""90% of the guns in Mexico come from the U.S."

[Hot Mega]

Okay, I have no idea where you get my position is religious, as opposed to practical...I have never mentioned religious beliefs as my guideline for what I believe. I think I have given some damn practical ideas, and thoughts on this subject, and I repeat. PUNISH THE CRIMINALS, NOT THE LAW ABIDING! Why do you continue to tell me you have a reasonable, and practical outlook on this subject, but offer nothing more then that? You still haven't answered my question about what you consider a loophole. You just tell me how wrong I am, and how short sighted I am, but do nothing to prove your point, mainly because you won't tell me what your point even is. Really, lets stop this. Give me something more, hell...give me anything.

You mistook my meaning of the use "religious". I meant it to describe the religious-like approach some fundamentalists tend to have on some issues.

It's because I suspect that may be the case I've debated as to whether or not it would even be worthwhile to move forward with this discussion. As anytime someone tries to reason a discussion on the topic out come the rants, integrity challenges and insults which have already happened so far in this thread. Never mind the fact that there is record on this board of me vehemently defending the right in a previous discussion with I believe "marquis2" or "Shindekudesai" (my apologies to the one I erroneous identified). As if there is some monolithic perspective that is the exclusive province of those who actually own "guns" where owning firearms and believing there are things we can reasonably do to curtail criminal use of them are mutually exclusive propositions.

Against my better judgement though, I am going to respond to your question(s) as to what loopholes exist and some of the ways I think they can be dealt with.

First, there should be a national standard for all sales, purchases and exchanges of firearms. (How does that concept violate your right or mine to firearms?)

Private sales in particular should be strongly regulated and NICS should be mandatory in all cases. (How does that concept violate your right or my right to firearms?)

By law you may transact a firearm if the NICS isn't received within 3 days. However, if the buyer is subsequently denied you must (try to) retrieve the firearm. That's not a loophole?

You mention enforcement of existing laws. Well straw purchases for example are against the law but what good is the law without some mechanism for tightly tracking sales and exchanges? Also, while straw purchases are illegal there is no law preventing me from buying a firearm and transferring it to someone else as a "gift" as long as the person is eligible to own one. Which I can't know unless I've performed a NICS on them. That's not a "loophole"?

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Against my better judgement though, I am going to respond to your question(s) as to what loopholes exist and some of the ways I think they can be dealt with.

Against your better judgment?!?! How do you expect to debate your side, if your side is unknown?

First, there should be a national standard for all sales, purchases and exchanges of firearms. (How does that concept violate your right or mine to firearms?)

Firearms sales, and purchases are Federally regulated, how are they not? As far as exchanges go, do you mean trading?

Private sales in particular should be strongly regulated and NICS should be mandatory in all cases. (How does that concept violate your right or my right to firearms?)

I just said it wouldn't bother me, as long as I could check myself, and do it for free, by phone anonymously. You must have missed that in my post.

By law you may transact a firearm if the NICS isn't received within 3 days. However, if the buyer is subsequently denied you must (try to) retrieve the firearm. That's not a loophole?

Okay, so what you want is the law changed so you have to wait until the check is done? The system is supposed to work then and there, they ran me through while I waited the other day, I've never had a situation where the system was down. I suppose the seller has the right to refuse to give you the firearm. I only deal with reputable people, I don't know what to tell you. My dealer is a law enforcement officer...he plays by the rules.

You mention enforcement of existing laws. Well straw purchases for example are against the law but what good is the law without some mechanism for tightly tracking sales and exchanges? Also, while straw purchases are illegal there is no law preventing me from buying a firearm and transferring it to someone else as a "gift" as long as the person is eligible to own one. Which I can't know unless I've performed a NICS on them. That's not a "loophole"?

If you are even hinting at some sort of Federal data base, designed for the registration of every firearm owned, and purchased, all I can say is, that's just as unconstitutional, as taking guns away, and completely unacceptable on every, or any level. As far as I'm concerned, a straw purchase isn't a loophole, it's someone breaking the law, and committing a crime. If they're caught, toss them in a Federal prison for 20 years. If someone is buying guns for someone taking them across a border, then close the borders and solve the problem.

So, what's your plan? It was like pulling teeth to get you to even hint at what you were talking about. What are your solutions? Impress me....

 

[LiGhT16]

ok it's complicated ^^

 

[Hot Mega]

Firearms sales, and purchases are Federally regulated, how are they not? As far as exchanges go, do you mean trading?

There is no national standard for sales, purchases and trading of firearms. Each state has their own requirements. That represents a loophole and it should be standardized IMO.

I just said it wouldn't bother me, as long as I could check myself, and do it for free, by phone anonymously. You must have missed that in my post.

Well with all you've stipulated the fact of the matter is NICS is not mandatory in all transactions and it should be. The fact that it isn't represents another loophole.

Okay, so what you want is the law changed so you have to wait until the check is done? The system is supposed to work then and there, they ran me through while I waited the other day, I've never had a situation where the system was down. I suppose the seller has the right to refuse to give you the firearm. I only deal with reputable people, I don't know what to tell you. My dealer is a law enforcement officer...he plays by the rules.

Okaay, that's your situation. And I don't care about the law being changed as much as I care about the circumstances be changed that could allow a person who hasn't cleared NICS to be in possession of a firearm. That's another loophole.

If you are even hinting at some sort of Federal data base, designed for the registration of every firearm owned, and purchased, all I can say is, that's just as unconstitutional, as taking guns away, and completely unacceptable on every, or any level. As far as I'm concerned, a straw purchase isn't a loophole, it's someone breaking the law, and committing a crime. If they're caught, toss them in a Federal prison for 20 years. If someone is buying guns for someone taking them across a border, then close the borders and solve the problem.

Let's assume I was "hinting" at fed registration of firearms, how does that inherently violate your right and mine to obtain and keep a firearm??

So, what's your plan? It was like pulling teeth to get you to even hint at what you were talking about. What are your solutions? Impress me....

I just did.

 

[D-rock]

There is no national standard for sales, purchases and trading of firearms. Each state has their own requirements. That represents a loophole and it should be standardized IMO.

While every state has it's own rules, there are still federal laws that have to be followed. The states just often add to those. Background checks are at the federal level. If they want to trace a serial number an a firearm it's not like one state or business can just deny them based on living in another state. All licenses to operate a business that sells firearms that I'm aware of are at the federal level. The BATF or whatever they are calling themselves now is a federal agency not a state agency. I think the regulations on what even constitutes a gun in the first place, or what type of gun something is, is at the federal level, or at least the states take enormous influence from the federal government on it. I don't really how you can think there are not federal standard or enforcement out there. In any case I can’t think of a single state who’s laws are inadequate, so the point is moot.

Well with all you've stipulated the fact of the matter is NICS is not mandatory in all transactions and it should be. The fact that it isn't represents another loophole.


Okaay, that's your situation. And I don't care about the law being changed as much as I care about the circumstances be changed that could allow a person who hasn't cleared NICS to be in possession of a firearm. That's another loophole.

There are sever problems with that on a practical level? Like will it cost anybody any money to have it checked? Will the seller or purchaser have to receive personal information about the other? Maybe one of the biggest problems with that is you would have to require the seller to store and keep records of the purchase and the person that bought it for pretty much forever or at least indefinitely and have them ready for inspection at any time, if you are going to make it like regulated businesses. It's either that or there would have to be some long term stored federal database of who checked who and that is even much worse. Not to mention any potential damages or litigation that may come if somebody screws up somewhere in the system, or even if they don't the mere fear of it will make some people hesitant for that alone. It seems like it would just create more of a hassle that makes people just never want to sell their personal firearms than a system that checks to see if it gets it into the wrong hands. Remember this isn't going to be a business where they have people used to and trained in handling things like this either. It would effect pretty much regular people. It's ridiculous and too much trouble just for a guy that wants to sell a rifle to his friend or have his children inherit them. I could also mention that this would be about useless considering it would just be very easy for somebody to just get a straw purchaser like they do now. Basically you just burdening regular people in an effort that will accomplish very little.

None of that seems like a loophole to me considering it can be circumvented now and circumvented in those situations you listed easily either by getting it illegally through the black market or straw purchasers.

Let's assume I was "hinting" at fed registration of firearms, how does that inherently violate your right and mine to obtain and keep a firearm??

The same way that requiring a license to practice free speech would be a violation of that right. A right is a right. I shouldn't have to ask permission for a right. Requiring me to get a license or register is making me ask my government for permission to exercise it. It shouldn't get to choose whether I should or not. Not to mention it would be the equivalent of saying your allowed to practice free speech, but the government is going to make you carry a recording device and transmitter around with you every where you go so that it can keep track of what you say, who you say it to, and when you say it just in case you say something they don't like. If somebody came up and then said, "How does that inherently violate your right and mine to practice free speech." would you feel the same? Having registration of our firearms would be one of the worst things to happen to the right to have them.

There are very very very good reasons why the government shouldn’t know and have a nice tidy database of who owns what guns and where they are. The right isn't just about the right to keep firearms. It's a protection against the worst case scenario to protect ourselves from our own government. That is next to absolutely useless if they have a nice tidy list of people they can go down to know who owns what and so they can take it away from them when they want or make life miserable for them in other ways because of that. It would pretty much render the most important aspect of the Second Amendment worthless. The system we have now isn't very good at all at that either, but at least the government doesn't have direct access in a lot of areas to that information (Then again a lot of stupid states have made it so they now do.), and maybe even more importantly it allows a person in the chain from gun manufacturer to distributor to gun store dealer a chance to destroy the records of what you own if the situation ever becomes that bad. I trust my local gun dealer with that information more than I do the government. It's unfortunate that a bad guy can get a hold of a weapon that the government might not know about (not that most of them would have trouble doing it anyway even with what you suggest), but allowing a database of people would be bad indeed.

 

[Hot Mega]

every state has it's own rules
In any case I can’t think of a single state who’s laws are inadequate, so the point is moot.

"every state has it's own rules" Exactly! They all should have the same rules with respect to permits, licenses, registrations and checks.

So you can't think of a law that you perceive to be "inadeqate". Well, I can. For example, in many cases a private party can simply sell a firearm to an individual after merely verifying they are a resident of the state. That's not "adequate" IMO.

Like will it cost anybody any money to have it checked? Will the seller or purchaser have to receive personal information about the other? Maybe one of the biggest problems with that is you would have to require the seller to store and keep records of the purchase and the person that bought it for pretty much forever or at least indefinitely and have them ready for inspection at any time, if you are going to make it like regulated businesses. I could also mention that this would be about useless considering it would just be very easy for somebody to just get a straw purchaser like they do now. Basically you just burdening regular people in an effort that will accomplish very little.

None of that seems like a loophole to me considering it can be circumvented now and circumvented in those situations you listed easily either by getting it illegally through the black market or straw purchasers.

And??? Part of selling or purchasing a firearm is there are additional responsibilities. If you don't want to assume those responsibilities..don't buy one or sell one. Certainly if a firearm you once possessed could be linked to you at some point in the future, it would be worth your effort to keep meticulous records of the transaction. Many people do 50 times as much record keeping for their taxes already. What's it to keep a few pieces of paper which absolve you of responsibility for a firearm you transferred??? You sell a car to someone...what's to stop them from accumulating a bunch of tickets on the car against your name???? The fact there is a record of the transaction which releases you from liability of the vehicle. In the event the government's records are wrong, isn't in your interest to keep your own records???

You cite straw purchasers which actually drives home MY point about loopholes.

The same way that requiring a license to practice free speech would be a violation of that right. A right is a right. I shouldn't have to ask permission for a right. Requiring me to get a license or register is making me ask my government for permission to exercise it. It shouldn't get to choose whether I should or not. Not to mention it would be the equivalent of saying your allowed to practice free speech, but the government is going to make you carry a recording device and transmitter around with you every where you go so that it can keep track of what you say, who you say it to, and when you say it just in case you say something they don't like. If somebody came up and then said, "How does that inherently violate your right and mine to practice free speech." would you feel the same? Having registration of our firearms would be one of the worst things to happen to the right to have them.

"..a right is a right"?? You're wrong. Rights are not only subject to revocation and restrictions but even in the example you cite, you're still wrong. While our freedom to assemble (for example) may not be infringed, the right to do so is still subject to permission by the local jurisdiction. Common sense restrictions on free speech have also been held as constitutional (i.e. can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or "bomb" on a plane). If you feel merely registering or getting a license is is infringing on your right, then why wouldn't passing a NICS be as well? Or do you believe the government ought not be able to determine if a person is insane or a violent felon before they purchase a firearm? So you think registering a firearm would be "one of the worst things to happen to the right" but explain how it actually does affect your right?

There are very very very good reasons why the government shouldn’t know and have a nice tidy database of who owns what guns and where they are. The right isn't just about the right to keep firearms. It's a protection against the worst case scenario to protect ourselves from our own government. That is next to absolutely useless if they have a nice tidy list of people they can go down to know who owns what and so they can take it away from them when they want or make life miserable for them in other ways because of that. It would pretty much render the most important aspect of the Second Amendment worthless. The system we have now isn't very good at all at that either, but at least the government doesn't have direct access in a lot of areas to that information (Then again a lot of stupid states have made it so they now do.), and maybe even more importantly it allows a person in the chain from gun manufacturer to distributor to gun store dealer a chance to destroy the records of what you own if the situation ever becomes that bad. I trust my local gun dealer with that information more than I do the government. It's unfortunate that a bad guy can get a hold of a weapon that the government might not know about (not that most of them would have trouble doing it anyway even with what you suggest), but allowing a database of people would be bad indeed.

It seems like you want to pick and choose which parts of the amendment you like. You seem to have "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" part down but what about the "well regulated" part?? How can no accountability (as you seem to advocate) and "well regulated" exist in the same space?? As concepts, they are virtually the antithesis of one another. Stringent regulation seems to be not only common sense but it would appear to be a constitutional requirement. Who is suppose to be doing the regulating part? Your "local gun dealer"??

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Okay, we can go round and round all day...I'm only going to respond to 2 parts of your post, and I inform you of that, so you won't make the claim, that I am ignoring what I want, and seeing what I want. Once again, you have explained your point, and not given me solutions, although admittedly, I haven't read your exchange with D-rock, so maybe it's in there.

#1

Let's assume I was "hinting" at fed registration of firearms, how does that inherently violate your right and mine to obtain and keep a firearm??

Because it creates a list for a Government to use, to easily start disarming a peaceable people, to further their agenda. Notice I say "A" government, and not "OUR" government. It might end up being the UN. IF certain people have their way. If you look back through history, you will see that countries that know who, owns what, are likely to start with those people.

#2

I just did.

No you didn't. Not because your thoughts weren't intelligent, and thought out, but because all you have done is complain about the problems, and not offered any ideas for some solutions. Once again, at least I've tried to come up with something...even if it's unsatisfactory to you, or flawed in it's ability to work...I tried.

 

[Hot Mega]

Okay, we can go round and round all day...

With responses like this I can no other destination but "round and round" which is as I said, why I debated even continuing the "discussion".

Because it creates a list for a Government to use, to easily start disarming a peaceable people, to further their agenda. Notice I say "A" government, and not "OUR" government. It might end up being the UN. IF certain people have their way. If you look back through history, you will see that countries that know who, owns what, are likely to start with those people.

Well, I can't debate with you what you think will happen and erstwhile conspiracy theories. What I can say is the very document from which our right to arms is conceived also contains therein checks and balances, rights and authorities not existent in the historical examples you've cited.

No you didn't. Not because your thoughts weren't intelligent, and thought out, but because all you have done is complain about the problems, and not offered any ideas for some solutions. Once again, at least I've tried to come up with something...even if it's unsatisfactory to you, or flawed in it's ability to work...I tried.

You asked for examples of "loopholes" and solutions but all you see is no ideas and complaints in this response??

First, there should be a national standard for all sales, purchases and exchanges of firearms. (How does that concept violate your right or mine to firearms?)

Private sales in particular should be strongly regulated and NICS should be mandatory in all cases. (How does that concept violate your right or my right to firearms?)

By law you may transact a firearm if the NICS isn't received within 3 days. However, if the buyer is subsequently denied you must (try to) retrieve the firearm. That's not a loophole?

You mention enforcement of existing laws. Well straw purchases for example are against the law but what good is the law without some mechanism for tightly tracking sales and exchanges? Also, while straw purchases are illegal there is no law preventing me from buying a firearm and transferring it to someone else as a "gift" as long as the person is eligible to own one. Which I can't know unless I've performed a NICS on them. That's not a "loophole"?

 

[Mr. Daystar]

First, there should be a national standard for all sales, purchases and exchanges of firearms. (How does that concept violate your right or mine to firearms?)

What standards do you want, how should they be implemented?

Private sales in particular should be strongly regulated and NICS should be mandatory in all cases. (How does that concept violate your right or my right to firearms?)

Okay, so what would you do? Phone check, website check?

By law you may transact a firearm if the NICS isn't received within 3 days. However, if the buyer is subsequently denied you must (try to) retrieve the firearm. That's not a loophole?

All you would have had to type after this was..."they should change this, so you can't get the gun, until the check comes back"...and I would have taken that as a solution.

You mention enforcement of existing laws. Well straw purchases for example are against the law but what good is the law without some mechanism for tightly tracking sales and exchanges? Also, while straw purchases are illegal there is no law preventing me from buying a firearm and transferring it to someone else as a "gift" as long as the person is eligible to own one. Which I can't know unless I've performed a NICS on them. That's not a "loophole"?

So tell me what you want done, and how they should change it. Don't just say here's the problems, and they should fix them.

 

[Hot Mega]

What standards do you want, how should they be implemented?

Okay, so what would you do? Phone check, website check?

All you would have had to type after this was..."they should change this, so you can't get the gun, until the check comes back"...and I would have taken that as a solution.

So tell me what you want done, and how they should change it. Don't just say here's the problems, and they should fix them.

Again, you asked for examples of changes AND examples of "loopholes" (or I guess what you're terming to be complaints). I believe I provided examples of both. Me thinks merely applying some of the solutions I suggest to some of the "loopholes" I suggest would get you near some specifics to the question of standards you ask about. You want the nuts and bolts of the solutions without accepting that at minimum the fact that the lack of universal standards creates de facto loopholes.

If I point out (for example) that a firearm may be sold eventually even if the NICS hasn't been returned as problem or loophole, isn't the implication that a change is necessary pretty apparent?

Does it matter what method NICS is performed as long as it IS performed, is timely and accurate??

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Again, you asked for examples of changes AND examples of "loopholes" (or I guess what you're terming to be complaints). I believe I provided examples of both. Me thinks merely applying some of the solutions I suggest to some of the "loopholes" I suggest would get you near some specifics to the question of standards you ask about. You want the nuts and bolts of the solutions without accepting that at minimum the fact that the lack of universal standards creates de facto loopholes.

If I point out (for example) that a firearm may be sold eventually even if the NICS hasn't been returned as problem or loophole, isn't the implication that a change is necessary pretty apparent?

Does it matter what method NICS is performed as long as it IS performed, is timely and accurate??

Then I asked what YOU would do. Don't make it seem like I'm dancing around the issue. You said the same stuff over and over...I just wanted YOUR opinion of what, and how to change the things you brought up. Why should I assume, that because you said "this is whats wrong, it is in need of a change", that it should be obvious to me, and everyone else that reads it how you want it changed. I think we've exhausted this...we disagree. It is what it is. I just need to ask one more question, purely for my own curiosity, and after you answer, if you do, I will not bring the matter up for debate. Here goes...
Are you of the opinion that, a law abiding citizen has the right to own any gun he wants, as long as they fall into the current laws? Or are you of the opinion that no private citizen needs a gun that accepts 20-30 round magazines, and the assault weapons ban needs to be reinstated?

 

[Mr. Daystar]

I guess This should appall me, but it actually isn't very surprising at all. As much as I love when shit like this happens to some hypocritical politician, this doesn't...it just pisses me off. Sadly, this will do nothing to change the points of view, the gun grabbers hold, it will just fly right by them, and the media, and be ignored as a non issue.

Is-FBI-agent-Mexican-crime-gun-source

 

[Hot Mega]

I guess This should appall me, but it actually isn't very surprising at all. As much as I love when shit like this happens to some hypocritical politician, this doesn't...it just pisses me off. Sadly, this will do nothing to change the points of view, the gun grabbers hold, it will just fly right by them, and the media, and be ignored as a non issue.

Is-FBI-agent-Mexican-crime-gun-source

Huh?? If true, the story sort of backs up the claim authored in this thread..

Maybe the writer of the story might want to see some of the evidence before we declare one way or the other eh?? Interesting how he naturally assumes jack booted government agents are hauling this guy off who's just minding his business exercising his rights. Well, why don't we let the courts figure out what the facts are before we crucify or glorify the guy.

I don't know the guy and he should have his day in court. It would appear sufficient probable cause existed for a judge to issue a warrant so let's see how it plays out. If the evidence suggests he's not guilty I'll be the first arguing for his rights. But if he's demonstrated to be guilty then I'll be the first calling for his ass to do the max...because asshole like that jeopardize my rights.