called gun-show loophole, a flash point in the debate over gun rights in Virginia and beyond.

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/06/alqaida-could-exploit-us-gun-shows-spoke...

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Firearm Owner,

According to such a system as I currently understand it, a mental health worker is required to take action only if a person is a danger to themselves or to others. That means that if a person has not comitted a crime, but has said that they are being compeled to hurt others or their own self, such a person would be potentially put on a "no buy list."

However, I can understand your concerns. What safegaurds will there be to prevent abuse in the system? Who exactly qualifies as a mental health worker? What is an unambiguous definition of being compeled to hurt others or one's own self? Who pays for any potential treatment or hospitalization resulting from such a recommendation by a mental health worker? What if a person refuses help if they are given medication against their will? There are lots of other questions to be asked!...

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 3:57 pm

Charles Joseph Whitman told his therapist that he wanted to kill people. He had even noted the Texas tower that was perfect to accomplish this. Nothing was done, it was TX, that's just the norm in TX.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote firearm owner:
Quote Pierpont:So because they are not actively trying to limit people's rights by making it hard to if not impossible for law abiding citizens to live free. They are actively trying to give guns to the criminals. Yea cause that make a lot of sence Ibet you believe that dictators just want to help their people too by killing the outspoken ones.

Wasn't it the NRA who demanded there be INSTANT background checks so not to "limit rights"? So you're saying the NRA's pet program limits the rights of those who buy firearms at federally licensed dealers? Then I take it you're AGAINST the current NICS background check system?

Quote firearm owner:I am not against the background check system it keeps people that are convicted of a crime from buying fire arms. What you are proposing is not that, from what I gather you want to add anyone who has ever talked to a mental health professional for any reason to that list because some time in the future they may break the law maybe. It also seems to me that you are saying anyone who wants to buy a fire arm is afraid of his own shadow and therefore not trustworthy enough to own a fire arm.
Moving the goal post even again??? You're ALREADY ON RECORD opposing such background checks because you said one had to prove themselves innocent. You claimed criminals would not buy from a dealer so these checks only affected the innocent. Now you're for background checks? What happened FO... get caught in making another stupid argument and now you're trying to find a way out without a retraction?

Of course if you're now FOR background checks to prevent criminals from buying guns they you're also FOR extending these checks to cover as many gun sales as possible... say, at gun shows? After all, the NRA is already on record approving NICS as the preferred way to least inconvenient legitimate gun buyers. If the intent is to keep as many criminals from obtaining weapons... then why would the NRA want a giant hole in that system when they know it DEFEATS the NICS system they claim to support?

As for those with relevant mental illnesses that might disqualify them from owning weapons... isn't the NRA complaining about the number of "lunatics", as LaPierre calls them, NOT in the federal database because states aren't complying? So what is the NRA doing to strengthen the NICS system? Even if the MH issue has yet to be worked, out closing the so-called gunshow loophole WOULD HELP STOP CRIMINALS! Yet the NRA is against this... and when the reasons they give are lame, then it means they really do NOT want to stop criminals from having a backdoor to obtain weapons.

So why are you saying what I proposed is so radical? And it's NOT as you portrayed it as anyone talking to any mental health professional for any reason. If you can't make a point without grotesque distortions... you really haven't made a point... have you Pickles? I want those professionals who are truly fearful that someone they see is capable of violence to be free to report the person to this NICS database. The specifics of the diagnosis need not be included. It would just be reported to a seller as a "unqualified" buyer.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:
Quote Pierpont:So because they are not actively trying to limit people's rights by making it hard to if not impossible for law abiding citizens to live free. They are actively trying to give guns to the criminals. Yea cause that make a lot of sence Ibet you believe that dictators just want to help their people too by killing the outspoken ones.

Wasn't it the NRA who demanded there be INSTANT background checks so not to "limit rights"? So you're saying the NRA's pet program limits the rights of those who buy firearms at federally licensed dealers? Then I take it you're AGAINST the current NICS background check system?

Quote firearm owner:I am not against the background check system it keeps people that are convicted of a crime from buying fire arms. What you are proposing is not that, from what I gather you want to add anyone who has ever talked to a mental health professional for any reason to that list because some time in the future they may break the law maybe. It also seems to me that you are saying anyone who wants to buy a fire arm is afraid of his own shadow and therefore not trustworthy enough to own a fire arm.
Moving the goal post even again??? You're ALREADY ON RECORD opposing such background checks because you said one had to prove themselves innocent. You claimed criminals would not buy from a dealer so these checks only affected the innocent. Now you're for background checks? What happened FO... get caught in making another stupid argument and now you're trying to find a way out without a retraction?

Of course if you're now FOR background checks to prevent criminals from buying guns they you're also FOR extending these checks to cover as many gun sales as possible... say, at gun shows? After all, the NRA is already on record approving NICS as the preferred way to least inconvenient legitimate gun buyers. If the intent is to keep as many criminals from obtaining weapons... then why would the NRA want a giant hole in that system when they know it DEFEATS the NICS system they claim to support?

As for those with relevant mental illnesses that might disqualify them from owning weapons... isn't the NRA complaining about the number of "lunatics", as LaPierre calls them, NOT in the federal database because states aren't complying? So what is the NRA doing to strengthen the NICS system? Even if the MH issue has yet to be worked, out closing the so-called gunshow loophole WOULD HELP STOP CRIMINALS! Yet the NRA is against this... and when the reasons they give are lame, then it means they really do NOT want to stop criminals from having a backdoor to obtain weapons.

So why are you saying what I proposed is so radical? And it's NOT as you portrayed it as anyone talking to any mental health professional for any reason. If you can't make a point without grotesque distortions... you really haven't made a point... have you Pickles? I want those professionals who are truly fearful that someone they see is capable of violence to be free to report the person to this NICS database. The specifics of the diagnosis need not be included. It would just be reported to a seller as a "unqualified" buyer.

It does make you prove you are innocent, and the gun show loop hole does not exist. But you do not care about facts that is why you keep saying that 40 percent of gun sales happen without a background check. Which means that of the 300 million guns in the U.S. today only 175 million where purchased at a licensed dealer.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 8:52 am
Quote firearm owner:

It does make you prove you are innocent, and the gun show loop hole does not exist. But you do not care about facts that is why you keep saying that 40 percent of gun sales happen without a background check. Which means that of the 300 million guns in the U.S. today only 175 million where purchased at a licensed dealer.

So now you're AGAINST a buyer proving they are innocent? Then how in your fantasy world would background checks be done? Hey... how about if these checks instead "prove" someone is guilty? Yup... you're in your evasion mode completely EVADING all the points I made and reduced to playing games. Ho hum! Yup, no retractions, no answering questions because you on some level know you painted yourself into a corner and would never admit it.

BTW, I said the SO-CALLED gunshow loophole. I know it covers other person2person sales/transfers. What's your next lame point? That the so-called universal background check won't ever really be "universal"? So what's the point of even suggesting it?

As for the 40% number... another of your lame objectoins. It does NOT matter whether it's 10% or 90%. What matters is this loophole IS being exploited by criminals. And to compound your idiocy you're now claiming ALL the 300 million guns in the US were sold since the NICS was instituted?

Do you EVER listen to yourself? Ya, and I'm sure you've convinced yourself you're a genius.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote firearm owner:That same philosophy can be applied to people who drive, have kids, and vote. Rights are rights they do not need to be justified and a background check will not tell you if a person is not responsible or careless. It will only tell you if they have been convicted of a crime.

Let's try this again:

So pray tell oh Mighty Firearm Owner... you say you want to keep criminals from obtaining guns but you object to the current background check system because you claim it forces the innocent to prove they are not criminals or do not have some relevant mental illness that disqualifies them from gun ownership. And you claim criminals don't buy their weapons from NICS gun shops.Then there are the loopholes which you claim don't matter since the 40% number is wrong.

So what sort of background check system do YOU want that covers ALL criminals convicted of relevant crimes and all those with relevant mental illnesses in a way that does NOT force the innocent to prove they are not criminals or mentally ill? Is this some system that instead forces criminals and those with specific mental illnesses (ie the ineligible) to prove they do NOT fall into either category? But then if they are truly innocent... aren't they also being wrongfully inconvenienced?

How would your system work?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

A new law was slipped into the CR, continuing resolution, which means no vote or discussion. The law prohibits gun dealers from taking inventory. No figures on gun sales will be accurate, so the number of guns in circulation will be inaccurate, or unknown. The number of guns stolen will be unknown. The serial numbers of guns will be meaningless as the guns could be from someone other than a dealer, or from an off book buyer which is just about anyone because the books are meaningless without inventory.

Why don't they just do a Thanksgiving or Christmas promotion and drop guns by parachute from helicopters? They can make up the sales loss from ammo, like cheap printers do from ink cartridges.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Bloomberg is trying to counter NRA in elections. However another method that could be cheaper is for him to buy enough homes in the gerrymandered districts so he could rent them to anti-nra citizens [black and hispanic]. A 4 bedroom could rent to 5 adults, or 5 married couples, meaning 10 new votes per household. Spending millions like he is planning could change whole neighborhoods if it was spent on housing instead of commercials. He could set the rent low enough for takers but high enough to recoup some of the purchase cost, which frees up capital to buy more units. The leases could be 2 to 4 years to cover the next election or 2. Gentrification might be challenged, but it is perfectly legal. I suppose some KKK would pop up, or militias, but a lot of the new tenants could be ATF or police, or FBI. Homes with a police cruiser parked in front aren't usually targeted.

It should be easy to zero in on the homes with underwater mortgages. An offer to take it off their hands would be welcomed. After enough are bought to threaten the gerrymander the plan could be leaked. People that want their neighborhood back would just have to vote for anyone other than NRA candidates.

Halfway houses and nursing homes have high density occupancy, too. A few strategically placed units could add even more votes for freedom from tyranny, the tyranny of the NRA.

Another plan could be a covert infiltraion of the NRA. With some unsavoury transactions involving gun running the organization would be guilty under RICO and prohibited from campaign contributions or even access to public airwaves for at least 10 years under felonious sentencing guidelines.

It will still take at least a generation to achieve safety on the order of Japan, or Germany, or other European countries.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote firearm owner:

It does make you prove you are innocent, and the gun show loop hole does not exist. But you do not care about facts that is why you keep saying that 40 percent of gun sales happen without a background check. Which means that of the 300 million guns in the U.S. today only 175 million where purchased at a licensed dealer.

So now you're AGAINST a buyer proving they are innocent? Then how in your fantasy world would background checks be done? Hey... how about if these checks instead "prove" someone is guilty? Yup... you're in your evasion mode completely EVADING all the points I made and reduced to playing games. Ho hum! Yup, no retractins, no answering questions because you on some level know you painted yourself into a corner and would never admit it.

BTW, I said the SO-CALLED gunshow loophole. I know it covers other person2person sales/transfers. What's your next lame point? That the so-called universal background check won't ever really be "universal"? So what's the point of even suggesting it?

As for the 40% number... another of your lame objectoins. It does NOT matter whether it's 10% or 90%. What matters is this loophole IS being exploited by criminals. And to compound your idiocy you're now claiming ALL the 300 million guns in the US were sold since the NICS was instituted?

Do you EVER listen to yourself? Ya, and I'm sure you've convinced yourself you're a genius.

The actual number of guns purchased from a gun shoe that are used in crimes is less than 3 percent. There is no system that will stop criminals from buying guns. Though I do not like the background check system because it forces law abiding citizen to prove they are innocent. (against the innocent until proven guilty philosophy)

I have an idea its called police work if some one buys a gun and uses it in a crime you arrest them it works for everything all other laws. Gun dealers are not stupid I have been ingun shops were the dealer refused to sell a gun to a customer before they even got to the background check. If there are dealers or private sellers that routinely sell to criminals you can close them down. I know none of this is going to help being a freedom hater like you are cause big controlling government is your only wish.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 8:52 am
Quote douglaslee:

Bloomberg is trying to counter NRA in elections. However another method that could be cheaper is for him to buy enough homes in the gerrymandered districts so he could rent them to anti-nra citizens [black and hispanic].

I think what might be the cheapest solution is for politicians not to be so cowardly and to take on the irrationality and irresponsibility of the NRA... to create a new meme to discredit them. Of course the danger here is the NRA uses the same mad-dog tactics as N Korea. When they feel threatened, they rile up their rabid members and have tantrums .

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

The current NICS system can work because it DOES have a proven track record of blocking sales:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2012-operations-report

"From November 30, 1998, to December 31, 2012, the NICS Section has denied a total of 987,578 transactions. Denials issued by the NICS Section in 2012 totaled 88,479."

So there's no reason to believe NICS would not work better when it closes the big loopholes in the law... the place smarter criminals go so not to be caught by the current half-ass system. What would work even better is to go after those who DO try to buy guns when they know they're disqualified... which is why it's important to keep records of such attempted transactions.

The NRA hides behind the claim "it's already illegal for criminals to buy a firearm", as if the rest of us are to be comforted by that. Yet if it's a crime, why has the NRA demanded the NICS evidence of that crime to be destroyed within 24 hours so criminals are free to try again. If they KNOW they'll be blocked at federally licensed firearms dealers, they know they can just go to places NOT covered by NICS or state laws such as gun shows... private sales. etc.

So is this more evidence the NRA does want criminals to have easy access to guns by advocating records of such attempts be destroyed?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote firearm owner:

The actual number of guns purchased from a gun shoe that are used in crimes is less than 3 percent. There is no system that will stop criminals from buying guns. Though I do not like the background check system because it forces law abiding citizen to prove they are innocent. (against the innocent until proven guilty philosophy) I have an idea its called police work if some one buys a gun and uses it in a crime you arrest them it works for everything all other laws. Gun dealers are not stupid I have been ingun shops were the dealer refused to sell a gun to a customer before they even got to the background check. If there are dealers or private sellers that routinely sell to criminals you can close them down. I know none of this is going to help being a freedom hater like you are cause big controlling government is your only wish.

So FO's brilliant idea to stop criminals and the seriously mentally ill from having easy access to firearms is to get rid of ALL federal background checks, let police do their job as if that means anything... or trust gun store owners to size up a person when we KNOW there are rogue gun sellers that routinely sell to gun traffickers. FO goes further in another thread insisting allow criminals or the seriously mentally ill can even buy mail-order as was possible 50 years ago... where all one had to do was sign an affidavit they were over 21.

If the gun is used in a crime... THEN investigate whether the person should have had access to the gun. If anyone opposes FO's insane approach.... they must be for crushing freedom... as if being citizens wanting to be PROTECTED from senseless gun violence isn't also the proper function of government. Nope... Gun Nuts would insist that the proper way to deal with the problem is for EVERYONE to be armed.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Armed people are free. No state can control those who have the machinery and the will to resist, no mob can take their liberty and property. And no 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out - People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right." Guns ended that, and a social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work.

L.Neil Smith, libertarian Sci-Fi writer.

I think the people at the top who want victim disarmament laws (what anti-gun people call gun control laws) are the ones who want criminals and the police to be the only ones who are armed. The useful idiots on this board really think the NRA is pro-gun and that gun-laws, background checks, and the like are going to accomplish anything.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

More from L. Neil Smith

  • Every year, in this nation of more than a quarter billion individuals, a few thousand (three quarters of them suicides) are killed with firearms, while millions of Americans successfully use personal weapons to save themselves and others from injury or death. Guns save many, many times more lives than they take.
    In every jurisdiction that has made it even microscopically easier for individuals to carry weapons, violent crime rates have plummeted by double-digit percentages. Vermont, where no permission of any kind is required to carry a gun, is named in many respectable surveys as the safest state to live in.
    More telling and urgent, every episode of genocidal mass murder in history has been preceded by a period of intense disarming of the civil population, usually with 'public safety' or 'national security' as an excuse. According to Amnesty International — hardly a gang of right wing crazies — in the 20th century alone (in events entirely separate from war), governments have slaughtered more than a hundred million people, usually their own citizens.

What kind of mind would sacrifice millions for the sake of a few thousands, especially when it's been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that victim disarmament can't save even those thousands?
What kind of mind wants a return to mean streets and ever-soaring crime rates?
What kind of mind collaborates with agents of mass murder and genocide?
Make no mistake: you victim disarmament types are sick, sick people, in the words of T.D. Melrose, who'd rather see a woman raped in an alley and strangled with her own pantyhose than see her with a gun in her hand.

  • "Murder by Gun Control"
LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:The useful idiots on this board really think the NRA is pro-gun and that gun-laws, background checks, and the like are going to accomplish anything.

According to the FBI some 800k gun sales have been stopped because of the current, loophole-ridden system. So unless you're going to say ALL those buy attempts were actually NON-criminals, NON-mentally ill, NON-restraint order people... then, YES, the current system CAN accomplish some good. Or perhaps it's the same person being denied 800k times. We'll never know as long as these records are destroyed in 24 hours. Where else is it the LAW, that evidence of a crime is destroyed by the law enforcement

Given the evidence... it would seem the burden of proof isn't on those wanting so-called universal background checks... but on Gun Nuts and political extremists such as yourself

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:"Murder by Gun Control"

"Gun Control" has many elements. One might be for universal background checks and also favor concealed carry for experienced gun owners. For example, I own a gun that I bought for self-protection when I camped alone out in the sticks. I believe I have that right yet I favor licensing of gun buyers AND universal background checks. But I've also suggested here that I might be for concealed carry for SOME gun owners.

I suspect, with the exception of anti-Gun fanatics, that demands for laws against guns bans would drop if the public was assured that background checks were more extensive and were stopping more criminals or psychopaths from easy access to guns.

Unlike you I DO favor sensible prior restraint with guns... and in areas of trespass such as with pollution. I don't believe we must wait to prove harm for citizens to have rights either to be safe from gun wielding criminals or psychopaths... OR from polluting companies.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote LysanderSpooner:The useful idiots on this board really think the NRA is pro-gun and that gun-laws, background checks, and the like are going to accomplish anything.

According to the FBI some 800k gun sales have been stopped because of the current, loophole-ridden system. So unless you're going to say ALL those buy attempts were actually NON-criminals, NON-mentally ill, NON-restraint order people... then, YES, the current system CAN accomplish some good. Or perhaps it's the same person being denied 800k times. We'll never know as long as these records are destroyed in 24 hours. Where else is it the LAW, that evidence of a crime is destroyed by the law enforcement

Given the evidence... it would seem the burden of proof isn't on those wanting so-called universal background checks... but on Gun Nuts and political extremists such as yourself

You may want to recheck your evidence. Only the records of lawful transfers are destroyed. Failed checks represent criminal activity and therefore those records are kept and used by the FBI for prosecution. At least that is the plan. Since the Obama administration has only seen fit to prosecute 88 out of 15,000 rejections last year, I am not sure they take the whole gun crime thing seriously.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Paleo-con:You may want to recheck your evidence. Only the records of lawful transfers are destroyed. Failed checks represent criminal activity and therefore those records are kept and used by the FBI for prosecution. At least that is the plan. Since the Obama administration has only seen fit to prosecute 88 out of 15,000 rejections last year, I am not sure they take the whole gun crime thing seriously.

I'll gladly retract if I'm wrong.... though a credible source would useful. I was responding to those who don't want any NICS records kept and I may have carelessly assumed this was the current law.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Paleo-con:You may want to recheck your evidence. Only the records of lawful transfers are destroyed. Failed checks represent criminal activity and therefore those records are kept and used by the FBI for prosecution. At least that is the plan. Since the Obama administration has only seen fit to prosecute 88 out of 15,000 rejections last year, I am not sure they take the whole gun crime thing seriously.

I'll gladly retract if I'm wrong.... though a credible source would useful. I was responding to those who don't want any NICS records kept and I may have carelessly assumed this was the current law.

As you wish.

§ 25.9 Retention and destruction of records in the system.

(a) The NICS will retain NICS Index records that indicate that receipt of a firearm by the individuals to whom the records pertain would violate Federal or state law. The NICS will retain such records indefinitely, unless they are canceled by the originating agency.
Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

LysanderSpooner,

The only "gun control" I would favor is background checks for convicted felons and the mentally ill. I concede that there are laws already like this in most places, but they need to be enforced better.

Trust me, as a person with a mental health issue, you do not want me to own a gun. If I ever try to purchase a gun, I think I should be put in jail. As a side issue, I personally refuse to own a tactical knive, even though I do not believe in "background checks" for knives.

There have been times when if I had a gun I might have shot myself, or even someone else due to hallucinations. People with certain types of mental illness should not be allowed to own a gun, period.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 3:57 pm

To answer the question you posed at the end of your post (i.e., "So is this more evidence the NRA does want criminals to have easy access to guns by advocating records of such attempts be destroyed?"):

YES!

Gary the Gun Nut
Joined:
Feb. 3, 2013 2:16 pm

Now you know that is not true. Whatever you think of the NRA they have absolutely nothing to gain by this ridiculous question. They are a lobbying group that, just like any other, needs to keep a reasonable public image. The NRA's beef is with the argument that lawful firearm owners outnumber the criminals many thousands to one, and they are the ones being targeted by the anti gun folks. It is loudly protecting their second amendment rights that brings in the money for the NRA. The knee-jerk reactions following a horrific shooting does increase the coffers of the NRA but the money is all spent in increased advertising and paying off our fine representatives in D.C. Likewise, the firearm manufacturers do not want their products used in a very high profile shooting. It does absolutely nothing positive for their public image or their sales.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 8:35 am
Quote Paleo-con:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote LysanderSpooner:The useful idiots on this board really think the NRA is pro-gun and that gun-laws, background checks, and the like are going to accomplish anything.

According to the FBI some 800k gun sales have been stopped because of the current, loophole-ridden system. So unless you're going to say ALL those buy attempts were actually NON-criminals, NON-mentally ill, NON-restraint order people... then, YES, the current system CAN accomplish some good. Or perhaps it's the same person being denied 800k times. We'll never know as long as these records are destroyed in 24 hours. Where else is it the LAW, that evidence of a crime is destroyed by the law enforcement

Given the evidence... it would seem the burden of proof isn't on those wanting so-called universal background checks... but on Gun Nuts and political extremists such as yourself

You may want to recheck your evidence. Only the records of lawful transfers are destroyed. Failed checks represent criminal activity and therefore those records are kept and used by the FBI for prosecution. At least that is the plan. Since the Obama administration has only seen fit to prosecute 88 out of 15,000 rejections last year, I am not sure they take the whole gun crime thing seriously.

Nice elucidation of fact instead of supposition Paeleo-con. Here is more info on ATF's failure to prosecute:

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/feb/03/mayors-agains...

"The group cited a 2004 Department of Justice review of enforcement of the Brady Act. The report found that ATF was referring "standard denial" cases to its field offices that "were not likely to be prosecuted." But it also said that historically, federal prosecutors "have been unsuccessful in achieving convictions in many of these cases and consequently have been unwilling to expend their limited resources on prosecuting" them."

Politifact choose to only call it a half-truth even though the numbers support the narrative.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 11:42 am

It is kind of silly for Obama to hit the airwaves proclaiming we need more gun control laws when he doesn't even prosecute the violators of the laws we already have. I am not sure how adding even more laws he will not enforce is going to help.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote micahjr34:

LysanderSpooner,

The only "gun control" I would favor is background checks for convicted felons and the mentally ill. I concede that there are laws already like this in most places, but they need to be enforced better.

Convicted felons are, by definition, in prison or have escaped from prison. Ex-felons, in my opinion, should have ALL of their rights restored when they get out of prison.

Since I don't accept mental illness as a real disease, I don't think what goes by the name mental illness should disqualify someone from their human rights. Being "mentally ill" is not a crime. Mentally ill persons have the same rights as everyone else. Or are you saying that a person should lose their rights without being prosecuted and convicted?

The laws should not be "enforced better". That's the mantra from the allegedly pro-gun Right. All gun laws should be repealed.

Quote micahjr34:

Trust me, as a person with a mental health issue, you do not want me to own a gun. If I ever try to purchase a gun, I think I should be put in jail. As a side issue, I personally refuse to own a tactical knive, even though I do not believe in "background checks" for knives.

There have been times when if I had a gun I might have shot myself, or even someone else due to hallucinations. People with certain types of mental illness should not be allowed to own a gun, period.

If you don't want a gun because you don't trust yourself, don't get one. I'm not saying gun ownership should be mandatory.

I believe suicide is a fundamental right and a failed attempt at it should not result in imprisonment.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

LysanderSpooner,

This is an issue of responsibility, not rights. Being denied ownership of a gun is part of being punished for a felony. If you deem this to be unacceptable "force," then you can just go on being that way and fight for it politically. I will be there to vote for someone else, no insult intended.

As for mental illness, it is also about responsibility. People with such have a diminished capacity to use judgment skills. When a person is intoxicated with alcohol, their judgment skills are severely diminished. It is not "force" to deny someone who is drunk the driving of a car. In the same sense it is not "force" to deny someone insane the use of a gun. If you wish to split hairs, I can see a position that such people can own a gun as long as it is in someone else's safekeeping to make sure that it isn't used. However, when dealing with someone who is severely delusional/homicidal, if you put a gun in their hands and they shoot someone with it, it is not their fault primarily. It would be yours. Again, no insult intended.

LysanderSpooner, I just going to have to let you call me a violent person. If I am near someone who is psychotic and with a gun, I will take it away from them or call the police and let them take it away from that person. Clearly, you would call that an initiation of force. I am just going to have to let you say that. I don't know how this will change things between us in our correspondence, but I think that it can still be mutual and equivalent in exchange. However, I must say that responsibility is a great part of freedom. Those people who sell or otherwise give a gun to mentally ill person and if that person shoots someone with it, the seller/giver is responsible. The mentally ill person by definition is not responsible already.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 3:57 pm

LysanderSpooner,

You may question my statement about how I should go to jail if I try to purchase a gun. This is because of the fact that I even though I can experience hallucinations and a diminished judgment skill level, I have reached the point that if I do have an episode I know enough to know that I should stay away from guns. Therefore, even if I am having an episode of delusions/hallucinations/diminished capacity, I would be at least partially responsible with a gun. There are many people who are so diminished in their judgment capacity that they can't even be held responsible at that level.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 3:57 pm

LysanderSpooner,

I believe that it is morally acceptable to "initiate force," that is to "strike the first blow" before another person strikes at me, IF an attack is imminent. To clarify, the status of an imminent attack is when a person is so motivated and armed to attack me, or anybody else, that attacking them constitutes "self defense," even though the imminent attacker hasn't attacked yet!

The majority of time, mental illness/reduced capacity of responsibility does not constitute an imminent attack. When I talk about mental illness and guns (or any other weapon like a gun!) I am talked about a person so insane that the very moment they have a gun or other weapon on their person, their actions could be considered an imminent threat.

If I were having a major episode of hallucinations/diminished capacity and I had a weapon, you could consider violent actions on your part to be self defense, even if I haven't attacked you yet.

I must clarify that not all, if not most, mental illness is violent in nature. When it comes to background checks, I support listing people who are so sick that if allowed to handle a weapon (gun in this case...) that the moment they pick it up, their use of it could be considered imminent towards anyone and everyone around them.

Also, like I said, I find nothing wrong with someone owning a gun if mentally ill in this manner as long as it is in someone else's safekeeping, to prevent its abuse and insane misuse.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 3:57 pm
Quote Dexterous:Now you know that is not true. Whatever you think of the NRA they have absolutely nothing to gain by this ridiculous question.
So are you now officially out of the shadows?

Since when is my being rash in this ONE instance, absolve the NRA of all its sins? I've already made my argument in my early posts here. Those points... some questions, stand even if I was wrong about this specific aspect of NICS. The NRA has become a socially irresponsible group.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

I don't hide in the shadows. I try to live in a world of common sense. Your ongoing banter with firearm owner, with both of you interpreting your version of the Constitution, is fascinating to see how far apart two sides can be, especially since neither of you were there at it's creation.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 8:35 am
Quote Dexterous:I don't hide in the shadows. I try to live in a world of common sense. Your ongoing banter with firearm owner, with both of you interpreting your version of the Constitution, is fascinating to see how far apart two sides can be, especially since neither of you were there at it's creation.
Hiding in the shadows? Your first drive-by pot shot at me suggest otherwise... since as far as I could tell it was your first post here. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not really rocket science... yet it's not claim one can know history with perfect certainty. One needs some guidelines. The question then becomes whether one's theories are supported by the evidence, and which theory explains more of seemingly disparate evidence. Also not to make the mistakes usually found in such discussions such as if some historical said X, then X must have made it into the Constitution when the Constitution, itself, suggests otherwise.

But it's not all a fog. If someone claims, for example, the constitutional authorization for the 1798 Disabled Seamen's Act come from various military clauses... and we'll find this proof if we just read it... and yet NOTHING in the Act mentions ANY hint of the military... then that person can OBJECTIVELY be seen as full of shit. Worst if they then refuse to concede and instead will write 60 posts of excuses why he's still correct. This is what FO brings to the table.

So such discussion aren't hopeless if one is willing to incorporate new info into their theories. One just needs to have some respect for where the puzzle takes them and incorporate new evidence into their arguments. For example I've moved more towards the theory that the Framers might have intended the Militias to be the armed counterweight to the standing army. But the theory still has problems. Just because Madison, Hamilton, and others like Gerry talk of it... I've yet to see what the legal mechanism is... which is why I started a new thread on the topic... and I'm still waiting for Gun Nuts to weigh in.

What I DO have problems with are how current right wing politics want to deny the Ninth has any meaning... you remember Bork's inkblot statement. This satisfies social conservatives who fear the Ninth would protect rights they don't want us to have. But politics also demands the Right find the right to self protection somewhere to satisfy gun owners. So they ignore the militia clause in the Second.

I'm not a fan of the Constitution. It's antidemocratic and virtually reform-proof. It's created an intellectually braindead political system. My only concern is understanding it. I have no need to bastardize it to provide the illusion it supports my politics. That's a game those who pretend to respect the Constitution play.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Argue with the supreme court, not with me. When they say otherwise, I will abide by their decision. I respect your thoughts, but they have no relevance until you convince the highest court in the land otherwise. Until then, relax.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 8:35 am
Quote Dexterous:Argue with the supreme court, not with me. When they say otherwise, I will abide by their decision. I respect your thoughts, but they have no relevance until you convince the highest court in the land otherwise. Until then, relax.
And I suppose NO ONE has any disputes with USSC decisions? Still waiting for some explanation of how corporations have achieved legal personhood.

The court has been hijacked by the far Right that's been packing it with Neanderthals for the past 30 years. They don't do my thinking for me... and neither do you. If you don't like these discussions... don't read them. Your problem is solved.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

First dex, the NRA represents gun sellers and gun makers. The more possible gun owners, even felons and nutcases, the more demand, and therefore higher prices. Second, on the founders and intent, we have the constitution, militia clause, the 2nd amdt, and the Militia Act signed by Pres. Geo. Washington.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm

LysanderSpooner, In response to your specific comments about suicide,

All I can say is that, yes, speaking strictly in terms of law, suicide could be allowed. However, the person commiting suicide has the responsibility to make sure that they put no else in danger in the process of their suicide, and that they do not leave a huge mess for someone else to have to clean up, both figuratively and literally.

This is a moral/legal gray zone, especially when guns are concerned. The second statement is ethical, the first statement could need to be law. If a person wants to commit suicide with a gun, they have the responsibility to make sure that they hurt no one else in the process of their suicide. A violently delusional/homocidal person is by definition diminshed in the capacity to be responsible with their actions, but speaking in a legal sense, if such a person truly can make sure that no one else is put in danger by their suicide method, then I must unfortunately say that the law can't stop them.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 3:57 pm

"The Saddest Thing Is This Won't Be Breaking News"

Thom plus logo As the world burns, and more and more fossil fuels are being used every day planet-wide, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels passed 416 ppm this week at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. In the 300,000 years since the emergence of modern humans, carbon dioxide levels have never been this high.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system