November 14, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Tomorrow, Nov. 15th, the Yakima Valley Peace Advocates Network will be protesting the NO BACKGROUND CHECK gunshow at the Modern Living Building at the Fairgrounds. Note: WE are not protesting the gunshow–we are protesting the No Background Check element. When anyone can walk into that show and buy a gun, it is the wrong thing for Yakima. Those who are unstable, are felons, are planning a crime (i.e., Fort Hood) can come away with a gun–all they need is the money. There will be Yakima merchants there who will be giving BG checks, because they have to. Here’s the loophole–most there will claim the status of “private collector,” and no law currently requires a “private collector” to perform a BG check. This is what we are protesting. We welcome anyone who wants peace in Yakima to join us at this protest at the corner of Fair Avenue and Nob Hill, at 12:00 Noon, tomorrow, Sunday, Nov. 15th. We have signs, or bring your own.
(See Yakima Herald Republic front page, Friday Nov. 13th)
Blogroll
Archives
- February 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
Not too long back, a commentator on here who was against gun control eluded to the idea that the seller should not have to pay for the background check. So what’s the cost to a private citizen to obtain that background check? It’s pretty hard to believe that their goal is simply to keep the costs of buying a deadly weapon down.
Background checks should be required of ALL gun transfers, even those to relatives.
Whoopee’s reference to Ft. Hood is an unfortunate red herring in this argument. That gun, according to reports, was purchased legally after BG checks. Looks as if he needed to send the ATF a telegram stating his intentions. The ball was dropped everywhere.
And drew…”eluded to”?
The only eluding in here is drew eluding my wager.
We know that you feel that the democratic process of electing representatives is not a very serious thing, so turning your discussion into a betting pool is expected of you. The right of voting, along with the civic obligation that we all have of keeping an eye on the activities of all of those representatives, isn’t something we should lower to the level of a sports event.
But if you need to do that to avoid talking about any real issues, go ahead.
It is still not clear whether background checks were properly completed and processed when the guns were purchased by Maj. Hasan (at least according to reports released so far by investigators).
But what about one of the guns, an FN pistol that fires the very unique 5.7mm round, specifically designed to penetrate Kevlar- what business does any civilian have in owning a gun that fires “cop-killer” ammunition?
A number of good points have been made regarding the issue of BG checks for the sale of guns. Except for one lady who called in, the discussion on KIT this morning, most completely missed the point of BG checks.
One, the protest against NO BG Checks was NOT an attempt to disqualify the Second Amendment. Tthere are nine licensed and legal gun dealers in Yakima, and you can buy all the guns you want–with a required BG check–and if you cannot pass a background check–perhaps it is questionable as to whether you should be able to handle a gun or not. The issue that was protested about the gun show, is the ostensible “private collectors” definition of the merchants there. Private collectors are NOT required to perform BG checks–and that is exactly the issue that was being protested. The protestors are opposed to any felon, unstable person, or other person that LE has considered unfit to own a gun (read convicted drug dealer) to freely buy weapons and ammunition. It is total nonsense to have the shootings and killing that we do in Yakima, and to have an open market where additional arms can be purchased without question.
There was no attempt to vilify grandpa’s gift of a gun to his son or grandson, or the free exchange of a weapon between family members or friends. It has nothing at all to do with English Common Law, or a 200-year cycle of gifting. What the protest had to do with is keeping guns out of the hands of those that society cannot trust.
The only reason that Hasan had Kevlar-penetrating ammo, is that the NRA has pushed that right to gun owners. Nobody needs it–nobody should have it.
If the government were to put 155mm howitizers on sale, there would be people who would rush out to buy one for their front lawn. That is how crazy this gun issue has become. The gun issue has been driven way beyond the normal needs of persons protecting their safety, large sums of money, or the potential of danger. It has moved into the realm of playing soldier, the need to fulfill childhood fantasies and the hysteria that the government is going to land a black helicopter in your back yard and make a bust-down of your door to confiscate your guns. <–this sentence will probably be enough food for the hysteria noodles to make endless comment about it–so it is a free country, go ahead.
Background checks cost next to nothing, so why is the gunslinger lobby so insistent on not having them done?
drew, all I know at this time is what I’ve read about Major Hasan and his gun. As far as “cop- killer” ammunition? Sources say it’s only available to police and military. Whether he had that load or not seems a bit immaterial, as none of the victims was wearing Kevlar at the time.
I, for a number of years, have fought with the NRA in the YHR editorial pages. I think guns are OK, as I’ve owned many of them. I just choose to think there’s a better way of regulating who buys them. Obviously my position as a “centrist” on this issue is bothersome to you. Your problem, not mine.
As to the “we know” thingy you wish to write? What, you think you have supporters for your cowardice? You can’t take on my position mano a mano?
Man up, pal. Put your money where your very empty mouth is. Or, could it be, you don’t believe enough in your position?
No, it’s absolutely material to the discussion: That particular pistol was designed to be used with that specific projectile, which is made to penetrate high-level body armor. You have to make quite an effort to obtain that ammunition, because it has only one purpose. That’s why it needs to be banned in every state. Hasan was shooting randomly, but was apparently prepared to engage anyone who might show up, whether they had Kevlar or not.
Whether or not you are a “centrist” doesn’t make much difference to me. And to your insistence that people bet with you on political races, it’s offensive to me, and it’s the sign of someone who doesn’t take the electoral process very seriously.
The topic here is the resistance of the gun lobby to do background checks, and they seem to have retreated because their argument is morally indefensible.
The Kevlar version of that ammo is banned except for law enforcement and military, so it would appear to be against the law if indeed Hasan had that load. Which it appears he didn’t.
The big knock I put on this weapon is its 20 round magazine. Makes it ideal to take out large numbers of folks at a McDonald’s.
drew, the fact that I’m a “centrist” bugs the crap out of you. You walk and talk the strict party line with NO deviation. Which equals NO thought. And it troubles you no end to deal with someone like me who does indeed think beyond a party line.
And you are only offended because you expect to lose. Put that big “L” back on your forehead.
Neal, I commend your paragraph, which reads, “I, for a number of years, have fought with the NRA in the YHR editorial pages. I think guns are OK, as I’ve owned many of them. I just choose to think there’s a better way of regulating who buys them. Obviously my position as a “centrist” on this issue is bothersome to you. Your problem, not mine.”
Frankly, I don’t care what your “position” is. It matters not to me, and is no subject for disputation. I can only say that you are in the right court, and there has to be a better way to monitor who does and who does not get weaponry. I do object to whoever mentioned that Whoop’s comment about Hasan and Fort Hood, is a “red herring.” Nothing could be more in line with what happened in Yakima, at the gun show, Saturday and Sunday.
Maj. Hasan was in the military…do you really think a background check would have prevented him from getting a gun? He had access to military weapons, and ammunition…he was trained how to use the weapons. Background checks can not predict what someone might do, they can only check for any criminal history, or any other restrictions that would prevent one from getting the gun.
“…they can only check for any criminal history, or any other restrictions that would prevent one from getting the gun.”
So are you for or against private sellers being required to obtain the same background checks the licensed firearms dealers have to get, and why?
In the case of Hasan, he chose to obtain weapons off-base, from Guns Galore in Killeen, where a background check is mandatory. He may have had access to guns on base, but he chose to buy a gun that fires armor-piercing rounds, which can be sold to regular folk in civilian stores.
like you said, “he chose to obtain weapons off-base, from Guns Galore in Killeen, where a background check is mandatory.” *** so in other words…he passed a background check!
By the way, my 9mm can fire “armor-piercing rounds”, in fact almost all guns can fire “armor-piercing rounds” except you cannot purchase “armor-piercing rounds”, because they are illegal.
The FN that Hasan used is specifically designed to fire the 5.7mm Kevlar-penetrating round , and is a pistol that is usually reserved for SWAT members and Special Forces. Unless you have the high-velocity FN 5.7mm, you cannot fire the same cop-killer bullets that Hasan used in your weapon. I never said that he passed a background check, only that it is mandatory.
The FBI is suggesting that the background check may have been circumvented somehow, but they gave no further details. One report speculates Hasan may have used another name.
I guess that, according to your “logic”, Hasan must’ve made his “cop-killer” rounds in a Play-Dough Fun Factory at home, since they’re illegal. I mean, I don’t think anyone wants to suggest that Hasan would break the law to get illegal ammuntion.
Drew
I think you have been mis-informed about the gun and the ammo…the gun was NOT designed to fire ONLY the 5.7mm Kevlar-penetrating round. The variation of the 5.7mm round (SS190) is restricted, only law enforcement and military are allowed to purchase this variant of the cartridge. The commercially available ammo for this gun is NOT capable of penetrating armor.
Here’s an idea…maybe since he was in the military, he did not need to worry about a background check, and maybe he only had to show the shop owner his military credentials to purchase this weapon.
The last sentence that you wrote shows me that you are FINALLY starting to “get it”, imagine that! If someone wants to get illegal weapons or ammo, they will get it, no matter how “illegal” you make it. Only law abiding citizens will be prevented from buying it, criminals don’t care if it is illegal. However, if Hasan had “cop killer rounds” he COULD have purchased them legally, since he was in the military, and all the background checks and gun control, and even ammunition control would not have prevented this tragedy from happening.
I found six different websites that all said this particular FN pistol was designed with 5.7 mm exclusivity in mind, and that it was designed for SWAT officers. Those articles also stated that it’s low-recoil, high power balance design was made to allow it to fire Kevlar-penetrating ammo. This weapon sells for around $1100 to $1400. With all kinds of weapons out there for much much less, why did he specifically choose the FN?
Just because a person is active or reserve duty military, it doesn’t exempt them from having a criminal background check done, so we can flush that theory.
But your last comment shows that you do not get it: Hasan went out the door with intent to commit a crime, which would suggest to the timid observer that he probably wasn’t too concerned with the law. And once again, just because he was in the Army, he does not have an exemption that would allow him to buy cop-killer ammunition. And before you say it, those types of rounds are also restricted ordnance on-base, meaning they are released to select personnel. Not regular infantry, and certainly not a desk-bound psychiatrist.
But we’re getting away from the main point here: FACT- a mentally unstable individual purchased at least one weapon, possibly without a background check, and used that weapon to murder 13 innocents. In light of this tragedy, you seem to want less controls, instead of more.
Maybe it’s our American mindset, that every time we feel we are wronged or have been dealt an injustice of some sort, we can always fix the problem with a violent act.
I wonder how many gun homicides they’ve had in Canada this year with cop-killer bullets?
Drew:
“Maybe it’s our American mindset, that every time we feel we are wronged or have been dealt an injustice of some sort, we can always fix the problem with a violent act.”
Jealousy, Revenge, Vindication, Disregard for Law, Empowering Currency Yield, Taking What IS NOT yours to take…Zealous Religiosity, Rage!
Your statement nailed it precisely. Kudos
I can’t take credit for it.
But you have to wonder that, in countries that have more guns per household than we do, and similar gun laws, they have less than a tenth of the homicidal gun deaths that we do.
We, in this country are in a miserable state of frozen hysteria over guns. On one hand we have people who are sick of gun violence, and want to do something about it. And will do something about it, given the opportunity and tools. On the other we have those who worship at the altar of narcissism, and say, let someone else give, and if you try to take my guns there will be violence. <—In place of the practical interpretation of the Second Amendment, this is the obscene interpretation.
And of course, there are those just ready to pull down on anyone –just give me a reason.
I cannot help but think there are shameful forces from the gang big boys, saying if you want to be with us, you have to prove it…go out and kill some other gang member, or maybe just some random bystander. This does two things. It welds the shooter to the gang, for now he/she must relay on their numbers for gang protection. Second, it thrusts a pale of fear on the population, establishing overload for the police and sheriff and makes everyone want bulletproof protection.
The outcome is untenable, because it will evolve into citizen-police protecting what is theirs because the police are outnumbered and out-weaponed.
When you have the mindset that you cannot walk down the street safely, there is a callous growing on the mind, and eventually we overcome it, or we react to it. What is the natural reaction? More guns, more shootings, more killings, more movement to the underground for protection and a near dismissal of civil rights. It sounds surrealistic, but we must grasp the situation and make it work for the people in place of what it is now working for. Paranoia, mob enthusiasm, anarchy.
Gun Deaths – International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0
Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International.
“The impact of gun violence is especially pronounced among juveniles and adolescents. The firearm homicide rate for children under 15 years of age is 16 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. Among those ages 15 to 24, the U.S. firearm homicide rate is 5 times higher than in neighboring Canada and 30 times higher than in Japan, and the firearm homicide rate for the 15- to 24-year-old age group increased 158 percent during the 10-year period from 1984 to 1993. This contrasts with a 19-percent decline in gun-related homicides for those 25 and older. A teenager in the United States today is more likely to die of a gunshot wound than from all the “natural” causes of death combined.”
source ojjdp.ncjrs.org
Drew
The gun fires 5.7mm rounds, but not all 5.7mm rounds are Kevlar penetrating rounds….my 9mm shoots Kevlar penetrating rounds, but not all 9mm rounds are Kevlar penetrating rounds. My 9mm is low-recoil, to make it easy to shoot, and $1100 or $1400 is not a lot to pay for a good pistol, mine was about the same price, there are cheaper guns, but you pay for quality.
Just because a person has a background check, does not exempt them from committing a crime, so your theory of more background checks and control can be thrown out.
When someone goes out the door with the intent to commit a crime, and is not concerned with the law, why do you think MORE laws will stop someone from committing a crime?
Maybe it’s our American mindset, that every time we feel we are wronged or have been dealt an injustice of some sort, we can always fix the problem with a new law that restricts more of our freedom, and take away the rights of those who obey the laws, while doing nothing to those who are the ones that break the laws.
Last, how do you know he used “cop-killer” bullets? He could have had standard 5.7mm that does not penetrate Kevlar.
So we should remove any gun sale restrictions on everyone? I’m sure there are some decent, law-abiding 8th graders who just need some protection from class bullies and bangers, so let’s start selling gats in the school vending machines, right next to the Sobe.
I answered every one of these questions earlier- you struggling with this again tonight?
Background checks can and do prevent the crime, because they often times prevent someone from obtaining a deadly weapon to commit the crime- people who otherwise should not have access to guns because of criminal backgrounds, etc. You want to open the door for every one to get their hands on guns.
Oh, you paid way too much for a 9mm- you get a slice of pie and a trauma dressing for your foot when you bought that?
Drew
First of all, I did not say anything about REMOVING ANY GUN SALE RESTRICTIONS, and I never suggested that we get rid of the age requirement to purchase hand guns.
You have not answered ANY questions,but you did say… “In the case of Hasan, he chose to obtain weapons off-base, from Guns Galore in Killeen, where a background check is mandatory.”… so what I am saying is background checks are not a fool proof way of preventing something like this from happening. Hasan was in the military, he was a psychiatrist… a background check did not prevent him from committing a crime…if he wants to commit a crime nothing will stop him from doing so…including something like a background check.
Oh, you have no idea how much is too much for ANY gun, do you?
For the umpteeeenth time, it is still not clear if the background check was done, or if Hasan resorted to using a fake ID to facilitate it (the FBI was following that part of the investigation, and they seemed to be addressing the use of an alias- the details of their findings have not yet been released). We have said several times on here that background checks should be done on every sale of a deadly weapon, and we still believe that to be true. We get your point that they don’t always work- is there something you are trying to say there, or are you just trying point out something everybody already knows? Since the topic of the blog was how private sellers are not required to get them, do you have an opinion about private sellers being required to get the background checks of their customers or not?
Drew
A car can be used as a deadly weapon, why not require everyone that sells a car to check if the buyer has a valid drivers license and check for insurance and any motor vehicle violations…
I have made it extremely clear my opinion on the government forcing private sellers to purchase a background check on the buyer…you know my opinion.
I have been correcting and commenting on the lies you have been spreading about the gun and ammo used by Hasan. You can continue to spread your propaganda to your friends and I will continue to comment and correct your lies. If there wasn’t anyone hear to disagree with, this would not be any fun, so keep it up, and so will I!
Ummm, it probably has a lot to do with the fact that cars have been used for decades as a form of transportation, and millions and millions of people have benefitted positively from their ownership and use of those cars. Guns, on the other hand, were designed with only one purpose in mind- to kill something or somebody. When the cons argue to leave some loopholes in place (jason wants loopholes) to allow a gun purchaser with a criminal background to obtain a deadly weapon without a background check, the chances that innocent people are going to die increases expotentially (which cons are willing to live with, no pun intended).
But I’m glad you took us here, jason. Unless you are an unlicensed driver (you’re not, are you?), you have to undergo the scrutiny of Big Gum’mint as they determine if you should be allowed on the roads with the rest of civilized society, by way of a records check when you renew at the DoL. While some may slip through the cracks of those checks, thousands of drivers every year are disqualified from happy motoring, and many of those are further screened by those bad ol’ police officers on traffic stops, when they determine you are suspended. I propose the same thing for gun owners- written tests, vision screening, and regular performance/skills testing, including “shoot/don’t shoot” pass-fail testing. Responsible gun owners should not only have no problem with this, they should be endorsing it. Instead, you cry “Big Brother interference”, and would rather protect the dangerous and unstable amongst you to make a republican statement.
Actually, you have not displayed your opinion on this, except to insist (as you are now) that you have made your opinion known before (we just want you to man up here, jason). Let’s try this again- do you think that some people (you) should be allowed to sell their deadly weapons (yours) on the open market without a background check of the buyer, allowing said buyer to obtain a gun from you when he knows he would otherwise be prohibited because of his criminal history. It’s a very, very cheap fee for the criminal records check, jason.
drew
There you go again with more of your lies…the very first comment on this post was yours, referring to me. Let me refresh your memory on what YOU said about me…”Not too long back, a commentator on here who was against gun control eluded to the idea that the seller should not have to pay for the background check. So what’s the cost to a private citizen to obtain that background check? It’s pretty hard to believe that their goal is simply to keep the costs of buying a deadly weapon down.”***You do know my opinion on expanding background checks to private sellers. Another one of your lies you have told is that I WANT to sell to criminals.
Guns have been around much, much longer than cars, and are used to feed, and protect people. More people have benefited from the use of guns, then the use of cars. It is true that guns do kill, but they have brought freedom to millions of people and without guns this country would probably not exist (if you know our history you know we had to fight for our Independence). This country is so great that we fought for others that could not fight for themselves, non of that could be done without guns.
As I have told you before, criminals do not care about the law…you are not preventing THEM from obtaining guns with this background check “loophole fix.” Criminals steal guns, and get them from people willing to buy the guns for them, who CAN pass background checks.
When you renew your license you are not put to any scrutiny, they check your eyes, and that’s it. There is no “real” check or investigation into your insurance, or if you have been in too many accidents or anything like that. You cannot tell me that car sales are more regulated than gun sales, You are wrong again.
jason, I’m sorry you weren’t aware that Big Gum’mint has an opportunity to take a look into your driver status (as they should) when you renew. If your driver status is suspended or revoked when you go in to renew (as over a thousand in this state have attempted before), your renewal is denied. They don’t just “check your eyes, and that’s it”. People who choose to possess a deadly weapon should come under the same scrutiny as those who expect to operate a motor vehicle around others- a criminal background check, and a safety/proficiency test, qualifying that person for a license. People with poor vision (including night vision), anger management issues, or poor judgment in crisis situations should never get their hands on a firearm. Do you think they should?
I am sorry if you interpreted what I said once to mean that I felt you wanted to sell guns to criminals. What I am sure I really meant was that you aren’t interested in preventing those sales from happening. Nice.
Please. No history lesson from you- you’ve already flunked a previous history lesson on here. By the way, many societies around the world have won their freedom through peaceful actions, skilled diplomacy, occasionally administered by us (except when the republicans were in power). But if your glowing appreciation of deadly weapons is valid, why aren’t there religious orders based on guns and ammo, or just good, ol’ violence? 1st Assembly of Gun-toting Republicans? Our Lady of the Blessed 158 Grain Hollow Point?
Your argument about winning wars is philosophically tainted; the Revolutionary War (like all other wars) was not won because we had guns. We won because we had a common goal of decency and democracy, and were willing to make sacrifices of all kinds to obtain those ends. Who published your history books, son: Smith and Wesson? Mini history lesson: many of the most influential patriots during the Revolutionary War were actually pacifists who never picked up a gun, and they are certainly no less patriotic than you for choosing the path of non-violence. Don’t diminish their efforts and sacrifice just because killing isn’t their first choice to solve a problem.
If you sell your gun privately to a relative without a background check, and he commits a violent act with that weapon, can society then hold you responsible if the relative happens to be a parolee whose status you were unaware? I know, you’re going to tell us that you know your family- fine. Then ANYONE who privately sells a deadly weapon without the background check should be held accountable in similar situations.
“After the settlement was announced, WTOP, a radio station in Washington, DC reported that Sonia Wills, the mother of D.C. sniper victim Conrad Johnson, said her family took part in the lawsuit more to send a message than to collect money from Bushmaster Firearms and Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply (of Tacoma). “I think a message was delivered that you should be responsible and accountable for the actions of irresponsible people when you make these guns and put them in their hands,” she said.”
Sometimes the victims have the most to say to us…
drew
first, when you renew your license, they do not run a criminal check…they check to see if you have a suspended, or revoked license, not at all like a background check. People who choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights DO go through more scrutiny than those who want to drive a car. background checks ARE mandatory for comercial sellers. There is no criminal background check for drivers, a burglar, or thief is not denied a drivers license. I think that the Constitution provides EVERYONE with the right to own a gun, and YOU are not the judge on WHO does or doesn’t get to own a gun. If someone is convicted of a violent crime, they have given up some of their rights, and gun ownership is one of them. You do not get to deny someone their rights, because you THINK THEY MIGHT be dangerous, in a way that would be like telling you that you cannot own a house because you might not take care of it and lower the value of your neighbors home, because you are lazy at work….this is a ridiculous argument to deny ownership of property, just as you have a ridiculous argument to keep guns away from people who have not committed any crimes.
As far as history goes…I have not “flunked” anything on here. Ronald Reagan won the cold war without firing a shot, so you are right, we do not need to use violence to win wars, but we did use the threat of use of our weapons to get the results that we were looking for. Just like a homeowner that owns a gun who scares off an intruder would not have to fire one shot, just the threat of being shot would make the intruder run away.
What does religion have to do with guns?
George Washington was a pacifist? The Colonists that took up arms against the British were pacifists? Our country would exist without their sacrifices? I see an “F” in your history report! When did I say you have to kill to be patriotic? This is more of your rhetoric, and spin isn’t it…I never even “eluded” to that kind of statement.
The person that needs to be held accountable for their actions is the person doing the action. Do you hold McDonalds responsible for making people fat, or is it the person who chooses to eat poorly that is responsible for their obese figure? You can’t keep blaming the other person, at some point you have to take responsibility for yourself.
Interesting comment on another source, to which I have now lost the map. The writer was commenting on his right to own guns, and said something about he did not want the government having a chokehold on his rights to own. Of course, he is absolutely right, because he has a Constitutionally assured freedom to own. (However, I believe that there is a hugely obscene interpretation of the Second Amendment, suggesting that it is nearly a religious talisman to own a gun). His final comment, though, was morally uplifting. He stated that he keeps his Bible and his gun close together so that he can embrace either or both anytime he wants. Which of these two embraceables do you suppose you would encounter if you had a strong disagreement with this individual? I guess what I thought he must be saying is that he would either prosyletize you to death or shoot you to death, depending on which embraceable his hand lit on at the moment of decision.
Jason, I’m quoting here some of the stuff you wrote that I feel is pretty close to the absolute…
… If someone is convicted of a violent crime, they have given up some of their rights, and gun ownership is one of them. You do not get to deny someone their rights, because you THINK THEY MIGHT be dangerous, in a way that would be like telling you that you cannot own a house because you might not take care of it and lower the value of your neighbors home, because you are lazy at work….this is a ridiculous argument to deny ownership of property, just as you have a ridiculous argument to keep guns away from people who have not committed any crime…
That is right Jason, it is not up to the individual’s thought patterns whether the person is capable of suitably owning a gun. It is up to law-enforcement, city, local, state and federal. It is them who check the person’s BACKGROUND and issue an OK or no. If the person has a license to carry, issued by an LE agency, (sheriff, police department or some federal agency), then they can bypass the mandatory waiting period (some like to call it a “cooling off” period) and immediately assume ownership of the weapon. If there is no license to carry, then the person has to wait several days while the BACKGROUND CHECK is completed. If the LE function says the person can own a gun, then they can go to the dealer and assume ownership—–if LE says no—-there is a reason. There are four positions which I would like you to consider when deciding if you want this individual (by the way you cannot decide, but you can have an opinion), living next door, or even on your block.
1. Person cannot pass a background check.
2. Person passed a background check, and assumes ownership of a gun after a waiting period.
3. Person purchases a gun and takes it home–he has a gun permit (also called a license to carry).
4. Person purchased a gun at a gunshow.
whoopeedo
I fully believe that if someone is convicted of a crime, they have given up their right to own a gun, but I do not believe as Drew does “People with poor vision (including night vision), anger management issues, or poor judgment in crisis situations should never get their hands on a firearm.” he is wrong, because the constitution provides, even people that have poor night vision, rights that cannot be taken from them, he wants to take away rights from law-abiding citizens. I am in favor of gun dealers doing background checks on buyers, but I am not in favor of laws that go after private sellers…I would rather go after the criminals. Drew wants to change the Constitution, and take away our rights. This is what John Adams said about the 2nd Amendment…”"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.”
I considered your four positions and these are my answers….
1. If I knew that one of our neighbors could not pass a background check…I admit I would be a little concerned, and I will be honest with you, as a neighbor I would want more information about his or her past so I would know if they are dangerous or not.
2. your second scenario I would have no problem at all with someone passing a background check and waiting the “cool down period”
3. I would have no problem with the third scenario, police, military and concealed weapons permits usually mean the person knows how to use the weapon, and usually will be safe.
4. I would have no problem with a gun show purchase…I know many people that have bought collectors guns and antique guns from gun shows, I would not be worried about this. Gun enthusiasts, and gun collectors do not worry me, the criminals are the ones we need to focus on. I am in favor of a compromise when it comes to gun shows…why not allow dealers and private citizens to sell their guns and ammo, but in order to ATTEND a gun show you must show a permit, or license that shows you either have passed a background check, or have a concealed weapons permit, that way the common criminal off the street could not just walk in and buy a gun like you and others seem to think happens a lot.
In the last three scenarios I would probably be interested in going shooting with the person on my block. I actually fit into the last 3 scenarios…I have bought a gun when I had to wait for the background check, I bought a gun and was able to take possession immediately and I have purchased from a gun show, so actually you should talk to my neighbors, and see if they are worried about me. I think you will find that they feel safe and protected, however I have been trained in “shoot/don’t shoot scenario” training courses, and Police training, and accuracy. I am probably more trained with guns than the average American, but I would hate to violate someones Constitutional rights, just because I thought the person’s thought pattern made them unsuitable to own a gun.
One of the tactics of the cons (as displayed in the rant above)is to say the opposition is trying to “change the Constitution” and this is a lie, along with rumors about birth certificates and Muslim affiliation of President Obama, and “death camps” and euthanasia for the elderly. Not true, and they know it when they say it. Fear not only controls the weak-minded, but it also is a huge money-maker in America. Gun manufacturers and retailers have seen a huge increase in sales, spurred on by pictures of Obama and Pelosi in banners on their websites, saying they’re going to come get all the guns. Probably the only statistic outpacing gun sales right now is the number of threats against President Obama that the Secret Service has to sort out- a 400% increase over 18 months ago. Do the cons think that their fellow cons who are discovered in a crowd to be concealing a deadly weapon at a rally where the President is speaking should not be questioned?
Even Reagan became a gun control advocate at one point.
Good discussion. The many points raised here have been informative and rewarding. This is the way society works…many points of view and intellectual research. The discussion is real–the punching and jabbing and kicking is less entertaining. The attempts at apriori censorship have also been a little disarming. We are not going to war, but we have discussed things as important as war, so it is probably pretty natural to drift when things touch our forever feelings that THINGS should be better. It sorta sounds as though I am trying to be a moderator here–not so, just expressing my gratitude.
Mariah Carey reported on Larry King that she is “forever twelve.” It plagues me a little to see that people who have unusual beauty, hairdressers, make-up artists, costume designers and good PR people can make some of us think that what they do is valuable. I have to admit they are “pretty.” Trouble is, I can’t think of a single work Britney Spears has performed I can call art. I can’t help watching that flesh move, but I turn the sound off. One of my favorite commercials is the one for Viagra featuring Bob Dole and his dog watching Britney S. on television. When the dog growls, Dole says “easy boy.” The other side is that I enjoy Prairie Home Companion very much. Life is good.