Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

so you would agree that we have backround checks in place already. Like I said ... all the stuff going on is just bromides. It will have no impact.

---

I can understand how universal background checks would be useless, but I think the private gun-show and person-to-person sales should be regulated somehow. I suspect the Lanza shooting happened because the mom either did not secure her legally obtained guns or the son figured out how to get into her gun safe (if she had one). What can be done about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I can understand how universal background checks would be useless, but I think the private gun-show and person-to-person sales should be regulated somehow. I suspect the Lanza shooting happened because the mom either did not secure her legally obtained guns or the son figured out how to get into her gun safe (if she had one). What can be done about that?

---

Education? The left uses that line whenever abortion and sex is the topic, why not guns? Actually I think they may have it backwards, why don't they want to educate about gun safety and not require background checks, licenses and "trigger locks" for teenagers? Far more people are harmed and killed every year due to irresponsible sex than gunshots.

The underlying problem in the Lanza case is his mental health. New information reveals he spent hours plotting his attack . He treated it like a real life version of one of the video games he was addicted to . He kept score of previous mass shootings and had a goal of beating the totals.

Exactly, but even the mental health provisions need to be watched, check yourself in voluntarily to a hospital for a little depression for a couple days and the authorities just might come confiscate your weapons in California.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

so you would agree that we have backround checks in place already. Like I said ... all the stuff going on is just bromides. It will have no impact.

---

We can close some loopholes to what we have in place that people are using to get around the law. It's the same thing with taxes, abortions, guns and government.

What worked in the 70's may not work NOW, and requires some adjustments. If you aren't as smart as excon, you are in trouble, and don't be swayed because he is cute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

the underlying problem in the Lanza case is his mental health. New information reveals he spent hours plotting his attack . He treated it like a real life version of one of the video games he was addicted to . He kept score of previous mass shootings and had a goal of beating the totals.

---

Didn't his mom ever go into the basement and see what he was up to? Did you read the news article about the college guy who had noticed something was up with his roommate and reported it, so the roommate ended up killing only himself, even though he had planned a mass shooting? We need to be less PC and stop dancing around each other when we see odd or abnormal behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

We need to be less PC and stop dancing around each other when we see odd or abnormal behavior.

---

I think we need to stop being PC period. For instance I'll say "Washington Redskins" if I want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

I need some right wing clarity, IF that's possible... We are NOW doing some background checks.. They appear to WORK, in that, there HAVE been some exconvicts who were CAUGHT trying to buy guns, and were sent packing.. But, because they WEREN'T prosecuted, the right wing doesn't want to expand the process..

Lemme say that again. The background checks WORKED, but because the cops won't go after the guys who COULDN'T buy guns, we shouldn't prevent MORE bad guys from buying guns...

Have I got that about right???

excon

---

Here is what your missing in the process. Most background checks that are done today have a stipulation in them in that the back ground check is destroyed after it is completed. What the legislation is asking for is a gun registration program. That is a very different process. So most of the argument being made right now is not about the background check itself so much as it is the recording of who owns what and where.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Is that more red herrings, or more straw men? And, why can't you answer my question?? You're NOT dumb. You KNOW that I can buy ANY gun I want from PRIVATE sellers who GO to gun shows to SELL their guns. They do that ALL across this great country of ours, even in NY..

You either KNOW that, or you're afraid if you tell the truth, even you, yourself, will think you're a gun nut.

excon

---

This is a half truth. Where the line is and as far as the law in concerned is in the facts. So as a private sale that is going to take place the seller has to be reasonably sure the buyer can own the gun that is for sale.

SO if you are the buyer and someone sells you a gun based on your good looks and doesn't bother to ask any questions then they could be guilty of a crime. If they ask the questions and you lie then you're the one guilty of a crime.

If you knowingly sell a gun through private sale to a person that you know can not purchase that weapon on their own then you are not only guilty of a crime but may be liable for any crimes committed with that weapon as an accessory.

I hope that clears it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Why did 72,000 not pass? Maybe the world is safer because of that, despite no prosecutions came about.

---

It can be for any number of reasons. Also many states have a setup where you can pay a small fee and see without breaking the law if you can purchase one legally. So without seeing why a person was denied you can't actually tell if it was because of illicit behavior or not. It can be due to misunderstanding of the law and how it is applied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Why would you prosecute someone that failed a background check unless other factors were involved? I know of no law that says a failure to pass is illegal in of itself.

---

Yes it is. The reason being is that in order to create the background check you have to be purchasing a weapon first. It is listed in the background check as part of the process. So if you knowingly attempt to buy a weapon that you are not entitled to own you are breaking a ATF statuate. Hence your committing a federal crime.

Thank you for that clarity and if I may pick your brain what if one was a gun owner already and the circumstances had changed when he was buying another gun? Is this also a violation and would the fact he owned a gun before mean a surrender of his lawfully purchaced gun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Thank you for that clarity and if I may pick your brain what if one was a gun owner already and the circumstances had changed when he was buying another gun? Is this also a violation and would the fact he owned a gun before mean a surrender of his lawfully purchaced gun?

---

Yes it does like in the case of Domestic violence and restraining orders. Its not uncommon for a Judge to order all weapons away from the perp. There are several ways of dealing with it including a nominal fee being charged by your local LEO to keep the weapons for you to you outright selling them so they are not in your home or possession.

The Senate voted against ratification 53-46 .

Hello again,

Quote:

---

So if you knowingly attempt to buy a weapon that you are not entitled to own you are breaking a ATF statuate. Hence your committing a federal crime.

---

This is nuts, if you think about it.

The law you're discussing has TWO benefits - one MAJOR and one minor. The MAJOR benefit is that it STOPPED felons from getting guns. That's what the law was DESIGNED to do, and it WORKED. The minor secondary benefit, is that a convict committed a crime by filling out the paper and YOU know WHO he is, so you can arrest him...

Regrettably, I've committed federal crimes before. None, however, as despicable as filling out an application for something I'm not entitled to... I would NEVER do that. My parents told me to NEVER do unauthorized applying... Fortunately, I've never succumbed to it..

Now, our wonderful right wing sees the MAJOR benefit in this law as the ability to arrest the wrongful applier - NOT the fact that he couldn't buy a gun. And, if the feds AREN'T going to arrest people for wrongful applying, then why try to stop them from getting a gun AT ALL??

At least that's the crack thinking of our right wing brethren. In the real world, it's BONKERS..

Excon

Ex you know its right, pen pushers have to get an opportunity to enforce the law too, that's what equal opportinity is about right and felons have to be given equal opportunity to break the law, if they are that stupid let them fry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The Senate voted against ratification 53-46 .

---

UN Arms Trade Treaty Sparks White House Protests And Senate Amendments

Quote:

---

In the predawn hours on Saturday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) proposed an amendment to the Senate's budget bill that would prohibit the U.S. from signing the ATT. The Senate approved the measure by a vote of 53-46.

During the same marathon legislative session, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.) proposed a separate amendment affirming that international treaties do not trump the U.S. Constitution, a direct jab at a worry expressed by groups like the NRA. Leahy's measure passed by a voice vote.

Both amendments will be worked on in a committee process and then proceed to the House. The Senate departed for Easter recess immediately after passing the budget bill.

---

The treaty wasn't killed, just delayed for further review.

Yes it's a rider to the Budget bill (what nonsense !) . But the budget bill was passed .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

This is nuts, if you think about it.

The law you're discussing has TWO benefits - one MAJOR and one minor. The MAJOR benefit is that it STOPPED felons from getting guns. That's what the law was DESIGNED to do, and it WORKED. The minor secondary benefit, is that a convict committed a crime by filling out the paper and YOU know WHO he is, so you can arrest him...

Regrettably, I've committed federal crimes before. None, however, as despicable as filling out an application for something I'm not entitled to... I would NEVER do that. My parents told me to NEVER do unauthorized applying... Fortunately, I've never succumbed to it..

Now, our wonderful right wing sees the MAJOR benefit in this law as the ability to arrest the wrongful applier - NOT the fact that he couldn't buy a gun. And, if the feds AREN'T gonna arrest people for wrongful applying, then why try to stop them from getting a gun AT ALL???

At least that's the crack thinking of our right wing brethren. In the real world, it's BONKERS..

excon

---

What you have to understand is that many states have an avenue for getting cheked out without the purchase of a gun. Aif you apply there and fail the initial test then you simply fail. No crime is being committed. I think the reasoning is that should you be a felon or on a DM list your not suppose to be around guns in the first place. If you apply ( I think available online) and pay the fee you skate by. But should you knowingly walk into a gun store where many guns are present and then fill out a form for one you have picked out to buy. Then maybe that person needs to rethink what path they are on in life and not spring forth children. The gene pool is already contaminated enough.

Hello dad.

Quote:

---

I think the reasoning is that should you be a felon or on a DM list your not suppose to be around guns in the first place.

---

If so, then the reasoning is faulty.. The law is CLEAR. A felon cannot be in POSSESSION of a firearm. Being within 3 feet of a gun, say in a gun store display case, is NOT a crime..

Now, if you're under state supervision, THEN you can't be "around" guns. But, MOST felons aren't on parole or probation.

I appreciate your effort at explaining the unexplainable. The OTHER guys change the subject. Would you try again, armed, so to speak, with the CORRECT law??

Excon