Strawman. Not worth addressing.Originally Posted by KeithKSR
Strawman. Not worth addressing.
Do you know the purpose of the Tiahrt amendment? Your post indicates you do not have any kind of grasp on what the Tiahrt amendment says, nor its purpose.
A huge percentage of guns used in crimes are not traced, so there is no trace data. Trace data only comes into play when a gun is traced, which generally occurs when a gun is recovered and the individual committing the crime is not.
In addition, the use of 1% of dealers is going to be incorrect due to there being a huge number of FFL holders who are collectors and not dealers.
There are way too many variables not taken into consideration by someone way too willing to take statistics designed to mislead at face value.
There are way too many red herrings in your arguments, too many outright untruths and misconceptions.
Never purchased a firearm? You did not have to admit to never having gone through the process, that was pretty obvious to all that had gone through the process. Your stance of not seeing need for certain firearms speaks of ignorance and misunderstanding; which is expected when what you know comes via Hollywood and the media. We are all ignorant and misunderstanding of things which we are not familiar and on gun control issues those citizens who endorse strict gun control are all too often manipulated by the media in order to further their own agendas.
There is nothing on a 4473 that would be of any benefit to any LEA or prosecutors of a crime other than laws pertaining to filling out the 4473. If you had filled one out you would know this. Other than the standard name and SS# stuff the rest of the form is primarily composed of yes-no check boxes.
Who is the NRA? The NRA represents its membership, which is comprised of Americans of all walks of life. The NRA is not a manufacturers organization, it is more of a grassroots organization supported by its members. The NRA solicits donations from its membership multiple times annually in order to battle for its membership. This is not what I have been told, but what I know as an NRA member. I have been solicited for donations twice since mid-December, if the NRA's ILA was funded by manufacturers to the extent that is claimed by the gun control crowd there would be no need to solicit membership heavily.
You assume too much. I don't own a gun, but my dad owns several and owned a great many when I was a kid. I've been exposed to all manner of firearms, from .22 pistols to semi-automatic 12-gauge shotguns to AR-10 rifles to .45's and 9mm's. I was given a .22 rifle for Christmas when I was 12 that I wasn't allowed to fire until I had memorized a gun owner's safety manual. I used to shoot targets with my dad as a teenager, but that was the last time I ever fired a gun. I don't own one now because it's unnecessary, I live in a safe area in a city with a low rate of violent crime overall.
That said, I disagree with your assertion that the NRA is "more of a grassroots organization." Too much money. Soliciting money isn't a sign that there is no manufacturer backing. Corporations line the pockets of politicians - but Romney and Obama still ask for personal donations when they run for office. But all that is beside the point.
As I've learned about it over the past couple weeks, I've come to the conclusion that its purpose is to handcuff the ATF in an effort to protect gun manufacturers from prosecution under the guise of defending against gun advocate boogiemen like a national gun registry and government confiscation of all firearms.
You obviously do not know what "regulated" in the Second Amendment means. It doesn't mean controlled by the government as you suggest. Regulated is often an adjective used to modify nouns, and its meaning changes a bit dependent upon the noun. The most apt definition in Colonial times was "to put in good order." Alexander Hamilton suggested this included being well armed.
I suggest you read http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm to learn more about the Second Amendment.
What you refer to as an assault rifle is in the long rifle category of arms.
You've got a lot to learn. The Tiahrt Amendment prevents the Bloomberg movement to use civil lawsuits as a way to drive gun manufacturers out of business through the use of nuisance lawsuits. As it states in the Tiahrt Amendment this does not exclude gun manufacturers from legitimate suits filed for a defective product. The amendment prevents people from access to trace data, which came about due to some people's misuse of trace data to produce inaccurate statistical data. Law enforcement and prosecutors have no limits using trace data in connection to a criminal case.
The Tiahrt Amendment is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police. Why? Because it keeps officers safe by keeping gun trace data secret. This letter in support of the amendment explains why:
Letter to Appropriations Subcommittee in support of Tiahrt Amendment 04/19/2007
The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan and Rodney Frelinghuysen
Chairman and Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman and Representative Frelinghuysen,
I am writing on behalf of the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police to express our strong support for the inclusion of language in the FY 2008 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies appropriations bill to prohibit disclosure of firearms trace data by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) firearms to non-law enforcement entities.
The FOP has supported this language since the original version was first enacted several years ago because of our concern for the safety of law enforcement officers and the integrity of law enforcement investigations. For example, the disclosure of trace requests can inadvertently reveal the names of undercover officers or informants, endangering their safety. It may also tip off the target of an investigation, as appears to be the case in New York City. According to media reports last year, law enforcement sources cited that as many as "four cases were compromised and an additional 14 were put at risk" by private investigators employed by the city who acted on the basis of trace data. In this case, the investigators conducted "sting" operations for the city's civil suit against several gun stores that had been identified through firearms trace data. As a result, several gun trafficking suspects under investigation by law enforcement changed their behavior to avoid scrutiny. This is exactly the type of interference that caused the FOP to originally support language restricting the use of the data to law enforcement....emphasis added
While we recognize that court decisions have reduced the effectiveness of this provision by allowing disclosure of trace data in civil suits, we continue to believe that its inclusion is extremely important and, on behalf of our more than 325,000 members, we urge that it be included in the bill when it is introduced. Thank you in advance for considering our view on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Chuck Canterbury
National President
I did not say you hadn't used one, I said it was painfully obvious you have never filled out a 4473 to purchase a firearm. If you have filled one of those out then you would have known that there is no useful information from the background check itself. Do you know that the 4473 is maintained by the dealer as part of the dealer's permanent records? The actual 4473 is not destroyed. You can see one at the ATF website http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
Some of the things you think should be illegal are illegal. Straw purchases are 100% illegal. It is a felony punishment is up to 10 years and a $250K fine. Dealers can lose an FFL by knowing making a sale to a straw purchaser, not to mention it also being a felony to knowingly allow a straw purchase. It is the ATF's job to investigate straw purchases and provide evidence for the prosecution of these felons, but they rarely do this; and that is the problem.
The laws are in place to prosecute gun runners. The laws are in place for felons to be prosecuted for attempting to purchase a weapon, not that is "attempting to purchase" and not just purchasing. It is the ATF's job to pursue these felons, but they don't.
If a felon tries to purchase a gun from CBBN and is lying on a 4473 the NICS will tell him the buyer is not eligible to make the purchase, this would be recorded on the NICS, which the dealer then keeps. The ATF is then charged with investigating and collecting evidence to prosecute.
Does the ATF do its job? Nope.
On to dealer audits. Why is there a limit on dealer audits? This is because the ATF would use audits to harass dealers and perform them way too frequently just to be a PITA. ATF auditors can enter any dealer's place of business and perform an audit of the records, and the records of sales have to match the firearms they bought to sell. The ATF can audit every sale the dealer has ever had, therefore there is no reason for frequent audits.
If one reads the amendment and then looks at what the ATF can legally do there is nothing there that can be construed to even remotely think that the Tiahrt Amendment prevents the ATF from doing its job. If the ATF in the process of an investigation needs to trace a firearm then they have no constraints in doing so. There is nothing in the Tiahrt Amendment to prevent this from taking place.
Keep in mind that the ATF is part of the Justice Department, which means it takes its marching orders from whatever administration is in charge. At the current time Eric Holder is in charge, the guy who brought us the "Fast and Furious" gun walking scheme.
The Tiahrt Amendment is law. The Second Amendment is law. The NFA is law. There are no laws that are prevented from being enforced through Tiahrt, and I challenge you to cite the law and its proper U.S. Code or other identification.
Sounds like you are unaware that the NRA and the NRA-ILA are two different entities. You need to do some actual research on the two. The NRA-ILA is the politically active branch and its primary source of funding is donations from NRA member, not manufacturers. That does not mean that the owners of manufacturers are not contributors, as most people that own American based gun manufacturing facilities are members.
I'll get back to the rest later, but how is concern about a national gun registry overstated when you were calling for one on the previous page for everyone who owns a handgun as if it were no big deal at all? I'd say you prove their concerns very valid.I think the great fear over a national registry is incredibly overblown and it's used as a bludgeon against any and all gun control legislation, even if it's reasonable.
As for the rest, Keith has done a great job addressing the background check process and how the idea of "missing" something on a 4473 or a check database isn't really how things work. The NICS database is a compilation of state and federal crimes. Those are the disqualifiers for owning a gun. the VaTech shooter hadn't committed any crimes, and I doubt was going to answer a new 4473 question like "do you plan on freaking out an killing a bunch of people" honestly. There was nothing to find b/c sadly these lunatics do not have much of a record.
The only one they may have is state or local level mental committments, which is a failure in the database and NICS system and one everyone has supported fixing. You don't need to hold the data longer to do that, and holding faulty data longer does no good.
You seem to just hope that with more records, more rules, more regulations somehow something will happen to make things better without having any specific idea of how that will happen. Maybe if we keep info longer, or register people you already admit won't actually commit the crimes, this will get better.
Pretty low bar for building federal databases of law abiding citizens.
Because the status quo isn't working. It's not good enough. I'm tired of reading about another shooting. You say the Founder's intended for us to be able to own any and all manner of firearms because they wanted the people to defend against a tyrannical state? I say that if they could have fathomed the likes of Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, or Columbine, they'd understand the need for more drastic measures. You say the "rare" mass shootings aren't enough to justify extremely harsh standards for ownership of handguns and assault rifles? I say one shooting is enough.
A few years ago, I was all gung-ho about the Second Amendment. It was completely open-ended and any move to impede ownership (even if it didn't bar ownership completely) was too much. But that's changed thanks to what has become an all-too-commonality of some psycho murdering people who had no inkling of doing something other than going to school or to a movie. It's too easy for psycho's and criminals to get guns. There's not enough accountability in the system and it needs to change.
The reality is the Founding Fathers did think that it was possible for tragedies like Sandy Hook and Aurora to occur. Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
You are espousing what Franklin spoke against, as you are willing to trade liberty for safety that may or may not come with more laws.
The laws serve only to facilitate murders. Violent crime rates are highest where there are more infringements on the liberty bestowed on us by the Second Amendment. The Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine type disasters occur in "gun fee zones" that criminals refuse to recognize. These incidents may not have been completely preventable, but the tragedies could have been lessened had their been an armed presence.
Ten years ago last month there was an armed student intent on harming students and teachers in our school. The School Resource Officer (SRO) intervened very early and as a result no shots were fired.
It is easy to see a solid correlation between gun free zones and these attacks by people that are apparently mentally unstable.
Your assertions that the Tiahrt Amendment was preventing searches by the ATF, those are talking points straight from anti-gun groups that wanted to gut the Tiahrt Amendment. The assertions were proven to be false.
"Don't take my guns, just put an armed guard in every hallway of every building."
And I'm the one trading liberty for safety? Please.
Yes, you are the one trading liberty for safety. Placing SRO's in the schools is a huge deterrent, schools that have them have never had a mass school shooting incident. SRO's don't take away anyone's liberty other than someone who is breaking the law, in that case they have forfeited their liberties.
Liberties are freedoms, SRO's don't take anyone's freedoms away.
Last edited by KeithKSR; 02-12-2013 at 07:53 PM.
Because police state > stricter gun control. Apparently.
They serve NO PURPOSE outside of killing another person - True, partially. The weapon I carry at my side is designed to kill if ever needed in a self defense situation. I never, NEVER want to use it for that purpose. As proof, I have carried a sidearm for a decade now and it has not been out of it's holster except to clean and take target practice. How do you justify tighter control over me carrying that weapon? The second purpose is for my personal enjoyment of target practice.
"well-regulated militia" refers to only the first half of the 2nd ammendment. You are ignoring the actual well regulated militia in existence today (the National Guard), and the fact that the ammendment has two parts, which are related but not the same items.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...e-killed-guns/
The argument against less bullets in a clip is disproved by one instance a year ago in my area. We had a police officer killed and 2 wounded last year in a gunfight inside an apt, some of you may remember me bringing it here, before they finally killed the guy. He was so high on drugs they hit him over 20 times before a bullet between the eyes put him down. With 20 wounds he was still shooting. A drug head comes in my house I don't want to be limited in how many times I can shoot.
We have a current administration that wants more laws they will not enforce, all to make themselves look better for their uninformed base. Chicago has tough laws, Conn has tough laws, Cal has tough laws, didnt help because the shooters in mass killings were mentally ill. More laws will not sto criminals, might increase the number of breaking to steal more guns to be sold on the streets.
Just more laws, more freedoms taken away because it doesn't affect them, but never do they ever press for current laws to be enforced nor do they ever scream for this administration to be put on trial for doing so many of the ver things they are proposing or have already broken laws on the books with their fast and furious program
Last edited by CitizenBBN; 02-13-2013 at 07:50 PM.
Now show another collumn where no crime or illegal activity (stolen guns, theft, home invasion, etc...) was involved (which would be where I would be categorized by comparison). Cite a Government source like the CIA World Fact Book or FBI crime statistics too, to remove bias by politically motivated individuals. I want to know how much of a threat to your idealic society I am just by owning a weapon and using it legally.
You're not a threat, at least not to me, and I have no problem with you owning a gun.
My point being, of course: How will taking a gun out of a law abiding citizen's hands do anything to stop criminals from breaking the laws they didn't follow to begin with?
I have never, not once in this thread, advocated taking guns that have been legally purchased by law-abiding citizens. I have only advocated doing something to prevent "bad" people from obtaining weapons as easily as they currently do. Maybe that means that "good" people have to jump through some more hoops, but if I my irritation at the process is worth keeping guns out of the hands of three or four other people that shouldn't have them, then I think that's a worthy price.
The problem with the system is that the mentally unstable and criminals can get guns too easily. Whether they're stolen from people like you, stolen from gun dealers, obtained through straw purchases, or allowed to be purchased legally because the system doesn't screen properly. Too many people can purchase guns that have no idea how to use them, and they end up hurting or killing themselves or family members, or through negligence they allow a family member to get one and hurt or kill people (Sandy Hook, for instance).
The system needs to screen better for mental illness. First time purchasers of guns need gun owner's safety training and thorough background checks that include mental health screenings of themselves AND immediate family members. My dad is a diagnosed manic depressive with bi-polar disorder - and he owned a veritable arsenal and never hunted - that shouldn't be allowed to happen.
I don't know what can be done to better prevent straw purchases, but possibly holding gun dealers more accountable is one solution. According to the gun owner in this story: http://www.wtae.com/news/local/alleg...g/-/index.html, it's usually pretty easy to spot an attempt at straw purchasing.
There are three issues as I see it. 1) Criminals can too easily obtain guns via theft or straw purchases. 2) The mentally unstable can too easily acquire guns through legal purchase because of a poor screening process and because family members have them too easily accessible. 3) People who are ignorant as to what constitutes gun safety either hurt/kill themselves/others.
Last edited by BigBlueBrock; 02-13-2013 at 11:15 AM.
By the way, I wanted to point out that Ron Paul, one of the most strict Constitutionalists in the country, thinks armed guards in schools is a terrible idea. I'll link to Fox News, since that seems to be this board's favorite "news" source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-every-school/
"School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America," Paul said in a written statement.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2KngboCDk
I think Ron Paul's vision of having armed guards at schools is a lot more elaborate than what I, personally, have envisioned.
Cool as a rule, but sometimes bad is bad.
Holding legal gun owners responsible, more responsible, is a great idea. Any proposed legislation that prevents said owners from possessing a weapon in a legal manner is a bad idea.
The rub is that what would be good enough? One or two guards in a large building like a school isn't enough. How many do you place in there? Six? 12? 20? Are they patrolling all the halls and common areas? Stationed in or outside the classrooms? Are they questioning every visitor and random students or teachers/administrators?
One entrance with one guard in or out of the building clearly armed. Surveillance cameras. Possibly another roaming guard inside.
Cool as a rule, but sometimes bad is bad.
If someone really wants to get into a school and shoot a bunch of people, one guard isn't enough and security cameras are irrelevant to preventing a shooting. I just disagree that the solution to this problem is veritably locking down schools. Just like the answer to terrorists on planes isn't the TSA doing full body scans and pat downs of old ladies or children, the answer to school shootings isn't turning them into a fortress. It can't be. Because as un-American as it would be to take people's guns, every step we take toward a police state is just as bad.
It seems these shooters pick places where there is no resistance at all. Every secondary school I ever attended had only one way IN. Exits were everywhere. And I never mentioned pat downs or full body scans. Nothing I envision comes close to being like a fortress.
Cool as a rule, but sometimes bad is bad.
You keep the doors where you cannot come in but can go out, otherwise only way in is thru the front door. Every school I visit it that way and many of our schools in Miss now have a police officer assigned to them after the Pearl shooting. First thing you notice when you drive up, police car out front.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks