See if our Paparazzi cameras caught you or your friends at any recent events around town.
Shot by Dan
“But people that are worried about unborn babies are the same ones that vote against kindergarten programs in Indiana or school lunch funds out of the federal government.”
Birch Bayh
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
72 COMMENTS
Name is required
A valid email is required (test@test.com)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.
♫♫ So it’s One – Two – Three – what are we fighting
for? ♫♫
AFGHAN WAR WHISTLEBLOWER DANIEL DAVIS: ‘I had to speak out – lives are at stake’
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 14 April 2012
Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis claims US generals are lying to the public about the military campaign in Afghanistan – writing a detailed report claiming US generals ‘have so distorted the truth … the truth has become unrecognisable’
He had built up a picture of a hopeless cause; a country where Afghan soldiers were incapable of holding on to American gains. US soldiers would fight and die for territory and then see Afghan troops let it fall to the Taliban. Often the Afghans actively worked with the Taliban or simply refused to fight. One Afghan police officer laughed in Davis’s face when asked if he ever tried to fight the enemy. “That would be dangerous!” the man said.
The report detailed an alarming picture of Taliban advances and spiraling violence. Afghan security forces were unwilling or unable to fight, or actively aiding the enemy. That picture was contrasted with repeated rosy statements from US military leaders.
Yet at the same time Davis saw America’s military chiefs, such as General David Petraeus, constantly speak about America’s successes, especially when working with local troops.
The document was also damning about the role of the US media in reporting the war. He said the media were obsessed with getting “access” to military bases and generals and tempered reporting in order to maintain that situation. “Most of the media just takes the talking points and repeats them,” he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/14/afghan-war-whisleblower-daniel-davis
Thanks for the quote from Birch Bayh. He was, for 18 years, a U.S. Senator from Indiana. As a high school student in 1962 I worked as a volunteer in his first campaign for the Senate. Google the song Hey Look Me Over sometime and you’ll maybe find his campaign song.
He was a brilliant legal scholar. The last two amendments to the Constitution were written by him. Had Jimmy Carter been elected to a second term Bayh would have been sitting on the Supreme Court today.
Okay, I’m back, by now most of you know I am a gun owner, and that I am in favor of a few common sense regulations on the ownership and use of them.
In no way am I “anti”, when it comes to firearms, I am in agreement with the 2nd. amendment, I believe we as Americans have the right to “keep and bear arms.”
Having said that, I do think we could put into place, a few restrictions designed to keep firearms out of the hands of the folks who really shouldn’t have access to them. We can argue all day on how many guns a person should be able to buy a month, the capacity of our magazines, and whether or not the average citizen should have military style weapons.
Here is a common sense law that we should put in place sooner rather than later, and I can’t understand why anyone would be against this.
Any and all gun sales, private or otherwise, should be subject to an instant background check before the sale or transfer of a firearm could take place.
We all should know gun sales by private citizens, whether at home, flea markets, yard sales, and yes even at gun shows is one way a convicted felon can get a firearm, all that is needed is a hand full of dollars and they can have a gun in seconds.
This has absolutely nothing to do with taking our guns, It has everything to do with trying to keep guns out of the hands of the folks who really shouldn’t have them.
I’m know that there are those who are against any rule or law concerning firearms, saying “it’s just another step in taking our guns”, but we know that’s just a bunch of hooey!
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16207670
Bush’s fault.
Birch Bayh was also a primary sponsor of the Equal Rights Amendment which passed both houses of Congress but was not ratified by the states. He also proposed eliminating the Electoral College, but was unsuccessful in his efforts. He also was one of the legislative leaders in the Congress advocating on behalf of Title IX of the Higher Education Act which assured women of equal rights in higher education.
See what the current Republicans are trying to do with equal rights for women.
http://www2.nationalmemo.com/faking-it-right-wing-republicans-and-womens-rights/
Another example of what the Republicans have in mind if they win this fall.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-12/ryan-s-cuts-diss-the-republican-party-s-founders.html
Just a little federal tax history. Couldn’t resist.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-13/have-the-rich-ever-paid-a-fair-share-of-taxes-part-1-.html
This is what Republicans do when they lose seats in Congress.
http://www.propublica.org/article/behind-closed-doors-broadcasters-battle-online-disclosure-of-political-ad-b
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/tell-us-more-about-romneys-private-views/2012/04/13/gIQA0Jz5ET_blog.html
Here is an interesting article on the GOP “candidate” that should clarify to all the complete and utter failure of Mitt Romney to stand for anything. Even Romney’s own internal advisers are unable to hide the lack of reconcile between the public statements he has made and his private views.
I think my choice in this election is just about complete. I do not agree with President Obama on every issue. But contrasted against the total lack of leadership that Romney represents and his absolute ambiguity on any issue, Obama represents the only sane choice for America. Hate me if you want to fellow Conservatives, I have had enough of the Kool-Aid. A vote for Romney is a vote for…. well, we just don’t know do we?
Ed
And for the record: I voted for John McCain, Bush 43 (two times), Bob Dole, Bush 41, and Reagan (two times).
The gnawing feeling of apprehension I have been having for the the last 25 years watching this once great conservative party dissolve before my eyes is disappearing.
Please do the right thing for America, vote for a man that actually has beliefs that don’t change depending on his zip code.
You may fire when ready.
I’m disappointed / not surprised
http://tinyurl.com/c2gjyv9
**
Obama: Legalizing drugs not the answer to fighting trafficking
By Christi Parsons
April 14, 2012, 9:59 a.m.
CARTAGENA, Colombia — President Obama said Saturday that he is open to a debate about current drug laws but that he believes legalizing narcotics could lead to even greater problems in those countries hardest hit by trafficking and violence.
Obama told Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos on Saturday that he is willing to discuss whether current laws are “doing more harm than good.”
But “legalization is not the answer,” Obama said.
SNIP
**
“Had Jimmy Carter been elected to a second term Bayh would have been sitting on the Supreme Court today.”
I guess that means that turd brain Scalia would never have gotten on the court. It woulda been a two-fer!
@1,
What is so surprising about any of what you wrote? Anyone with half a brain could recognize and should have already known the circumstances.
And as far as ““Most of the media just takes the talking points and repeats them”, well that can be said for home and abroad.
Randy Mays, excellent suggestion for a fair gun law that would indeed keep many more guns out of the hands of criminals. There is no good reason to oppose it.
Ron, thanks for the honesty that is always needed and appreciated.
Dave Hicks, I agree with President Obama. There is more to the “war on drugs” than just the American perspective.
Ed, your clarity is rare for any partisan and your honesty is a beautiful thing. President Obama is hardly the leader I had hoped could do more to unite this nation, I fear there is no such leader. But just as McCain/Plain was not a plausible choice for this nation, Romney will never be what this nation needs. Despite popular opinion, I love this nation more than any party, candidate or even my own life. In the spirit of your own honesty, I would have voted for McCain myself if he had chosen a good partner, so that the division I saw coming would not have happened. I never felt this nation was ready for a black President and nothing that has happened since has changed my mind.
I guess we would blame this on Obama.
http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/13/11182024-gas-prices-could-head-lower-for-summer?lite
Hope you’ve had a great time in Annapolis Dan!!
Well what do you know?? Who would have thunk it??
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/13/11186623-taxpayers-to-make-money-on-tarp-treasury-says?lite
Why am I not surprised?? Another instance of not really wanting the electorate to know the truth about him.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/13/11187658-under-pressure-from-obama-romney-asks-for-extension-on-taxes?lite
Rob Thommins@1:20
Not sure what the point was of that comment. There was nothing in the link you provided that ascribed fault over that situation with North Korea to anybody. If anything, it simply ppionted out that nothing has changed between the Bush administration and the Obama administration in terjms of getting the N. Korens to do anything. Did yu even read the article behind your own link?
Ron
Every link you have posted continues to point out the simple truth that Romney has no core and that the Republicans would do notyhing but take us back to the conditions that existed in the second half of 2008 and then double down on it making things far worse.
@10. Welcome to the club Ed. I have never voted democrat in a presidential election in my life. My first vote was for Reagan. I was lead by GOP fear for the next 12 years or so. Then I voted 3rd party 3 times in protest. Nader twice and good ‘ol Ross Perot. (I admit to voting for Bush in 2000 but not in 2004.) The GOP we have today is off the rails bat crap crazy. What choice do we really have but to vote for the devil we know? Given a congress that will work with Obama I think he can deliver on his promises of 2008. When you have one party (GOP) committed to stonewalling any legislation simply to torpedo the president I cannot react in any way but to vote to remove the obstructionist. (GOP)
This November I will be voting for every democrat on my ballot. They gotta be better than the idiots in Richmond and Congress we have today.
Hint to Democrats. Get busy, or miss a golden opportunity to turn Virginia “Blue”
@16,
Gas prices could head lower for summer? No crap Sherlock, they could also increase.
There is always a chance for anything. I sure would like to see lower gas prices with my daily commute.
Re: #3
First, welcome back.
How do you propose that private transfer (gifts, wills, loans, private sales, etc) be run through a background check? How do I as a private citizen get access to the mechanisms of background checks? Also. what would the requirements for record keeping be?
BTW, is that one record check or both a federal and a state check? Were I giving or willing multiple firearms to my son would that be one check for the lot or one for each firearm?
FWIIW, a seminal study on where criminals were getting their guns ( http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf ) showed that in 1997 only 1.7% of the guns possessed during the current offense
of State prison inmates were obtained at gun shows and flea markets.
Willard “Gordon Gekco” Romney does have a core. He supports the Ryan Budget plan for 2013 which would gut social programs for those most in need while cutting taxes for those who in my opinion need to pony up in this time of Americas need:
“There is a strange moral vacuum in the redistribution of wealth policy that Ryan and the Republicans are trying to implement. What sort of society are they attempting to create?
If you follow the Republican budget line to some sort of conclusion, their policies only exaggerate what the government does to benefit the rich, at the expense of the poor. Is the goal to create a two class society? Ryan’s plan changes the tax code, but does little to nothing to reduce the deficit. Therefore, the argument that it is all being done in the name of fiscal responsibility is a travesty.
What the right-wing radicals have been trying to do is change the rules for acceptable moral behavior in 21st century America. Their message is clear; the safety nets of the New Deal must be stripped away because helping the weak is not worth paying for. The Republican message says giving more money to the rich is money better spent than wasting it on the poor.”
Excerpt from: http://www.allvoices.com/political-news
Yes, Willard does have core core. The problem is his core is “rotten to the core.”
100 Years Ago Tonight.
I’d like to tag onto what Ed and Cold n P said about voting for the Democratic ticket this November.
At my age, I have seen women accomplish some amazing things and it’s time to band together and do it again. Ladies, it is imperative that you vote against the GOP agenda and that you talk to every woman you can to convince them to vote against it as well. It is nothing short of a war on women. (I’m not even going to get into the class warfare issue.) The GOP is not our only enemy, however. Complacency is an enemy as well. We write posts saying, “No way will Romney win”, or “the GOP is definitely out this year”, but we cannot assume as such. We have to mobilize and make it happen.
Re: #24
Mr. Hicks, I would suggest the check would be just as it is today, a simple phone call to the state police of whatever state the sale is taking place in. One check,(call), for single or multiple gun transactions to the same person, with the same simple form in use today, which I would hope would be attainable from online downloads, firearms dealers, and even your local library, to be dropped off at your local police headquarters for safe keeping once the sale or transaction has taken place.
@ Randy Mays #3 post:
Well said Randy, I think we need to go a step further even and if you want to buy a gun, you have to prove, medically speaking, to be of sound mind and have no unstable incidents in the past. If that rule was in effect the VT shooting MIGHT not have happened. The NRA lobby would never stand for such impediments as it weakens their raison d’ etre.
@ Sandi Saunders #15 post:
We have some very similar views on things Sandi. I really got concerned for McCain when Bailin’ Palin was barbecued by Katie Couric’s rather simple question, but I held to my flawed GOP voting bias. Obama is a good man, and after the Medvedev microphone gaffe, I actually gained respect for him while many GOP inclined friends were telling me “see he’s crooked.” Far from it, it was diplomacy at it’s finest.
Despite my issues with certain things he does, we were ready for him as President, and 10 million more Americans agreed with that statement last election than the GOP choice. Hopefully the novelty of a black man in the WH fades and the President can sharpen his agenda this time around.
@ CnP #22 post:
I probably would have voted for Ross Perot, but he didn’t have a lot of depth behind his well intentioned platform. I remember Perot hated lobbyists, so I respected him for that! His VP choice hurt him, as well as his offhand “you people” comment.
At this point, I hope Obama pulls off a 90% electoral vote landslide like Reagan did in 1980. Might make the GOP reconsider having such a paltry mix of real choices.
I still think Ron Paul is the best of the GOP group, but no real chance to win it. The message will live on, hopefully in a more moderate form. But his non-interventionist military stance is particularly appealing me and I am a Vet so I can tell you- it is long overdue. Jingoism is burying us.
As Dave said before, RP’s dismantling of the Federal system might be a little extreme. Especially at this economic juncture. He just appeals to me from an ideological standpoint. I have my libertarian leanings, but Dan correctly stated that a pure Lib society would never work. We have to strike a balance somehow, hard to do when the rhetoric is so coarse and polarized these days.
Have a great Sunday folks.
@ Dave Hicks #12:
I was also disappointed in Obama’s comments about ending the drug war but let’s face it if he had shown any positive agreement, the GOP would have been castrating him the next day in the media.
He also recently has ordered a DEA crackdown on MMJ clinics in California but it has not been as overbearing as it has been portrayed, but he did go back on a previous statement not to.
Refer to his comment to Medvedev and hope the mounting international pressure for a real, managed solution finally takes hold.
No, Ed…we don`t know because he is not in office yet. But with obama, we know exactly what we/children of tomorrow WILL GET….Marxism, Communism….Can`t you people do it for yourselves ? Why do you feel the need to have the Government regulating every aspect of your life ?
Oh, and yes….lets continue to spend more $$ than we have….I`m sure thats how all of you participating in this `open thread` balance your budgets at home…Isn`t it ? Harry Reid and the liberal led Senate haven`t passed a budget since 2008…OVER 1100 days ?????? So, please…for all of those who favor $9.00/gal gas, 50-60% higher groceries to feed your kids, by all means…vote obama back in, because thats where its heading..obamas staff has said that our gas prices should be at the levels of that in Europe…Please, tell me where you are buying YOUR GAS and GROCERIES….Because of the prior letters, I have to assume that it is cheaper than anywhere else in the country….WAKE UP…YOUR CHILDREN WILL BE THE ONES TO SUFFER…..SOCIALISM IS NOTHING MORE THAN SHARED MISERY, AND HAS NEVER WORKED ANYWHERE !!!!!! Look at Americas 1st liberal socialist experiment…California….$220 BILLION in debt and they elect another `SPENDING` governor in Jerry Brown…no damned wonder the state has failed…Miserably….SOCIALISM ! So, all you little obama lambs vote him back in …then its off to the slaughter…the next time you fall for some `Hopey Changey ` crap, make sure that it doesn`t directly affect the lives of YOUR CHILDREN….thier future is in YOUR HANDS !!!!
There’s a good editorial about Occupy Roanoke in the RT today. I’m going to try to finish my chores and head to their anniversary thing in Elmwood Park this afternoon starting at 1 pm.
Jeff Doto,
You sounds like one of those folks who are brimming with confidence that Obama won’t be re-elected, Good for you!
Would you care to wager a lunch on the outcome of the election?
Doto another fox spewer with no grasp on what Marxism and communism actually are. Obamas a little too far to the right for my taste, but to each his own.
And Romney can’t beat him.
#32 OMG, the SOCIALIST sky IS FALLing…!!! … !!!
And JeffDoto, for the record, I wouldn’t put my childrens’ future in the hands of the dysfunctional, woman-hating, war-mongering resource-squandering environment-hating bottom-feeding Republican party on a bet. The first presidential ballot I ever cast was for Reagan’s second term, and I STILL feel guilty about it. I’ve not made the mistake of voting GOP since, nor do I plan on it in the future.
Somethings are too real to be funny but still stimulate a good chuckle:
http://tinyurl.com/4yh6mlv
32. You need to have a better understanding of monetary economics, the federal debt, and taxation in the US, and the history of infrastucture investment in the US. No policies by Obama including ACA remotely approch socialism and all policies taken and asked for support sound economics for a vibrant but appropriately regulated free market economy.
Doto@32 posted, “Harry Reid and the liberal led Senate haven`t passed a budget since 2008″
Did you miss the 2010 elections when the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives? Not the most intelligent group of legislators, however, as the majority, they do have a hand in the budget…did you conveniently forget that? And for a period of time in office George W. Bush had a majority of Republicans in Congress ….what happened then? And during Bush, gas prices were above $4.00 per gallon/regular. Did you say anything then?
Probably not – hypocrite.
Re: #28
BTW, its Dave. Or as some still say daveh.
Originally, I added the “h” to distinguish me from the other dave, who was already a regular. Then when there were disparaging remarks made about folk hiding behind anonymous IDs, I added my last name.
But back to your post:
I believe that some states do not have such a system, and IIRC I have to fill out both state and federal SF 4473 at FFL dealers, here in Virginia.
As far as I know, neither the Feds or VA SP would provide that access and information to someone without a FFL number. I suspect there might be a privacy issue involved in letting anyone to check on others without some level of reasonable control.
However, I am mostly focusing on your proposal that the sales records are “to be dropped off at your local police headquarters for safe keeping once the sale or transaction has taken place.”
Now that raises the ante a bit, IMHO.
The current record of a background check is not a record of a sale. Post-sale records are kept by the FFL dealer, IIRC.
For example, I could drive a couple of hours to a gun show and might want to buy “x” from a dealer who has driven a couple of hours to the show from the other direction. Given that extensive delays are being experienced of late, he may not get approval until after I leave. (BTW, the go-ahead-pending-approval is measured in business-days.) Not wanting to drive an eight hours round-trip to pick it up once he gets approval or to go through the multiple FFL process involved in mailing it, the deal falls through. Or I might find another dealer closer to home that beats the first dealer’s price. Or maybe the first dealer receives an offer from someone exempt from background check under 27 CFR § 178.102(d).
Also, IIRC, Sections C & D of the SF 4473 are not completed prior to the time of the request for approval oe submitted with it — but rather at the time of or immediately prior to the subsequent actual transfer the firearm, which could be days later and maintained by the FFL dealer.
Hence, the current form is not a record of actual sale in the governments’ approval databases nor is it linked to any particular firearm in that database.
So, IMHO, your proposal contains a new form of information on individuals being maintained by goverment — not just a simple extension of background checks just as it is today.
In my mind there could be additional unintended consequences. For example, party “a” files the form in one LEO jurisdiction. Then that buyer files in a second jurisdiction. The firearm subsequently shows up at a crime scene and is traced to party “a” and party “b” cannot be located (for what ever reason). Would there be a legal presumption that party “a” made an illegal sale, knowingly? Also, given the recent debacle of Sheriff Hunt’s evidence and record keeping and other news of that sort, I suspect that there are a variety of ways that honest folk could be exposed to wrongful prosecution as a result of no fault of their own.
BTW, the a seminal study on where criminals were getting their guns ( http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf ), which I refereed to earlier, strongly suggest that background checks only switched the processes of criminals obtaining guns from prominently a “Lie & Buy” process to prominently a “straw purchases” process and/or unaccounted FFL inventory shrinkage — with 78.8% coming from friends and family and street/illegal sources. Another 11.1% were obtained directly from FFL dealers in spite of background checks. (BTW, just follow the news as to DMV employe arrest and other false ID crimes). Hence, the study suggest that 89.9% of the guns in criminals hands would not have been effected by any extension of background checks “just as it is today.”
IMHO the only change the proposal would make in the flow of firearms to criminals would be an increase in straw-purchases sale, in false ID crimes, and in black market activities (along with the accompanying violence a la any prohibition).
As always, YMMV. However, IMHO, the proposal seem “a solution in search of a problem” or camouflage for something such else such as a de facto registration system.
Re: #29
Well said Randy, I think we need to go a step further even and if you want to buy a gun, you have to prove, medically speaking, to be of sound mind and have no unstable incidents in the past. If that rule was in effect the VT shooting MIGHT not have happened.
———
Ed,
How would one “prove, medically speaking, to be of sound mind and have no unstable incidents” that exceeds the new reporting requirements Virginia implemented after the VT tragedy? Medical situations and interactions such as Seung-Hui Cho’s are now considered in the background checks — assuming the medical professionals follow the law.
Are you shifting the burden of proof? What would you envision as adequate proof?
Outstanding read on “Controlling Financial Chaos, and the Role of Law and Regulation”
http://tinyurl.com/85glfpx
I particularly
liked:
**
If one starts, after all, from a view that regulators can do anything effectively and well, provided they are given the unfettered discretion to do so, and the ability to ignore mere politics, then life is pretty sweet – or, anyway, intellectually easy. If, on the other hand, one starts from a radical skepticism about the ability of regulators to do anything effectively, and moreover an unfettered faith that there are no market failures and that “private ordering” will always work, then life is also pretty sweet – or at least intellectually easy. But that doesn’t describe how most of us understand the regulatory situation, which involves both market-fail and regulatory-fail, and tradeoffs between different forms of regulation, public ordering and private ordering.
**
Dave, I didn’t say I had all the answers on how to implement this policy, nothing would change as far as FFL dealers, they would do just as they do today.
What I suggested, was the same sort of checks that dealers perform now could be made available for private citizens who wish to sell a firearm, so as to keep the wrong people from obtaining them through private sales.
It is just another step to keep firearms out of the wrong hands, and it would narrow their abilities to acquire them, and it does nothing to infringe on the rights of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms!.
It may mean different systems in other states, but each state could figure out what works best for them.
As for the buyer, once they have been approved for the transfer, they would have to do nothing more, just as it is now, they wouldn’t have to file anything anywhere.
I think we as a society could figure out a way to accomplish this, as to who and where the records are kept, I don’t know but I’m sure we can figure that out too.
As far as the seller being held responsible, or liable, for what takes place with the firearm after the sale, assuming the seller followed the proper procedures, and the buyer was approved, the seller could not be held accountable. Just like FFL dealers are not held accountable for the unlawful use of a firearm that was sold lawfully by them.
It seems to be a simple concept, and we as gun owners and society as a whole, could put our minds together to figure out the details, in a civil manner IMO.
I dispute the survey of criminals as to where they got their guns Dave Hicks.
“Gun shows. Gun shows were a major trafficking channel, involving the second highest number of trafficked guns per investigation (more than 130), and associated with approximately 26,000 illegally diverted firearms. The investigations involved both licensed and unlicensed sellers at gun
shows.”
FOLLOWING THE GUN: ENFORCING FEDERAL LAWS AGAINST FIREARMS TRAFFICKERS
I think the BATFE and people with a modicum of common sense could form and manage this single best way to get guns out of the hands that should not have them. How anyone can oppose that is telling.
Dave H, your own link says that “Friends or family” supply 39.6% of the guns criminals used (in 1997). If those people had to file a report when that gun changed hands, they would be much less likely to supply a gun to a criminal IMO. That alone is huge. Tracking the guns is defacto registration but it is also a much better way to keep guns out of the wrong hands and assure the rights remain for the right hands. Why ANY gun advocate wants guns in the wrong hands, especially if it will have no effect on your own purchases and activities remains a mystery to me.
If we do not go after the crooked FFL’s, the straw buyers, the family suppliers and the illegal transactions, we cannot stop the carnage. There is no other way to do that than tracking the gun and penalizing people who will not do so. Why are you asking us to accept the level of loss and mayhem when we do not have to? How does stopping guns before they get into the hands of criminals infringing on your right to own and carry a guns? How is tracking guns infringing on your right to keep and bear arms in any way? Where is the right not to track a gun in the Constitution? This alone would get so much pressure as well as carnage off of lawful, law abiding, responsible gun owners.
Interesting interactive map:
http://www.tracetheguns.org/#
“27.2% of Virginia’s Guns Have a Short Time-to-Crime
The percentage of guns recovered in a crime within two years of original sale — a strong indicator of gun trafficking.
National Average: 22.6%”
And here is why this is so important in getting guns out of the wrong hands.
http://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-etrace.html
Sandi,
The NRA crowd believes BATF is part of the conspiracy to seize everyone’s gun.
Dave Hicks on 100% background checks:
“the proposal seem “a solution in search of a problem” or camouflage for something such else such as a de facto registration system.”
Perfectly said.
“Where is the right not to track a gun in the Constitution?”
That’s not how it works and you know it. Where is the government’s right to track a gun in the Constitution?
I strongly disapprove of that idea that the burden of proof should be on a prespective gun purchaser to prove his or her mental health in the abscence of a documented, preexisting problem. This is guilt until proven innocence.
Dan and Sandi, the BATFE is corrupt. I think we’d be better off dissolving it. Why on earth is there a bureau for alcohol… tobacco…. firearms… and explosives…???? This reminds me of the old “video and tanning” stores. Another odd combination that nothing to do with one another.
Randy, if there was no way to register or track the guns and we would get carry EVERYWHERE we can lawfully be, I could go for a 100% background check so long as the new control angle wasn’t to pile more onto the background check to exclude as many transfers as possible. If the check is going to be 100% and at the federal level, then logically, they should make reciprocity of the CHP for all 50 states and DC…. like driver’s licenses are now.
I could work with your 100% of sales having a background check.
“Interesting interactive map:
http://www.tracetheguns.org/#
“27.2% of Virginia’s Guns Have a Short Time-to-Crime
The percentage of guns recovered in a crime within two years of original sale — a strong indicator of gun trafficking.
National Average: 22.6%””
This is why they needed to undo the one-gun-a-month law. We’ve fallen behind Georgia, Alabama and Texas in terms terms of state of origin of guns used in Florida crimes. Virginia is determined to be #1!
“Virginia is determined to be #1!”
Despite what many want to think, we’re only 35th in dealer purchases.
http://tinyurl.com/7zm8nxs
Re: #s 45, 46, 47
What I’m saying is that the criminals changed their procurement process from “Lye and Buy” to something else — primarily the “straw-purchase” when the backgrounds check went into effect. And when “straw-purchase” procurement dries up they will change their procurement process, yet again.
I pointed out at comment #41 “with 78.8% coming from friends and family and street/illegal sources” much or most of which is fed by “straw purchases.” So, I fail to understand your citing my own reference back at me. IMHO I identified a larger element of procurement process using the route to the criminal via “straw-purchases.”
My contention is that expanding background checks will not stop the carnage and mayhem.
IMHO, the criminal element will adapt and feed its own demand just as they did in Prohibition. I am quite convinced that the nearer we get to prohibition the unintended consequences of shutting down the source will be far more carnage and mayhem.
In earlier threads I pointed out and provided citations for the already existing links between the international criminal enterprises organization, the black-market, the resulting violence, etc. Go back and read those threads. I provide documentation of these intertwined criminal enterprises smuggling and black-marketing drugs, guns, cigarette, slaves (used in the sex trade), etc. What they supply and where they supply it, worldwide, is a function of demand.
As to carnage, consider just one factor. Very, very few fully-automatic small arms are available in this country via straw-purchases. Very few fully-automatic small arms are currently used by criminals. What few are in criminal hands tend to be smuggled in from outside our borders. Now, picture the criminal’s demand for small arms in the US going up because the domestic source of “straw purchases” is drying up. What do you think is going to be smuggled in across our porous borders, as much of the production outside the US is fully auto and some three burst.
Here is a snapshot of availability of small arms to be be tapped for smuggling into the US as it becomes more profitable for the international criminal enterprises organization:
**
The total annual value of global legal trade in small arms is estimated to be about USD 4 billion. In addition to these legal transactions, small arms are regularly traded on the black market. The illicit trade may be worth about 1 billion USD per year.
**
– from the International Red Cross
Which cites
Small Arms Survey 2002: Counting the Human Cost, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, p 109 & p. 112.
Small Arms Survey 2001: Profiling the Problem, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001, p. 145.
——–
BTW, I do not know of any Pro-less-restrictions-on-the-RKBA advocates wants guns in the wrong hands. IMHO that is just a red herring.
Many of us suggest that efforts patterned on Project Exile (See: http://tinyurl.com/cgnp6jl ) and Virginia Exile would actually address the problem. (Note: Dan has pointed out the NRA and Brady Campaign supported this approach.)
True, some pro-gun rights groups opposed Project Exile, itself, as “demonized” the firearm. However, that could be easily fixed by expanding the application to any illegal weapon.
IMHO, the objection based on a 10A issues could be fixed by adopting State Law patterned on Project Exile and covering all weapons listed in § 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry.
Why not work together for something that might work?
“I am quite convinced that the nearer we get to prohibition the unintended consequences of shutting down the source will be far more carnage and mayhem.”
This is true. The more a regular guns cost, the larger percentage of them will be owned by criminals. Drugs and alcohol are perfect examples on each side of the law.
Could you two be more deliberately fronting?
Show me where I, or Randy offered the “idea that the burden of proof should be on a prespective gun purchaser to prove his or her mental health in the abscence of a documented, preexisting problem”? That is just a lie.
Oh get over yourselves the BATFE is not “corrupt”, although I am sure they are not your biggest fan either. You alone could justify their existence, your certainty of violence on every corner needs to be explored.
You do not get to set the terms. If we “follow the gun” and make certain of every gun sale, the laws on where you carry and how will not change. The Constitution does not say we cannot restrict only not infringe your right. ALL rights have restrictions, ALL of them.
One would think by now you would know that whether you “work with” us or not, the day is coming. Evidence clearly is that waiting to punish the crime is not working out well for us. We have no choice as a society but to stop the straw purchases and undocumented sales and we have to do it sooner rather than later. Tracking the gun is the BEST way to ensure law abiding citizens keep their guns and their rights to them. I cannot fathom that gun advocates cannot see that.
But then again, thinking every organization but your own is “corrupt” and that everyone not a gun zealot is an “anti” might be the answer. Unless you have a better solution, it sure looks like you are fronting for the criminals to keep their guns too.
I did not say that extending the background check alone is the answer. It is the beginning, just like the first implementation was. The next logical step is to “follow the gun”.
Guns will have to be registered and anyone with an unregistered gun has consequences to pay irregardless of any other crime being committed. THAT is crime prevention.
Guns are a commodity and no, we can never stop them all from getting into the wrong hands, that is a pipe dream, but continuing to fight common sense laws that aim to lessen and mitigate criminals with guns should be the goal for us ALL. Your arguments do not argue for that, you want the SOSO after the crime, increased punishment. It is kinda like arguing the death penalty or life in prison is a “deterrent”.
The facts are yet again, not with you. If you want to use the lowering crime rates, that one works against you as well as it means even less reason to be armed everywhere you go.
Sandi:
“Show me where I….offered…[idea x]”
Sandi, this may come as a surprise, but neither Dave Hicks nor I exclusively address you with every post. I do not speak for him, but you seem to think you speak for your fellow lefties. Sometimes he and I are addressing the ideas for the benefit of all to read and comment.
“The Constitution does not say we cannot restrict only not infringe your right. ALL rights have restrictions, ALL of them.”
We’ve already been over that fallacious argument. Next.
“Guns will have to be registered and anyone with an unregistered gun has consequences to pay irregardless of any other crime being committed. THAT is crime prevention.”
That was Hitler’s idea too…
“Guns are a commodity and no, we can never stop them all from getting into the wrong hands, that is a pipe dream, but…”
…but we should keep repeating the failed theft of liberty and expect different results. That’s “common sense”.
“It is kinda like arguing the death penalty or life in prison is a “deterrent”.”
If you think that’s a stupid argument get a load of this…. Virginia Tech thinks making the possession of a handgun in campus in a building punishable by a possible misdemeanor trespassing charge will deter mass murder!
“Guns will have to be registered and anyone with an unregistered gun has consequences to pay irregardless of any other crime being committed. THAT is crime prevention.”
That was Hitler’s idea too…
Comment by John Wilburn
This is incorrect. Inconveniently, John Wilburn has his gun history wrong. The “gun control” he’s talking about was a product of the Democratically elected Wehrmacht Republic, which preceded Hitler’s rise to power.
Yes, Dan. I misspoke. It was a borrowed “idea.” There is nothing new under the sun. Tyrants and dictators recycle just like evrything else. Obama’s “ideas” have been borrowed from wealth redistibutionists past too.
“Yes, Dan. I misspoke. It was a borrowed “idea.” There is nothing new under the sun. Tyrants and dictators recycle just like evrything else. Obama’s “ideas” have been borrowed from wealth redistibutionists past too.”
Gun rights supporters are fond of citing this so-called “fact” about Hitler. Some of them surely are doing it out of ignorance, such as John Wilburn. Others know it’s a lie yet they spout it anyway. Because they know that the more they repeat it, the more the uniformed will repeat it. They need to be called on it every time.
Better to “keep repeating the failed theft of liberty and expect different results” than to pretend we should keep repeating the after the fact clean up for public massacres and expect anyone to believe you care.
Is honesty and research not in you John Wilburn?
“Following Germany’s defeat in World War I, the Weimar Republic passed very strict gun control laws essentially banning all gun ownership, in an attempt both to stabilize the country and to comply with the Versailles Treaty of 1919. The Treaty of Versailles itself imposed severe gun restrictions on German citizens.
But even before the Treaty was signed, the German parliament of the Weimar Republic enacted legislation prohibiting gun possession. In January 1919, the Reichstag enacted legislation requiring the surrender of all guns to the government. This law, as well as the August 7, 1920, Law on the Disarmament of the People passed in light of the Versailles Treaty, remained in effect until 1928, when the German parliament enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition (April 12, 1928)-a law which relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. The licensing regulations foreshadowed Hitler’s rise to power-and in fact, some argue, were enacted precisely in order to prevent armed insurrection, such as Hitler’s attempted coup in Munich in 1923, as well as Hitler’s later rise to power”
Lies and the lying liars that tell them!
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=flr
“The Nazi-gun-registration argument is also a bit disorienting
because, at least whenever I have been to a gun show, there are
always displays of Nazi paraphernalia. The fringe pro-Nazi element in
this country has far more ties to the pro-gun community than it does
to the anti-gun community, and you are far more likely to see a
swastika at a gun show or a pro-gun rally than you are at the anti-gun
Million Mom March on the Washington Mall.”
Why not save your propaganda for the adoring masses who take your class and swallow.
Dan, I know the famous quote about registration is often incorrectly attributed to Hitler just as the essential liberty quote is not necessarily Benjamin Frankiln’s. The point remains. Tyrants think alike and you got the opportunity to throw at spear at me. Touche!
I got the name of the German Republic wrong, folks. Besides that, Sandi is correct: Hitler and the Nazis LIBERALIZED gun ownership in Germany by overturning laws enacted by a Democratically elected government (as opposed to Hitler, who was never elected to anything).
“The Nazi-gun-registration argument is also a bit disorienting
because, at least whenever I have been to a gun show, there are
always displays of Nazi paraphernalia.”
Gun shows have lots of collectile odds and ends. I’m sure you frequent them and know this. Kind of like the smear that was the small percentage of “dealers” who are licensed at gun shows. Yes, many of the tables are not licensed dealers, but that’s because you don’t need a FFL to sell t-shirts, cleaning supplies, gun cases, or all the other things that go with guns and their owners.
As for Hitler’s “ideas”, here is an interesting link:
http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/NaziLawEnglish.htm
Seriously John Wilburn, is English your secondary language? Please notice the quotation marks, italics, and the link I offered. I do not attend gun shows- I went to one and found it to be utterly depressing; “short man syndrome” on steroids IMO.
I gave you the truth and you fling back more distortions, typical. If you cannot lose gracefully, just move on to another thread the way most people do. I am starting to pity you.
Hitler had no problem with “the right Germans” having guns and his rise to power had nothing to do with the people being unarmed! Geeze.
“I’m a conservative, and Romney isn’t my favorite, so I’ll vote for the far-left radical socialist”.
Human nature doesn’t work like that. Sorry, Ed. Something’s fishy.
John Wilburn writes, “Gun shows have lots of collectile odds and ends. I’m sure you frequent them and know this. Kind of like the smear that was the small percentage of “dealers” who are licensed at gun shows. Yes, many of the tables are not licensed dealers, but that’s because you don’t need a FFL to sell t-shirts, cleaning supplies, gun cases, or all the other things that go with guns and their owners.”
Are you saying that there are no unlicensed(FFL) gun sellers at tables at the gun shows in and around Roanoke?
Why on earth would you know anything about “Human nature”? What smells here is Suzie, not Ed.
“Are you saying that there are no unlicensed(FFL) gun sellers at tables at the gun shows in and around Roanoke?”
No Phil, but I am saying that when the antis claim that some large-sounding number of exhibitors at the gun show don’t have an FFL, they’re right, but most of those are people who aren’t selling guns. Jeni, the chick that sells shell casing jewelry, does not sell guns. The guys selling books and manuals are not selling guns. VCDL and Second Tuesday Constitution Group have tables, but are not selling guns. There are a lot of these non-gun sellers that skew the numbers. Yes, there are guys selling stuff in their private collections, but they are far outnumbered by the dealers.
That shell casing jewelry is beautiful. Jeni is quite talented.
I want the .45 ACP tie tack!
Dan, the “pistol petals” are my favorite. They’re just plain sexy.