Thursday open thread
This is the ship of pearl, which, poets feign,
Sails the unshadowed main, –
The venturous bark that flings
On the sweet summer wind its purpled wings
In gulfs enchanted, where the Siren sings,
And coral reefs lie bare,
Where the cold sea-maids rise to sun their streaming hair.
What stately mansions will you visit today?
January 3, 2013 - 7:56 AM
Well, isn’t this special?!
As our friends here know, I’ve been looking into doing some type of gun buy-back with one of the groups I belong to.
I’ve made some calls, been passed around, and have finally spoken with the legal counsel for the State Police. He directed me to Virginia Code Sec. 15.2-915.5. You can find it here.
http://vacode.org/15.2-915.5/
What it comes down to is this is a law passed last year and signed by Gov. McDonnell that says, in essence, that no law enforcement entity in the State can assist with a gun buy-back with the intention of destroy those guns! It had been submitted previously but vetoed by Gov. Kaine.
Any guns turned into the police (provided they’re not stolen or otherwise used in a crime) have to be sold at auction.
So, even if you made arrangements in your Will to have the guns you own, but no longer need, destroyed, you cannot turn them into the police for destruction.
[sarcasm] Thank you Gov. McDonnell and your Republicans allies [/sarcasm]
But we can still do the gun buy-back because that falls into the gun-show loop-hole but we have to destroy them ourselves.
That’s okay, Scott. Since it would be a purely symbolic gesture anyway, it really doesn’t matter.
Putting the budget and fiscal cliff into perspective:
US Tax revenues: $2.17T
Federal Budget: $3.82T
National Debt: $14.3T
“Fiscal Cliff” Deal New Debt: $1.65T
“Fiscal Cliff” Deal Cuts: $$38.5B
Applying same percentages to Median Household Income
Median Household Income: $52.8K
Budget: $92.9K
Debt: $347K
New Debt: $40.1K
Net Cuts: $936
They should all be tried for treason.
@2 89Hoo, it’s NOT OK. Not one little bit. The police have the means to keep guns secure and destroy them securely. They are precisely the people I should be able to give my guns to to ensure they’re destroyed.
I realize a gun buy-back wouldn’t take many guns out of circulation but you may end up saving a life by removing those you do take out of circulation.
Let’s turn this argument around to help you see it through my eyes.
How would you feel if I said “legal abortion is OK because most fetuses aren’t aborted”? I understand you won’t agree with that because you consider all life to be precious and you’re against abortion, any abortion (I think) because of the maybe’s. Maybe that potential human will be the next Mozart or Einstein for example. I’m raising the argument that gun left in society may be used to kill Mozart or Einstein. I hope you know what I mean.
I guess the difference between those two perspectives is I want a choice in both of them while you would like to restrict that choice.
So I flat out disagree. If I want help destroying my guns, the police SHOULD be able to help me.
Let the flame-war begin!
#1 – So if you are planning on buying guns from people, Scott, does that mean your group is willing to be subject to a background check first?
I do not see any helpful meaning in comparing the US Budget to that of a family. It just muddies the water as people try to pretend they are “simplifying” it.
“The family-to-government comparison is appealing. But in practice, there are huge differences between the federal government and the average nuclear family. “If you want to compare the government to anything, compare it to a business. Typical businesses borrow money and they never pay it off,” argues Dean Baker, the codirector of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Baker says a corporate board would think a CEO was out of his mind if he came to them and announced that while the company lost money, it had paid off its debt. “Maybe the government is more like AT&T than like me and Joey.””
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/07/government-budget-vs-family-budget
If that family has its own currency and that is widely accepted, you might be on to something…no, it is just too big a stretch to compare my budget to that of an entire nation.
@5 Michael, I’d be willing to. But I don’t have to because we fall into the gun-show loophole.
The biggest legal danger we would face would be accepting stolen property or guns used in a crime. But we’re not required to keep track of who gave us the guns or do any type of background check on them. I suppose it possible if we had accepted that type of weapon, it could somehow be traced to us but we’d have destroyed the weapon by then and without records, I don’t know what people would say.
#7 – “But I don’t have to because we fall into the gun-show loophole.”
So on one hand you (meaning gun-grabbers in general) decry the dangers of the “gunshow loophole” (even though there is no such thing), yet now want to utilize it for your benefit?
How does that work?
#3 89HOO…I don’t disagree, yet, probably 90% of incumbents won
reelection??
And I think 2 of your numbers could be wrong…aren’t revenues about 2.5T
right now and the debt going by $16.3T?
But guys like Christie(NJ gov) and Peter King(Long Island rep) raise he double toothpicks about the delayed Sandy relief bill which is filled with PORK!!!
@8 Michael, yes.
I assume you’re being facetious when you ask how does that work?
Thought I’d bring this article to everyone’s attention. We all know gun crimes aren’t large in Switzerland because everyone has to have one as part of military service, etc.
But it’s important to keep in mind, that Switzerland isn’t without it’s gun problems. So I pass this link along.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18773158
I note especially the following:
…He fired at least 20 shots at his victims. Three women died instantly, while two men were also injured in the attack.
The weapons used in the shooting include a hunting gun and a historical army rifle known as a carbine, which dates back to the first half of the 20th Century, general prosecutor Catherine Sappey said.
Police had previously confiscated weapons from the suspect in 2005 when he was placed in a psychiatric ward.
Back then, “he was not known for having issued threats,” Ms Sappey added….
The BBC’s Imogen Foulkes, in the Swiss capital of Bern, says the case is certain to call into question Switzerland’s relatively liberal gun laws, under which Swiss men, all of whom must serve in the army, keep their guns at home. ….
In a separate incident on Wednesday evening, an armed man in another Swiss village stormed into a restaurant and fired into the ceiling before being overpowered by customers, our correspondent says.
Gun attacks are rare in Switzerland, but shooting is a very popular sport in the country.
There are an estimated two to three million guns in circulation, although no-one knows the exact number because there is no national firearms register.
#10 – Not being facetious at all, Scott. It was a serious question.
Gun grabbers scream and cry about the dangers of getting guns into the wrong hands due to a non-existent “loophole”, yet you have no problem having someone sell you guns without running a background check to see if you are legally permitted to buy a gun.
I find that amusing.
@12 Michael, I don’t think it was a serious question you asked.
You seem to classify me as a “gun grabber” and yet I’ve said here numerous times I don’t think we have a gun problem. I’ve included links to tables showing a decreasing violent crime rate and demonstrated this doesn’t correlate with an increase in graphic images in video games or the movies.
I’ve offered a way to get guns out of circulation that could in the future may be used in a hurtful way while avoiding coercion from the legal system and without infringing on any right to bear arms.
So, when I propose using a bad law to make people safer (destroying guns) you equate that with using a bad law to avoid registration and potentially use those guns in a bad way.
I’m sorry Michael, but that wasn’t a serious question you asked.
You say there is a “non-existent “loophole” Michael, are you saying that a person cannot go to a gun show and sell another person a gun without a background check? Not inside, not outside, not anywhere? I know gun dealers cannot, but please note I did not write dealer, I wrote “person”.
#13 – I’m sorry you don’t think it was a serious question, Scott, but it really was.
There is no such thing as the “gunshow loophole”, yet it’s often referred to by gun grabbers.
And yes, based on your desire to restrict guns, I do consider you a gun-grabber.
I’m sorry, but I found it humorous that you used the “gunshow loophole” excuse when in fact there is no such thing. If you think there is, please, please tell me what it is.
#14 – Not what I am saying at all, Sandi. Yes, a person can go into a gun show and sell a gun face-to-face as a private individual without conducting a background check on the person they are selling to. That’s perfectly legal, so where is the “loophole”?
The law is the same no matter where I, as an private individual, sell my gun. So please, tell me where the “loophole” is.
Really, I’d like to know.
The “loophole” is that the law designed to make purchasers undergo a background check first is circumvented because they limited it to dealers only. Now the people who cannot buy a gun legally have straw purchase “people”, gun show “people”, internet “people” and parking lot “people” who sell guns as they wish; unrestricted, unregistered and untraceable. That is a loophole, unless you believe they wanted it that way.
#16 – Sorry, Sandi, that’s not a loophole.
Loophole: “a means of escape or evasion; a means or opportunity of evading a rule, law, etc.”
Privately selling a gun without a background check, no matter where the location, is compliance with the law. If a buyer purchases a gun knowing that he or she may not legally own one, then THEY are breaking the law. They are not evading it, they are breaking it.
You don’t like the law the way it is written. Fine. Change it. Until then, stop perpetuating a myth.
Given the influence of the gun lobby, you are probably right Michael. It was purposefully left only to licensed gun dealers for a reason and there is no “loophole” at all. Point taken.