Gun Control

[zoogs]

This has got to be the single dumbest post in the history of message boards. The fact that you totally ignore the history man and the relationship with government tyanny is beyond words.

You're really invested in this (gun violence and all) status quo of ours. Forgive me if I'm not.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0

Read this ↑ link please. Facts to consider!

TAKODA, by the way, I think that's great coverage from the Times. Thanks for posting.

To a large extent I think it illustrates the folly of trying to distinguish between "bad guys" and "good guys".

All bad guys were by any reasonable measure indistinguishable from good at some point. The idea that they aren't is folly. The idea that we just haven't cast the net widely and aggressively enough is simply dangerous; we're talking about denying fundamental rights here.

Let's take a look at any number of privileges which aren't fundamental rights. Think of the hoops you'd have to jump through to drive a car, drive a motorcycle, pilot a helicopter, vote, own a business.

But buying an AR-15 sporting rifle that happens to be an extremely efficient tool of mass murder? That's a fundamental right that can't be questioned, and it can't be stopped unless we expand civilian monitoring on all levels -- from their internet activity, to their financial activity, to the threshold at which "due process" is thrown out the window. How far does that go before we can "get to" every radical or troubled individual before they go on a killing spree with a weapon considered legal and whose private ownership is considered as sacrosanct as free speech?

 

[huskerfan2000]

You can't make this stuff up..

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-massacre-buying-ar-15-gun-easy-in-many-states/?ftag=YHF4eb9d17&yptr=yahoo

She purchases an AR15 then transfers it to a 3rd party. She lied on the 4473 form she had to fill out. Will she be prosecuted for falsifying information?

 

[TAKODA]

This has got to be the single dumbest post in the history of message boards. The fact that you totally ignore the history man and the relationship with government tyanny is beyond words.

You're really invested in this (gun violence and all) status quo of ours. Forgive me if I'm not.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0

Read this ↑ link please. Facts to consider!

TAKODA, by the way, I think that's great coverage from the Times. Thanks for posting.

To a large extent I think it illustrates the folly of trying to distinguish between "bad guys" and "good guys".

All bad guys were by any reasonable measure indistinguishable from good at some point. The idea that they aren't is folly. The idea that we just haven't cast the net widely and aggressively enough is simply dangerous; we're talking about denying fundamental rights here.

Let's take a look at any number of privileges which aren't fundamental rights. Think of the hoops you'd have to jump through to drive a car, drive a motorcycle, pilot a helicopter, vote, own a business.

But buying an AR-15 sporting rifle that happens to be an extremely efficient tool of mass murder? That's a fundamental right that can't be questioned, and it can't be stopped unless we expand civilian monitoring on all levels -- from their internet activity, to their financial activity, to the threshold at which "due process" is thrown out the window. How far does that go before we can "get to" every radical or troubled individual before they go on a killing spree with a weapon considered legal and whose private ownership is considered as sacrosanct as free speech?

For me, when I read through that article, it points out how fallible our current background system is currently. If you look into (research and read) many of those shootings listed in that link, you will notice that certain individuals and even agencies had prior information that if reported and followed up on, could have prevented many of these shooting sprees. Yes, I get that medical professionals have privacy laws but I believe that they are bound to apprise law enforcement of imminent threats. The psychiatrist who was dealing with Holmes (Aurora Colorado), knew he had homicidal tenancies many months prior to him shooting up that theater. She stated she did not feel that there were specific enough details to be concerned that he was going to kill. However, it is my understanding that Holmes parents forwarded her a notebook that had sketched out a plan of the mass killing, a few hours prior to the mass shooting taking place (complete with drawings)

Another thing that is bothersome is, when you dive into this subject, there is so many laws, rules and regulations, that there is way too much legal information to sift through, in order for any of the present laws to be effective or administered properly.

If everyone in this thread was to read what was in the link I provided, then go into each of those cases and review the circumstance, I believe people would see that while the guns inflicted the damage, one would have to admit, that if our system was working properly, many of these events would not have occurred.

One thing I know for sure, this whole mess tied with our National security threats/concerns and the lack a shared information between agencies, is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Enhance]

You can't make this stuff up..

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-massacre-buying-ar-15-gun-easy-in-many-states/?ftag=YHF4eb9d17&yptr=yahoo

She purchases an AR15 then transfers it to a 3rd party. She lied on the 4473 form she had to fill out. Will she be prosecuted for falsifying information?

Did you not notice the part where they said they took the gun and "legally transferred [it] to a federally licensed firearms dealer?"

Also, how do you know she lied on the 4473?

Furthermore, why am I not surprised this is your reaction to this story?

 

[Hooked on Huskers]

Didn't make sense why buying assault weapons. 6-bullet handguns (self-protection) and single shot rifles (hunting) are okay but not AR-15's types. Oh well, way too late now ... millions of legal assault weapons already purchased in US. Hey, I got a rusting .22 rifle somewhere. Probably no ammo.

And obviously background check didn't work (i.e. Orlando shooter).

 

[NM11046]

You can't make this stuff up..

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-massacre-buying-ar-15-gun-easy-in-many-states/?ftag=YHF4eb9d17&yptr=yahoo

She purchases an AR15 then transfers it to a 3rd party. She lied on the 4473 form she had to fill out. Will she be prosecuted for falsifying information?

Nothing she did was illegal, and nothing she showed to by the gun shop was false to my knowledge. So this is totally ok. Her transfer of the weapon is also totally within the law as it's currently written. But we don't need to make any changes (sarcasm).

 

[huskerfan2000]

You can't make this stuff up..

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-massacre-buying-ar-15-gun-easy-in-many-states/?ftag=YHF4eb9d17&yptr=yahoo

She purchases an AR15 then transfers it to a 3rd party. She lied on the 4473 form she had to fill out. Will she be prosecuted for falsifying information?

Did you not notice the part where they said they took the gun and "legally transferred [it] to a federally licensed firearms dealer?"

Also, how do you know she lied on the 4473?

Furthermore, why am I not surprised this is your reaction to this story?

Doesn't matter who she transferred it too, you can not lie on those forms.. The form specifically asks if this is for you or someone else (it does, I looked) and she said it was for her.

 

[huskerfan2000]

You can't make this stuff up..

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-massacre-buying-ar-15-gun-easy-in-many-states/?ftag=YHF4eb9d17&yptr=yahoo

She purchases an AR15 then transfers it to a 3rd party. She lied on the 4473 form she had to fill out. Will she be prosecuted for falsifying information?

Nothing she did was illegal, and nothing she showed to by the gun shop was false to my knowledge. So this is totally ok. Her transfer of the weapon is also totally within the law as it's currently written. But we don't need to make any changes (sarcasm).

From what I understand she did not tell the gun store that is what she was doing. The form specifically asks if this purchase is for you.

 

[huskerfan2000]

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/06/17/gun-store-owner-says-undercover-cbs-reporter-broke-federal-law-to-purchase-ar-15-353684

It is possible that a CBS reporter made an illegal gun purchase in order to do a story on buying firearms, at least that is the charge made by the gun store where the reporter bought her firearm.

Early this week CBS News’ Paula Reid purchased an AR-15 rifle at SpecDive Tactical in Alexandria, Virginia. She made the purchase for a “CBS This Morning” segment aired on Thursday morning. But now the gun store has filed a complaint with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives charging that Reid broke the law when she filled out the federally required paper work as she made the purchase.

As The Washington Free Beacon notes, during Reid’s report, she says, “The rifle we purchased was legally transferred to a federally licensed firearms dealer and weapons instructor in Virginia, just hours after we bought it.”


But this purchase, the gun store owner says, was not as legal as CBS claims. It is in essence a straw purchase because Reid said on her paper work that the rifle was for her own use. She basically lied on her legally required paperwork.

You can not lie on these forms, regardless of who you transfer the weapon to.

 

[cm husker]

How many people would be in favor of repealing the 2nd amendment, or at last it's application to the states, and therefore allow states to regulate as they see fit?

 

[NM11046]

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/06/17/gun-store-owner-says-undercover-cbs-reporter-broke-federal-law-to-purchase-ar-15-353684

It is possible that a CBS reporter made an illegal gun purchase in order to do a story on buying firearms, at least that is the charge made by the gun store where the reporter bought her firearm.

Early this week CBS News’ Paula Reid purchased an AR-15 rifle at SpecDive Tactical in Alexandria, Virginia. She made the purchase for a “CBS This Morning” segment aired on Thursday morning. But now the gun store has filed a complaint with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives charging that Reid broke the law when she filled out the federally required paper work as she made the purchase.

As The Washington Free Beacon notes, during Reid’s report, she says, “The rifle we purchased was legally transferred to a federally licensed firearms dealer and weapons instructor in Virginia, just hours after we bought it.”


But this purchase, the gun store owner says, was not as legal as CBS claims. It is in essence a straw purchase because Reid said on her paper work that the rifle was for her own use. She basically lied on her legally required paperwork.

You can not lie on these forms, regardless of who you transfer the weapon to.

So the purchase was legal - the problem was that she then sold it. Regardless the point of the story was how easy it was to purchase such a weapon, and how (legal or illegal) it was to then pass it along. None of the current protocols in place slowed the process or stopped it.

 

[huskerfan2000]

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/06/17/gun-store-owner-says-undercover-cbs-reporter-broke-federal-law-to-purchase-ar-15-353684

It is possible that a CBS reporter made an illegal gun purchase in order to do a story on buying firearms, at least that is the charge made by the gun store where the reporter bought her firearm.

Early this week CBS News’ Paula Reid purchased an AR-15 rifle at SpecDive Tactical in Alexandria, Virginia. She made the purchase for a “CBS This Morning” segment aired on Thursday morning. But now the gun store has filed a complaint with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives charging that Reid broke the law when she filled out the federally required paper work as she made the purchase.

As The Washington Free Beacon notes, during Reid’s report, she says, “The rifle we purchased was legally transferred to a federally licensed firearms dealer and weapons instructor in Virginia, just hours after we bought it.”


But this purchase, the gun store owner says, was not as legal as CBS claims. It is in essence a straw purchase because Reid said on her paper work that the rifle was for her own use. She basically lied on her legally required paperwork.

You can not lie on these forms, regardless of who you transfer the weapon to.

So the purchase was legal - the problem was that she then sold it. Regardless the point of the story was how easy it was to purchase such a weapon, and how (legal or illegal) it was to then pass it along. None of the current protocols in place slowed the process or stopped it.

You call lying on a federal form to purchase a firearm legal, really? and no, the problem was she lied on a federal form, where it is a felony to do so.

 

[huskerfan2000]

form 4473..

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Go down to the section that starts with "I certify that my answers to Section A are true, correct, and complete."

 

[JJ Husker]

This is probably out of turn but is relevant to the discussion about using the no fly list as method to prevent gun ownership. I think it would be a great idea IF the no fly list was truly representative of potentially dangerous people and only them. A past business associate of mine got placed on that list simply because he had a very common name that happened to be exactly the same as one of our first few presidents. He was born and raised in Nebraska, served in Vietnam and was a highly successful businessman. There was absolutely no logical reason for him to be on that list other than some morons in our government determined that his name might be used as a cover for real terrorists. As far as I know he still has trouble flying today.

So, I'm all for banning terrorists from flying or buying guns but the current no fly list is a joke IMO. They need to do a much better and more thorough job of determining who to place on that list. It was not merely a minor inconvenience for him, it made it virtually impossible for a true American hero to fly.

 

[ZRod]

This is probably out of turn but is relevant to the discussion about using the no fly list as method to prevent gun ownership. I think it would be a great idea IF the no fly list was truly representative of potentially dangerous people and only them. A past business associate of mine got placed on that list simply because he had a very common name that happened to be exactly the same as one of our first few presidents. He was born and raised in Nebraska, served in Vietnam and was a highly successful businessman. There was absolutely no logical reason for him to be on that list other than some morons in our government determined that his name might be used as a cover for real terrorists. As far as I know he still has trouble flying today.

So, I'm all for banning terrorists from flying or buying guns but the current no fly list is a joke IMO. They need to do a much better and more thorough job of determining who to place on that list. It was not merely a minor inconvenience for him, it made it virtually impossible for a true American hero to fly.

My 80 to 90 year old grandmother who had to be wheeled around at the airport was on the TSA watch list. Those things are so messed up..