Why, if we don't enforce the laws we already have??

Sheesh, are you really so myopic?

.

No, that's the full extent of their vocabulary

There already is a law against straw buyers. Lets get real here.

Let's get real here, the law currently has no teeth so there is little prosecution. A stiffer law will get the federal prosecutors motivated.

Why are you guys so against that? Afraid of getting busted ?

Because
they do not work. There is no national database on who is nut or not, who is a criminal.
What laws they do have has no teeth because of the gun lobby. I have no problem with someone own a gun but
what a true national database for: Who is nuts. Who is a criminal. Who is sold what
gun and when is it resold or stolen. This database needs to use computers and
all sell receipts must be sent automatically.

How do you stop the gun runners when they can walk out of the gun store and sell guns on the street without fear of prosecution?

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

@ hank and tim

The laws have plenty of teeth, if the courts chose to enforce. We don't need more laws, what we need is more common citizens blowing away the punks who accost them. Police will always arrive in time to mop up the pieces, never in time to protect though. Get a pair and embrace your inner man, the one who would bear arms to protect his family and friends from the seedy element of society, the one who will resist government run amok.

How quickly you spineless sheep agree to give up individual freedoms to an ever more hungry federal monster. Take the power away from the elite politicians and give it back to the common man; while there's still enough men out there with the balls (and the means) to think and fend for themselves.

The Dog.

Send a shock wave to Dianne Feinstein and the extreme left. Sign the petition to repeal Senate Bill SBX211. When the entire Los Angeles Superior Court Judges face felony charges for accepting money that was NOT authorized by law. That should put them back on their heels for a while.
Google SBX211 and sign the petition. COMPLETE MAINSTREAM MEDIA BLACKOUT, tell others to sign.

Enforce the laws already on the books? Isn't going to happen so long as the GOP in Congress is afraid of facing up to the NRA.

NRA ACTIVELY WORKED TO WEAKEN GUN LAW ENFORCEMENT

The National Rifle Association says proposals such as universal background checks for gun buyers won't work and the nation must enforce the laws it has. But lobbying records and interviews show the organization has worked steadily to weaken existing gun laws and the federal agency charged with enforcing them.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/07/nra-interferes-with-atf-operations/1894355/

Please that is just BS. It was put in place to keep minor record keeping errors from being felonies. I.E. if someone bought a firearm in an odd caliber and the clerk wrote down 30-06, the most likely caliber the gun came in. An honest mistake on paper work shouldn't be a felony. No way does it prevent an audited gun dealer from not being responsible for 1,200 missing firearms.

One provision in the law Vizzard cited as particularly
vexing to the ATF was that false record keeping for dealers was reduced to a
misdemeanor, meaning if an ATF agent audited a gun dealer missing 1,200 guns,
the dealer could not be charged with a federal offense.

Read the first part again:

The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986. This law mandated that the ATF could only inspect firearms dealers once a year. It reduced record-keeping penalties from felonies to misdemeanors, prohibited the ATF from computerizing purchase records for firearms and required the government to prove that a gundealer was "willful" if they sold a firearm to a prohibited person.

The Tiahrt amendments. Beginning in 2003, the amendments by then-representative Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., to the Justice Department's appropriation bill included requirements such as the same-day destruction of FBI background check documents and limits on the sharing of data from traces.

Desruction of records are suppose to take place by law. Just moved them to same day. And there is no point to sharing trace data.

The ATF also has opposed the public sharing of data from traces same as the NRA.

Radicko-

uninformed morons spewing regurgitiated crap like yours are the reason there are 6 million NRA members now instead of 4 million 2 months ago. Oh, and I have been in law enforcement for 22 years, and been a member of the NRA the whole time. If you want to point a finger at the problem, I can tell you from personal experience its not the Republicans fault- its the liberal idiots running the states, and liberal judges and procesutors playing the good ol' boy system. I forgot Attorneys, they make money off of the whole thing.

I cant tell you how many scumbags get sent through a revolving door, just to continually get out and hurt more innocent people. But....we are all so "civilized" now, we have to blame someones actions on something else, from their childhood, their drug problem, etc etc. Now, we have reaced a pinnacle and are blaming an in-animate object. Dont tell it like it is, the inner city, low life third generation gang banging scumbag, with no respect for anyone or anything....the animal, and the animals that come right across the border. You know what I am saying, and you know that it is true....problem is, when do WE admit it, and start cleaning it up.

Criminals THRIVE on societies understanding. They are thriving today, thanks to people like you.

Google: ATF abuse of power

It's no wonder people don't want these people with much power.

Hank - The current law isn't enforced not because it has no teeth. DOJ says that don't have the time/money/man power. (A DOJ official told this to a congressional panel.) It's just not worth it to them. If they enforce it as a felony, that would make a lie of their current excuse, because they aren't going to have more of what they need just because the penalties have been increased. If prosecutions do go up, that will just show that they're in it for the value to their careers, because the offense, if it's dangerous to the public, will not have changed one iota. Calling it a felony will not make it any more dangerous to the public welfare than it already is. Obviously, that's not too dangerous, otherwise they'd be prosecuting these cases now.

It's just one big horse and pony show meant to make people feel good and to simulate effective action on the part of government.

The FEDS cant even keep track of the illegals they released into Phoenix let alone the guns they provided to the drug cartels (Fast and Furious) so how does one except them from from screwing this one up also.

Dave

Under the current law it is a felony punishable by up to a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison. You could make it life with no parole, but if no one prosecutes, what difference does the penalty really matter.

AG Janet Reno(under the Clinton administration)when asked why she chose not to prosecute the some 10,000 Federal Firearms violators that attempted to buy firearms illegally, answered " Doing so would just clog up the court system". Instead that administration enacted a 10yr "Assault Weapons Ban" that did nothing to reduce criminal activity. If the current administration is in "like kind", just how are any new laws going to be enforced any differently?

moondog:

"Get a pair and embrace your inner man.."

Why not "Grow Up"?

Steven B

Why, if we don't enforce the laws we already have??

Sheesh, are you really so myopic?

No trying to be a politician. Raise hell about some thing which makes no sense, get the support of the minions, and do as promised. BUT accomplish nothing, work a little and get a staff to help in your efforts, and get paid a good salary. But one must be good at patting yourself on the back without others seeing it is you doing it and not others.

Existing gun laws have repeatedly been gutted and their enforcement underfunded by paid right wing hacks who kowtow to the gun lobby and can't control their own dystopian ideologies. So knock it off with the 'existing laws' nonsense.

All of you second amendment defenders need to understand a few things:

1) What you're ultimately proposing amounts to sedition.

2) Where's the 'well regulated militia?' Your prescriptions don't even follow the amendment, due to your frothing at the mouth about regulation.

3) What will your anti-tyrannical revolution look like, really? As one poster said on here a while ago, most likely a local flash mob type event that ends in a bloody massacre, with you all dead. That's the best you can hope for, if you're honest with yourself about how the whole militia thing will go. We have a standing army that will crush you.

Get serious.

Arm ALL Americans..................Remove ALL Mexicans!

REMEMBER Texas 1836!

I got on here curious about the thoughts of my fellow Americans on this whole deal and what I have read ( in the last hour ) is finger pointing bulls**t from alot and intelligent truth from some. I am in no way the debate type or long on words ( usually ), but I believe that the existing laws should be enforced more strongly. The government is constantly covering its ass for one thing or another and criminals will do whatever it takes to get what they want. I dont care about right or left ( libs whine to much ), but I will say this: Plutocracy no! If you are a U. S. soldier or have served and put down that sh*t,, you are out of your mind. If you trace back most all countries over 70-some yrs ( or so ) where citizens were disarmed by their government became victims of their government. Gun control, Sure but not to the point that some of this so called government would like. As a former U. S. Army Infantry soldier I KNOW any type of regulation of malitia will be up to us the citizens. Our government has continually dropped the ball on our behalf. So big words douche bag! you laxy dazy lost sheep think about this. We the soldiers of the United States of America will defend our families, our country and our homes against all enemies, foriegn or domestic.. ALL ENEMIES! And just to be clear, we are the people who make up your Fu**ing Army dipsh*t. The coolest part is we have the knowledge and access to most of the weapons we were trained to use thanks to our government. Obama is not my President he got back in because of lazy ride the ride people like you. Use some more big words if you reply.. they sound politiciany... Actually I would like to know if you have any prior service , but I doubt it after reading your standing army crush you crap.

@ Plutocracy now!

Existing gun laws have repeatedly been gutted and their enforcement underfunded

Example please

DOJ responsible for enforcing law. Looks to me they don't want to be bothered with more run of the mill cases. Only the ones that get their names splashed in the papers.

So knock it off with the 'existing laws' nonsense.

Because you fail to believe it doesn't make it untrue. Example current law for straw purchaser is up to $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison. They want to increase it to 25 years. I say you can make it 50 years or life in prison without possibility of parole it won't matter. If the DOJ doesn't get off it's backside and prosecute a case.

All of you second amendment defenders need to understand a few things:

1) Sorry defending the second amendment is not equal to sedition. Actually quite the opposite when I was in the Navy I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. Last I checked the second amendment was part of that Constitution.

2) You do realize that the militia was all able body men. There was no National Guard. Also don't stop there keep reading a little more "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Since the courts and people that read English with all those this clause is subjective of this clause have been siding with us I would say as my friend from the Navy use to: That dog don't hunt. Oh and to frothing at the mouth I would check your own rabies vaccination.

3) Do you think army is just going to mow down a mob. Sorry about those stray bullets killing kids. Start driving tanks through Boston. Please one massacre and you would have an open revolt. You think all those good ol' boys are going to be keen about confiscating guns from their relatives. How did the Brit standing armies do in the Revolution against militia? More up to date how about Arab spring. I don't see it going that far as long as we have rational people in the debate.

There are a couple reasons the current law isn't enforced to people's satisfaction.

1. If you investigate every "suspicious" purchase, you'd have to expand the ATF to a hundred thousand employees.

2. In reality, the vast majority of "suspicious" purchases are either legitimate or unprovable. A single court case like this can drag out for years if the person chooses to fight it. Spending literally millions of taxpayer dollars in the process. In reality, it is better to plea these down to misdemeanor charges and get that individual on record. That way any future case becomes more likely to result in prosecution at a higher charge.

They do prosecute some of these cases. The recent incident where the ex-con killed some firefighters in a sniper attack is one such case. The woman who is suspected of the straw purchase will be dragged through the courts. They will destroy her life and cost her and her family everything they own in the process. Ultimately, when she runs out of money, she will most likely end up convicted because the prosecuting attorneys will be able to out maneuver her. She may eventually give in and change her plead to guilty to get a reduced sentence. She will be punished. But the cost to taxpayers will be enormous.

The fact is that for small time players, it is just more practical to work a plea deal on a lesser charge. These people aren't getting off with no punishment and ultimately they are flagged which will take them out of repeating the crime again 99% of the time.

You also need to consider that maybe in fact many of these people are innocent.

I do agree that there are cases of so called "private dealers" at gun shows who are in this "business" for profit. That itself is a violation of the law. If we are going to spend money cracking down on those who violate the gun laws, these are the players we ought to focus on. It would be easy to "sting" these guys and put them out of business. That said, not all these guys are irresponsible either. A collector who is looking to trade in and out of his collection or sell down his collection is legitimate in my opinion and will only make thoughtful judicious deals. But the concept of a for profit "private dealer" illegally traffics a lot of guns. Maybe not as high as some claim, but I'm sure it happens.

As for true straw purchases.

Consider this. If you know someone of questionable character who might possibly be an ex-con or mental defective, would you really want to buy a gun for them? Worse yet, if you know they are someone who can't buy a weapon themselves, will you hand one to them? The fact that you know them and associate with them, doesn't it seem like you might be putting yourself at risk by doing so? I think most responsible gun owners view it much the same. Even some irresponsible ones aren't stupid.

Consider this scenario. You are married to a good man who had some youthful indiscretion with drugs and will not pass a background check. You would like a gun for protection in your home. You take him to the store with you because he has more knowledge than you about making the selection. You plan to keep the gun in your home and in reality you may even expect your husband to help teach you how to use it. You have no reservations about him using that gun to defend you if the need arises. So when you make that purchase with him standing there, are you making a straw purchase? It probably looks like it. And in reality, if he could buy it, you'd probably have him do it rather than you. But the reason you bought it was for your protection. Now if you at all anticipated that he would get his hands on it and in your mind you view it as providing protection for both of you, I suspect that technically it might be considered as a straw purchase in the most technical sense. Should you be prosecuted?

You can play out a variety of different twists to the above scenario. Some may seem worse than others. For example if you buy it with the intention of giving it to him and never touching it again yourself, then I think it clearly is a straw purchase even if your intention was for him to use it in your home for your protection. But if you were the prosecutor, would you pursue this case? My guess is that depending on who's reading this, that answer might vary.

Another scenario is your neighbor who seems like a nice enough guy and he comes to you and says that he can't buy a gun, but if you buy it and then sell it to him, he'll give you $100 for that favor. To me there is no doubt whatsoever that this would be a straw purchase. The funny thing is that this one very likely goes unnoticed. If something happens, like the guy catches an intruder in his home and the cops find him with the gun, the story becomes that you had bought it for yourself, but didn't really like it, and months later you sold it to your neighbor, who you knew to be a decent guy and law abiding citizen.

One last scenario. You are a crack head but you've never been busted. You owe your dealer money and could use some more dope, but you're broke. He hands you some hundred dollar bills and tells you to go buy him a gun and he'll fix you up. You do as asked. He takes the gun and sells it to his supplier who in turn sells it to somebody else and eventually it gets found at a liquor store robbery. The police and the ATF come to your door to ask about the gun you bought. They bust you for possession of drugs and paraphernalia and suspicion of the gun charge. You cut a deal and give them some intel on your dealer. So they prosecute you on the drug charge, which is easy and drop the gun charge. You plead guilty to the drugs and get a reduced sentence, the gun charge went away, but you won't be making straw purchases anymore.

The bottom line is that "straw purchases" likely run the gamet of scenarios like these. I think the reality is that the last scenario, or one very similar, happens a lot. It is these scenarios that put guns on the street in the hands of criminals committing gun violence. But these will rarely get prosecuted because often there are far easier to prosecute charges, that can be used against the individual.

When you talk about the other scenarios, a lot of it is about intent. I'm sure that if they wanted to, they could try to prosecute all those scenarios. In reality I think they tend to look at it as "no harm-no foul", realizing the difficulties in making their case. Cut a deal on a misdemeanor plea and move on to chasing bad guys. I guess I think that is probably the practical way to approach it and I think the level of guilt as it relates to the intent of the law is varied, but maybe not so bad as to be putting these people in jail.

I think the scenarios I described are a reasonable picture of what actually occurs and the reason the Straw Purchase law often doesn't get prosecuted.

Rottenneighbor, what an appropriate name. Too bad they didn't teach you how to spell in the Army, perhaps it would have landed you a better job than stocking the gun shelves at Wal-Mart. Go grab your gun, hit the streets, and start shooting. Yee ha.

Biggie, 'one massacre and you'd have an open revolt.' No, just the opposite: An open revolt and you'd have a massacre. Your fantasies are the dog that don't hunt. You soldiers have been mowing down civilians for generations now, why would a neocon revolution be any different? Par for the course. You're part of the problem, not the solution; How does it feel to be used by the plutocrats, both in the service and now as you're plotting an armed insurrection that will do nothing but preserve wealth for those who have it? But at least you have free education and VA healthcare programs, courtesy of liberal taxpayers like me. Froth away.

Plutocracy now!

Just look at history, Boston massacre did much to galvanize the colonies. By your name and and how you hold service people in contempt tells us much. For the most (God know's, oh sorry you probably don't believe in a God either, I didn't put in most how you would be jumping up and down about Kent State) part we don't mow down are own people. I'm not plotting anything, you asked "What will your anti-tyrannical revolution look like, really?" I explained how I saw it falling out if push came to shove. I also rember saying "I don't see it going that far as long as we have rational people in the debate."

preserve wealth for those who have it?

See when did people who work hard, might have two jobs, or risk everything on an idea they started in their garage become the bad guy for wanting to keep what they earned? What so Joe the addict can sit on his backside get his free needles.

Sorry when I was in it wasn't free education, you put money in a fund and they matched it. Believe its mandatory now to put money in. National Guard usually get free tuition to state schools. Hey maybe you and your left wing professor can convince them that they are just tools of the man. Alas I only did six years active so I don't use the VA's health care system. Sorry still no frothing here.

@1NewDay

I'm not sure how many suspected straw purchaser their are. That you would need all these agents. The woman who is suspected of the straw purchase incident where the ex-con killed some those firefighters needs to be put through the ringer. Do you think the families of those men care the cost to her? By the way she will be tried under the existing law.

But the cost to taxpayers will be enormous.

Not sure but does cost really matter here? She helped put fireman in the ground. The guys that run into burning buildings to save us. I don't think we can just say, well it cost to much to put away the person that got wack job the gun.

I will concede to you that it is hard to tell some straw purchases. Though most FFL dealers are experienced at weeding them out so that the purchase doesn't happen in the first place. After all this is their livelihood. Are some going to get through yes.

As to the cases of so called "private dealers". I don't think most of your true criminal element get their guns this way. Why not just buy one stolen for less money then fronting for a new one. Granted some in the drug trade may rather get something fresh and have the money to go that route. Agree with "Maybe not as high as some claim, but I'm sure it happens."

Maybe we should add a section to the 4473 that has a dealer actually read and explain the straw purchase and private sales laws.

Plutocracy,

Hahaha. You got me. Not much spelling in the Army. More like reading maps, breaking code, dispatching accurate grid coordences to artillary units. Knowledge of a variety of weapons used to defend my country, you know, the stuff that us freedom fighting, Declaration of Indepedence, Bill of Rights defending types who are still ready and able to lay our lives on the line to defend our country and its citizens. You said it. Yee Ha! weez the ones what are gonna still stand up for this country like it or not. I like the Wal-mart thing you stuck in too because I am actually one of many small companies owned by former or active military that go and do stuff like build or remodel Wal-marts all over this country. There are plenty of us that share belief in Americans strength. Your obviously a well educated person. But you will never understand that a Rottennieghbor could be the one to save your ass before your money can. Even though our opinions are completely opposite I would not hesitate to save your life over my money. Its called Honor.

Biggie said something like " do you really think those good ol' boys will be up for disarming their own families"? Nope. Active soldiers follow the Commander in Chief through chains of command. That does not mean do what you are ordered to even if it defies our constitution. You know, the one put together by our fore fathers and ammended as they saw necessary to protect the freedoms and rights of ( legal) citizens of this nation. The same one that every military soldier is sworn to defend. Your malitia theory is weak. It will be war if the government keeps forcing unconstitutional changes and laws.

Back to the real topic, gun laws. If you have read any amount of these comments you see that alot of opinion based on personal or political views ( finger pointers). Then you have the ones with truth. Bottom line is paper work errors can cause damage to an individual. Gun shop owners that look the other way. If you can prove they are making straw man deals, prosecute. Individuals buying for felons and caught, prosecute. Wait, I thinks clear on this page. Looks like we might be screwed until DOJ decides its time to deal with it. I will fight to keep rights as a gun owner and I will not allow this government to force me or mine into becoming victims and not American citizens. The fight for control is more than just guns. It seems as if every day Obama has another plan to drive this country deeper in the dirt in attempt to gain total control. We have had some doozies for Presidents, but, the majority who voted him back in do not have a clue of how much damage will potentially be done by the time he and his supporters stay is over.

Biggie,

I am in agreement with you regarding the lady they are going after. My point was that when it is significant, they will use the law. It will be expensive for her as well as the government and I'm fine with doing it when it is clear cut and significant as in this case.

The issue in the article suggested 30-40,000 suspect cases every year. It would take a lot of time, money and people to investiagte and prosecute all these if that were a legitimate number. I say it is bogus, but if it were true, it would take a lot on manhours. Investigation time, court testimony, etc. Maybe not 100,000, but way more than they have today. The point is that if people are demanding all kinds of new laws and flawless enforcement of every detail, it isn't going to happen for free. Is that worth it for a lot of wild goose chases and prosecutions on technicalities? I think they already go after the ones worth pursuing.

As to how many real straw purchases? I'm not sure you could ever tell because at least some would never be noticed. And "suspected" ones? Even a fuzzier number. I have read some anti-gun experts saying that pretty much every woman who buys a gun with a man present ought to be considered suspect. They pretty much suggest that in this study. Sounds like discrimination to me or profiling. They say women are buying more guns so there is obviously something devious about that.

I suspect most dealers make a snap read on everybody they deal with just like we all do when meeting somebody for the first time. But I doubt that many refuse to sell to someone unless they said something really stupid in that regard. I believe they will call someone out with good reason, but "suspect" is another story and a matter of opinion. As you say, I think most experienced FFL dealers are pretty good at it, but I'm not sure that completely applies in large retail operations where the license holder may not be handling the entire purchase process. Even still, it is a judgement call if everything is filled out right and they clear the check.

The thing about how many are "suspect", is that it is all perception based. Somebody buys a gun and they don't seem particularly knowledgeable about it and maybe has somebody with them that is. Is that suspect or normal for someone buying their first gun? The thing is that how you interpret it is how you create a survey with bogus data as in this study.

We have differing views on Obama, (we can agree to disagree), but I tend to be close to being on the same page you are on regarding gun rights and stupid gun laws. I see gun rights as a personal rights which is exactly what the Supreme Court ruled. In my opinion, the issue of straw purchases is adequately covered by law now and if somebody abuses it they can be hammered. The 4473 states it pretty clearly and when you sign it you are saying that you understand it. I have heard a dealer state it, not so long ago when I was helping a novice pick out a gun and he was filling out the form. Was the dealer suspicious or just trying to point it out to someone who had obviously never filled out the form? I don't really know.

My point about painting a variety of scenarios was that there is room for interpretation. Personally, I know what the law says, so if I'm buying a gun, it is going to be for me and me alone. If my girlfriend or a family member wants one, they can fill out their own paperwork.

I tend to agree about "private dealers" at gun shows. I go to a lot of shows and most of these guys aren't selling much, but I'm sure there are exceptions. My point is that if somebody buys with the intent of selling and making a profit as a business or "side business", they are breaking the law. I've seen the "undercover" videos and a guy bragging about selling dozens or more guns or saying he doesn't want to know that somebody can't pass a background check, is breaking the law. They are not using a "loop hole" because what they are doing is illegal.

I will say that when I see some private guy asking 20% more for the exact same gun used, that I can buy brand new a table over at a FFL dealer, I get a bit suspicious. If I would be targeting someone to sting, it would be that guy. Some of these guys seem to think that not having a background check commands a premium price. That said I know a couple people who are 100% legit who don't want a quasi-registered gun because they don't trust the government, so they will buy private. Who knows, they may be smarter than I think. Even though registration is supposed to be illegal, the ATF states that they have "several hundred million" gun records. I guess if they are just records of specific guns and their owners, it technically isn't registration if they don't call it that. I'm not paranoid about it, but know a lot of people that are. However I will at least question that if they ever did want to do a confiscation, they pretty much have what the need for a whole lot of guns.

Maybe our reasoning is a bit different, but I'm not sure we are very far apart on this apsect. I don't want the bad guys to get guns, but I also understand that no matter what laws we create, they will find a way. I'm OK with "reasonable" regulations, but trying to make them flawless isn't going to be reasonable. We may already be past that point.

@1NewDay

The 30-40K number from dealers so I guess they didn't let them go through. Would like to see actual study. So I believe you to be correct when you say the ones that did would be hard to prove, since even the dealers didn't get suspicious.

We have differing views on Obama, (we can agree to disagree)

You have no idea about my views on Obama. I have never referenced him in any post that I recall. I like you do not resort to name calling or any type of pandering. I simply did not find him germane to the discussion at hand. I believe open dialogue will help come up with good solutions not just feel good ones or a band-aid on the problems.

in large retail operations where the license holder may not be handling the entire purchase process

This is true but if it was my FFL, only clerks I trained would be working the counter. There is just to much to know for you to send someone over from the hiking boots section for today. So I would think most big stores are like that.

Gun shows are different here in MA. I have never seen anyone but dealers have tables of guns. There are tables for a lot of other things up to and including hot sauce and jerky.

I don't want the bad guys to get guns but I also understand that no matter what laws we create, they will find a way.

With you 100%

I'm OK with "reasonable" regulations, but trying to make them flawless isn't going to be reasonable.

I to am OK with "reasonable" regulations. Agree flawless isn't going to happen but I think there is room for a lot of improvement. Department of Justice can prosecute more cases. Lessen the ability to plead them down. If gifting a new weapon, make actual receiver of the gun go through paper work. The more we keep guns out of the wrong hands that better off we are. The people that believe guns are not the evil will get less flack and be safer from idiots who like to shoot places up.

Biggie,

If I misread some statement about Obama, I apologize. I thought I saw some negative comment about him by you, but I may very well be mistaken. It may have been somebody quoting you and adding their own comments or just the damn screen jumping around when another ad tries to load.

I agree with you that name calling doesn't make for constructive debate. I try to refrain from it myself but I'm sure I have "blurted" something a time or two out of frustration. Personally, I'd rather engage in well thought out posts rather than exchanging mud slinging tweets.

I did spend some time reading through all the background on the study they were talking about. There was some indication implied that "suspect" purchases were in fact allowed by some dealers. As it stated, the problem is they left a lot of room for interpretation. Some reported these to authorities and some rejected them. There were flaws in the study as I see it. I know more than a little about these things and statistical analysis. I will say that this one used reasonable discipline, but did leave some room to gather data they were looking for and may have steered in that direction, accurate or not.

As to the gun shows, I know the laws vary a bit by state, but virtually every one I've been to has private parties with a small number of guns. But the FFL dealers always dwarf the private guys. The private guys run the gamut. Some with no guns, some with a few collectibles and some with a few very current models. Can't say I've ever seen anything like the stuff in the undercover videos, but my guess is that it does occasionally happen. My perception is that most of these guys leave with what they brought the vast majority of the time. Of course I don't know that they have one on the table and 10 in a box underneath. My view though is that not many criminals are cruising gun shows because they are always crawling with cops, at least in my area. We see the anti-gunners claiming 40% of gun show purchases are through "private dealers". I don't buy into that made up "statistic" and I see no way to validate such a claim. But there are a lot of phony stats thrown around to sway the uneducated public.

Big retail dealer? Yeah, we're on the same page.

I'm all for improvement in enforcement as long as we're not dragging innocent people through the wringer on some little technicality of no consequence. There is a real danger of that if we get over zealous or demand mandatory prosecutions with no other crime involved. Make life tougher on criminals, but don't turn law abiding citizens into criminals, there's enough already. As gun owner we need to be responsible and I think the majority are, otherwise there would be far more incidents. But as you point out, a couple idiots can screw it up for everybody.

I see no reason to debate something any further that we pretty much agree on.

Hunter

http://www.gunshowundercover.org/

I could buy 3 guns legally, pass the check and open a booth, sell them and NOT have to do a check because I'm NOT a registered dealer.

Then starbuck... you become the criminal too. And since the last documented owner is YOU.... they will knock on your door at some point.....

As a former Manager of a Pawnshop... seen it... been there... given the names... and heard back from ATF.....

Straw purchases are illegal.... have been...

www.dontlie.org

Hunter

http://www.gunshowundercover.org/

I could buy 3 guns legally, pass the check and open a booth, sell them and NOT have to do a check because I'm NOT a registered dealer.

And you would be breaking existing gun laws. You would be considered being a " Dealer without License ". The ATF busts people all the time for what you would be doing.

HUNTER 150

Finally somebody that has there facts correct.

OK Hunter if it's against the law than how is it being done by responsible gun owners and dealers all over the Country?? How are these dealers not being turned in by other dealers?? BLINDERS???

Who cares, it is not the responsibility of someone selling something to somebody to determine the buyer's legal ability to own said thing. Do you have to make sure somebody has a driver's license before you sell someone your car? Do you have to call the DMV to make sure they don't have any DUI's? This is ridiculous, it is the buyer's responsibility to know if they are allowed to own a gun, not the seller's. You people can keep dreaming about some sort of universal background check requirement, because even if by some miracle Congress does pass it, it will only last long enough to go before the SCOTUS and get struck down.

Private gun sales, like those at gun shows, occur with no background checks, and providea dangerous loophole that fuels the interstate and international market for illegal guns.These loopholes in our system make it too easy for dangerous people to get their hands onguns. This is the loophole. I could buy 3 guns every year and resell them without a check because I'm not a registered gun dealer.

U.S. law requires background checks for all people who try to buy firearms from federally licensed dealers. But federal law does not require background checks for "private transactions," like sales at gun shows. Many states have their own statutes requiring such checks for private sales

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/us/universal-background-checks

Moose, you arguing apples and bananas. Even though you can get killed by a car killed in a car it was not invented to KILL like a gun was. a gun was invented for one purpose to KILL. Unlike a car a gun can be hidden on your person.

Private gun sales, like those at gun shows, occur with no background checks

Any licensed dealer does the background check. If you had ever bothered to actually ATTEND a gun show, you would see that almost every seller is a dealer and they conduct checks.

kc..it already is.

Hunter150....You can tell the progressives this all you want and they don't hear it, they have tunnel vision and hearing, they just want to hear themselves and only see what they want....

Starbuck...I was just at a gun show, 300 vendors, only 10 were private citizens trying to sell some shotguns and deer hunting rifles, the rest all did background checks, i asked 20 random dealers/people sitting selling stuff and they all said i would have to fill out forms and they would do a fed. check....You libs don't know what your talking about, your just passing along what you HEARD at the water cooler...

Steven B - ALMOST every seller?!!! Why not EVERY SELLER?! Is it too much to ask that when we need ID to buy Sudafed we also need reasonable controls on buying something way more dangerous? If I go into a bar I may be asked for an ID and probably should be. How about this, you want to sell your precious toys at a gun show but don't want to have to run checks.... Have the SHOW run the checks. You wanna buy a toy? Have the show organizers have a booth set up where you can get a background check. They they give you some sort of documentation and and then you go buy hardware to your hearts desire.

You folks really aren't getting the clue here, almost ain't good enough. And don't give me that "It's my right!" garbage. it doesn't prohibit legal people from buying, it's just another tool to weed out the bad folks from getting dangerous items. Let's get reasonable, there are ways to close the loopholes without affecting the ability for a legal gun owner to buy themselves a garage full of whatever toys they want to.

your absolutely correct,but you have to take into account the mindless sheep that are posting on here. Most of these morons know NOTHING about guns or gun laws,they just parrot what they hear from their liberal friends. They believe everyone that owns a gun HAS to be a member of the NRA,or uses their weapon to kill. You cannot reason with the clueless.

bubba,

No, its not apples and oranges. Just because a vehicle is registered or a driver has a license, doesn't keep a driver from being reckless, homicidal or intoxicated and killing or injuring people with their vehicle. Guns were not designed to "kill" anymore than a motor vehicle. A firearm is designed to propel a metal projectile by means of a chemical explosion; a motor vehicle is designed to propel a conveyance by means of chemical explosions witch activate drive linkages to turn wheels. The direction in which either of these inanimate objects is pointed is totally dependant upon actions and/or inactions and intent of the user. Either becomes a killing machine only by direction of the user and the law mandates the same punishment for the misuse of either. Victims of motor vehicles gain no solace from the knowledge that the instrument of their injury was not intended to inflict injury. Those who have been saved from predatory violence by virtue of a firearm's justified use are not offended by its creation.

I bought my last gun at a yard sale. ATF sounds like a convenient store.

Who cares if there are already laws on the books if federal prosecutors refuse to enforce them? Who has bribed whom?

The agents faced numerous obstacles in what they dubbed the Fast and Furious case. (They named it after the street-racing movie because the suspects drag raced cars together.) Their greatest difficulty by far, however, was convincing prosecutors that they had sufficient grounds to seize guns and arrest straw purchasers. By June 2010 the agents had sent the U.S. Attorney's office a list of 31 suspects they wanted to arrest, with 46 pages outlining their illegal acts. But for the next seven months prosecutors did not indict a single suspect.

On Dec. 14, 2010, a tragic event rewrote the narrative of the investigation. In a remote stretch of Peck Canyon, Ariz., Mexican bandits attacked an elite U.S. Border Patrol unit and killed an agent named Brian Terry. The attackers fled, leaving behind two semiautomatic rifles. A trace of the guns' serial numbers revealed that the weapons had been purchased 11 months earlier at a Phoenix-area gun store by a Fast and Furious suspect.

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

If I go into a bar I may be asked for an ID and probably should be.

So, you're all for voter ID laws, yes?

.

I keep hearing the analogies describing all sorts of situations where guns are compared to other inanimate objects. The fact is, guns were designed to kill. So what? Why should this fact preclude private ownership by common citizens, to use for what ever effing purpose they want. Why do we need more laws? We don't. This is just a typical liberal diversion from the real intent, which is the liberal agenda that strives to disarm the populace so our federal government can continue it's malignant growth without fear of civil uprisings.

Firearms have many more uses that simple killing, but the're very good at killing, no matter the make or model. Point one at something that breathes, pull the trigger, there's a good chance it's going to be dead. Again, I say so what.

The fallacy that's perpetuated by the liberal agenda, and the liberal media, is that the availability of guns is the cause of all the mehem we see in the streets (which any half way educated person can research and learn that the per capita incidence of gun violence has been decreasing ever since the invention of gun powder). This problem is not getting worse......it's getting better. Feel like a fool.......you should.

The elimination of individual freedoms in this county is in full swing.......I'm just glad I've lived to see a better America, one where individual liberties and the right to self protection wasn't pissed away like it is now. Mark my words......there will be a day when all the pussies out there who decided to trust our federal goverment with their lives (protection) will regret that decision.

The Dog

So a toothless law is proposed and all the wingnuts immediately start screaming about how the big scary gubbermint is going to take away all our precious guns, so when the liberals/communists/fascists/whatever finally take over, there will be nothing to stand in the way of tyrannical coup! Oh, look, a jackbooted thug! People like you are beyond parody (though Colbert does a pretty good job most of the time). Do you really believe that you and others like you are the only thing keeping our individual liberties from being destroyed by whichever boogeyman it is this week? Please. You and your little militia would be powerless. And that's it, isn't it-- the reason you're ranting in the first place? It's not that anyone's rights are actually being trampled on--they are not. It's that you and others like you feel somewhat powerless for whatever reason. Owning a gun, or in many cases lots and lots of guns, is the only way you can feel powerful, prepared, and maybe less paranoid than usual (HOLY CRAP AGENDA 21 AAAAAAAUUUGH!). Calm the fu*k down. That kind of us vs. them attitude is what's destroying this country, not more gun-control legislation. And just to be clear, the law that this article mentions would NOT make it any harder to buy a gun. The goal of this proposed law is to make it harder to lie when registering a gun or have someone register in your place so you can avoid a background check. Now that sounds like the behavior of someone with something to hide.

Now granted, I don't expect you or anyone like you to agree with me. You have been thinking the way you have for simply too long. I do however expect you and others like you to stop taking yourselves so seriously once in a while.

My advice: Turn off the computer, the radio, and the TV. Make sure you're not getting all of your news from one source, especially if that source repeatedly labels all other sources as biased. Try not to look at a single news headline for an entire day. For Chrissakes take a walk in the sun. Stop worrying about the USA becoming a dictatorship for at least five minutes a day. It should do wonders for your blood pressure.

If you really think that tha average American would be powerless, you should read about Viet Nam and Afghanistan.

JUSTIFY your statements..... if THOUSANDS are trying to buy firearms ILLEGALLY, where are the prosecutions? Why are they not behind bars? If the study can find them, why can't the courts?

It wouldn't all this gun policy crap is nothing more than a gun grab !

newtown would have been avoided if the legal gun owner (mother) had her weapons LOCKED in a gun safe !

if you remember the shooter went to a gun dealer and was denied, the system worked and all this other saber rattling is just noise !

Oh no, not a gun grab. Fellow Gun Lovers, we must fight the Gun Grabbers. Grab your guns and come with me.

Good point Mike. As you say, Mrs. Lanza was not a responsible gun owner. She made it easy for her mentally ill son to get her guns. Mrs. Lanza was an irresponsible gun owner.

Irresponsible gun owner are a danger to our society, aren't they, Mike?

How can we identify and protect ourselves from irresponsible gun owners?

Or, does the United States Constitution, in the Second Amendment, guarantee the right to be an irresponsible gun owner?

What does the NRA say about so many illegal attempts? We should not make fools of ourselves about the issue until the NRA lets us know what to say. LaPierre, are you out there? WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TRY TO MAKE PEOPLE THINK THAT WE THINK?!?!?!

Oh well, i am going to go down to the gun store and buy another one and wait to hear what LaPierre says...I think I forgot to buy one on Wednesday so maybe I will get two just to catch up.

I've read every article on the Lanza gun issue I could find. NOWHERE have I read that the guns were not locked up or that the crazy kid had an easy time acquiring those guns.

Please provide a link to such information or shut up. It may be that the mother died trying to prevent her son from taking those weapons!

tex2c2

What does the NRA say about so many illegal attempts?

I would assume they'd say that the laws in place obviously work since those illegal attempts to acquire a firearm failed.

Mrs. Lanza was an irresponsible gun owner.

You don't know anything with respect to how Mrs. lanza stored her guns.

.

mpa-4893349

I've read every article on the Lanza gun issue I could find. NOWHERE have I read that the guns were not locked up or that the crazy kid had an easy time acquiring those guns.

Please provide a link to such information or shut up. It may be that the mother died trying to prevent her son from taking those weapons!

The mother was shot in the face as she laid in bed. Obviously you haven't "read every article" if you still don't know basic facts regarding what happened.

mpa-4893349

I've read every article on the Lanza gun issue I could find. NOWHERE have I read that the guns were not locked up or that the crazy kid had an easy time acquiring those guns.

Decided to do a quick search myself. Here's what popped up at the top of the list-

"The high-powered weapons that Adam Lanza used in his murderous rampage weren’t routinely locked up in his home even though his mother knew he had serious psychological problems, a close family friend told the Daily News." - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lanza-psychic-break-article-1.1243602

Maybe you should find a new source for the articles you read.

a close family friend told the Daily News." -

Hearsay.

You don't know anything with respect to how Mrs. lanza stored her guns.

Correct. Here is what I know. Mrs. Lanza loved guns. She had a lot of them. Her son got her guns and killed her and a lot of other people.

Also, Mrs. Lanza was sleeping when her son killed her.

From http://nymag.com/news/features/gun-control-newtown-2013-2/index1.html

When the police cordoned off the Lanza house after the massacre, they found Nancy's dead body in her bed with four bullets in her head. The medical examiner concluded that she had likely been asleep, which means that her son, holding this nineteenth-century technology, had the luxury of a very close target and of time.

How about this Steven? If someone gets your guns, you are irresponsible? How about that for accountability?

Kind of like, in the United States Navy, if you are the captain and there is a mishap, it is your responsibility. Even if you just went to bed after a 48 hour watch, a mishap is your responsibility.

We know that lots of bad guys want guns. If you l let someone get your guns, you are an irresponsible gun owner. K?

Steven B - Wow, what can I say? She was AFRAID to leave the guy home by himself... And she took him out and taught him how to shoot guns! How to load them, clean them, take care of them, most importantly, MAKE EVERY ROUND COUNT. And he sure did, now didn't he? He apparently was a pretty good shot thanks to moms teaching and plenty of practice. And this person she didn't trust to leave alone had several guns to choose from. But no worries! Mom had taught the SOB what gun to use for what activity. AR-15's are for killing. Learned well, didn't he? Is this sinking in yet? Didn't think so. It's plenty evident to the rest of us that mom was irresponsible.

leave it to you libs to make a martyr out of tryvon but spread lies about mrs.Lanza! NO one knows if she had them locked up and further more half you loons on here shouldn't be in a room without the gun cabinet being locked.

Kind of like, in the United States Navy, if you are the captain and there is a mishap, it is your responsibility.

Like how Eric Holder is responsible for the Fast and Furious fiasco?

.

Aw, Steven B, now you want to change the subject. You big Puss.

I want to talk about responsible gun owners. Hey man, you want to take Eric Holder out, put him against a wall and shoot his dumb ass, have fun. Come back here when you want to talk about responsible gun owners.

leave it to you libs to make a martyr out of tryvon but spread lies about mrs.Lanza! NO one knows if she had them locked up and further more half you loons on here shouldn't be in a room without the gun cabinet being locked.

Well, if they was locked, how did the bastard retard get them?

You do know that Mrs. Lanza's body showed no signs of torture. How did the mentally ill son of the lady gun enthusiast get the guns?

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

The agents faced numerous obstacles in what they dubbed the Fast and Furious case. (They named it after the street-racing movie because the suspects drag raced cars together.) Their greatest difficulty by far, however, was convincing prosecutors that they had sufficient grounds to seize guns and arrest straw purchasers. By June 2010 the agents had sent the U.S. Attorney's office a list of 31 suspects they wanted to arrest, with 46 pages outlining their illegal acts. But for the next seven months prosecutors did not indict a single suspect.

On Dec. 14, 2010, a tragic event rewrote the narrative of the investigation. In a remote stretch of Peck Canyon, Ariz., Mexican bandits attacked an elite U.S. Border Patrol unit and killed an agent named Brian Terry. The attackers fled, leaving behind two semiautomatic rifles. A trace of the guns' serial numbers revealed that the weapons had been purchased 11 months earlier at a Phoenix-area gun store by a Fast and Furious suspect.

Well, if they was locked, how did the bastard retard get them?

You do know that Mrs. Lanza's body showed no signs of torture. How did the mentally ill son of the lady gun enthusiast get the guns?

Since there are all different types of gun storage and no one has stated if there was a safe or not for storage we will never know. Not all safes have combination locks. Some have digital locks, some have keys and some are standard combination. Unfortunately, if someone has a digital lock they use a common number to them which would be a birthdate, address or similar number easy to remember. If it had a key style lock he probably had enough time to find the key after killing her or knew where the key was. Does this make her irresponsible, probably to some extent but so does using the same number for your bank account pin or credit card pin.

The bottom line is that people are attempting to purchase guns illegally and nobody is prosecuting these people. It is alread a felony to lie on the application punishable by fines and jail time. This is not a new law. When asked about this during a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, it was stated that less than 40 of these 40,000 were prosecuted and convicted. I guess it is easier to write a new law stating the exact same thing to make people feel good about all the wasted money on this issue.

Does this make her irresponsible, probably to some extent but so does using the same number for your bank account pin or credit card pin.

Yes, you are responsible for your PIN numbers. Only thing is that if someone gets your PIN, someone is going to be out a few dollars. If a whacko gets your gun, well, you know.

The bottom line is that people are attempting to purchase guns illegally and nobody is prosecuting these people. It is alread a felony to lie on the application punishable by fines and jail time. This is not a new law. When asked about this during a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, it was stated that less than 40 of these 40,000 were prosecuted and convicted.

Apparently, the penalty today is so insignificant that it is not worth prosecuting.

I guess it is easier to write a new law stating the exact same thing to make people feel good about all the wasted money on this issue.

Congress can only spend money and pass laws. And, there is some momentum to do something about guns. Do you feel good about this? Or, should we keep things exactly the way they are? Don't mess with perfection?

those saying that her guns were not locked up forget the fact that adam tried to purchase a gun prior,now why would anyone try to purchase a gun if there were guns readily available? I for one would NOT spend money I didn't have to,period. There is no sense at all, a "family friend"? come on, the fact remains,why would anyone try to buy a gun if they had access to many? could it be that nancy had the key to the safe and was not present? try to think people.

If all weapons were legal and unregulated then it wouldn't be illegal to acquire weapons. 4:20 - Book of Tautology

those saying that her guns were not locked up

All I am saying is that Adam got his mom's guns. Period.

Just another day, and another inflammatory anti-gun 'story' by the Obama toadies/NBC editorial staff.

.

Modern....Just more spittle by the raving progressives...Notice how they emphasis the "Tens of thousands"...more pmsnbc vomit...

92% of Americans want universal background checks. It appears that most of the 8&ers are here tonight.

"92% of Americans want universal background checks"?

Nobody asked me or anybody I know if we wanted 'em

Larry,Because they think that they are above the law and it can be used to plant false evidence so a not to have to expend any energy solving a crime.

I have legally owned several firearms, not a one was registered. Ther is no federal gun registration, and the states I lived in did not require it. I have held concealed carry permits and was never asked what kind of gun I owned.

I have legally owned several firearms, not a one was registered. There is no federal gun registration, and the states I lived in did not require it. I have held concealed carry permits and was never asked what kind of gun I owned.

DrMAn,Love your comments.

you avoid the true and look to the other side ?

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

The agents faced numerous obstacles in what they dubbed the Fast and Furious case. (They named it after the street-racing movie because the suspects drag raced cars together.) Their greatest difficulty by far, however, was convincing prosecutors that they had sufficient grounds to seize guns and arrest straw purchasers. By June 2010 the agents had sent the U.S. Attorney's office a list of 31 suspects they wanted to arrest, with 46 pages outlining their illegal acts. But for the next seven months prosecutors did not indict a single suspect.

On Dec. 14, 2010, a tragic event rewrote the narrative of the investigation. In a remote stretch of Peck Canyon, Ariz., Mexican bandits attacked an elite U.S. Border Patrol unit and killed an agent named Brian Terry. The attackers fled, leaving behind two semiautomatic rifles. A trace of the guns' serial numbers revealed that the weapons had been purchased 11 months earlier at a Phoenix-area gun store by a Fast and Furious suspect.

How do you make the feds enforce their laws?

The Rest of the story...

TUCSON, Ariz. -- The husband of former Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords says he bought an assault weapon in Tucson to make a point about the ease of background checks for gun owners.

Appearing Monday on CNN, Mark Kelly says he plans to turn the AR-15 in to Tucson police.

Breitbart was a loon, and the nuts that handle his site are even worse. Pull your head out of the sand!

You're citing Breitbart? hahahahahahaha!

That website is known for its LIES . . . . like hyping the totally made-up story about "Friends of Hamas" . . .

A worse bunch of liars than Faux Noise.

And you want to DEFEND the manic who shot Gabby Giffords?

UNREAL. Maybe a good time to stop getting drunk on champagne.

Typical leftists, smear the reporter and ignore the story.

You could just go to Kelly's Face Book page.............

So you are saying that this guy "was going to" turn the gun into the police, likely story. Go ask a cop how many times they stop a felon with a gun and the felon tells them that they just found it and were "going to" turn it in to the police. He got caught and now he is bs'ing. He has not missed an opportunity to get on tv and preach to us, why would he have just done this without any publicity? He got caught, plain and simple, because people like this feel like the rules do not apply to them.

"And you want to DEFEND the manic who shot Gabby Giffords?"

I read my post several times and I can't find where I would defend Loughner.

Funny how you're quick to blame others for lying.....

Exactly, Moose.... He was going to keep it until he got caught with his pants down.

It appears that chimps-bra cannot differentiate a liar from a reporter. The problem is that the sorry attempt at a story is not based on anything but ignorance, get it?

does he have something on his background that would make it wrong for him to buy it. if not then he proved nothing.

He proved that he's a hypocrite.

@tex2c2

After it became known that Mark E. Kelly bought an semi-automatic AR-15 rifle while shopping for a .45 handgun, he claimed that he was just investigating the background checks. He posted on his Facebook page that the AR-15 never entered his possession and he is going to pick it up and turn it over to the police. But he is keeping the handgun.

Maybe you should check Mark Kellys "Facebook" page before you claim someone is lying. Oh... please note that he IS keeping the .45.

Typical RWNJ - ignore the POINT of the story, and just extract a tiny nugget to try & make something good sound terrible . . .

and, oh yeah, Paul Krugman is going through bankruptcy . . . just check Breitbart, and don't listen to Krugman.

Thanks for pointing that out Champagne! Even worse, when he was called out on his hypocrisy, he LIED about it, saying he was buying it to turn it in....buawhahahaha! I got one for Christmas, I know what they cost! Your not going to buy one to turn it in....What a dumbass..

Also on the brietbart site : "Mark E. Kelly, made purchases which included an AR-15--sometimes described as an "assault rifle"--at 3:30 pm on the afternoon of March 5 at Diamondback Police Supply, 170 S. Kolb Street, Tucson, AZ.".......so I guess it would be ok to make all gun purchases a matter of public record? You have no problem with everyone knowing what you bought and where?

myfoxphoenix.com/story/21578743/2013/03/11/mark-kelly-buys-ar-15-assault-weapon-to-make-point

snopes.com/politics/guns/markkelly.asp

He just happened to be walking out and bought it to turn in! Yeah right! He is as much of a hypocrit as Feinstein is! It's ok for me to own and carry but not the common people!

Who gives a rats ass what these liberal Obamabots like Kelly and Giffords are doing? Again, I say so what? Besides, they are both of the elitists liberal ilk who's connection to commoners is purely Hollywood. Short of complete prohibition (and confiscation) there are no laws anywhere (including god's laws..... for those god fearing folks) that would prevent the mad acts of one man. They, the Obamabots say "to hell with holding individuals accountable for their actions! Let's punish the whole of the law abiding population for the acts of one deranged idiot."

Mark Kelly, and Gabby Giffords, are mere puppets; puppets that are disgracefully being used by the liberal leaders (or rather those in charge) they trust. How sad. All the liberal idiots who support gun control must surely be proud of how the Obama administration they support are using these two to push "their" agenda.....it's nothing but a circus.....and anyone who buys this @!$%# are clowns.

The Dog.

And what exactly did he prove? That someone who is NOT prohibited from buying a gun, can buy a gun. Wow now that's a story. Might of been a story if he was prohibited and bought one.

champagnesabre

He proved that he's a hypocrite.

Buying a gun to see how ineffectual the current gun regulations are is not the same and buying a gun to kill people with. It is the height of hypocrisy and ignorance to think they are the same.

9mm

Maybe you should check Mark Kellys "Facebook" page before you claim someone is lying. Oh... please note that he IS keeping the .45.

I am afraid the subtlety of this discussion has passed over your head there 9mm. Not the first time... LOL...

Everything that Breitbart writes is dishonest simply from the fact that he is a right-wing extremist ideologue that sees everything through the lens of his prejudice. Next issue?

LOL, I did NOT post the ad!

No felon is going to walk into a gun shop and pay $600 for a Glock pistol when they can talk to their buddy and get a stolen one for $150 on the street. First of all these statistics are being extrapolated from some 500 surveys that got returned, second, most of the people who get denied on an instant check are because they have bought too many guns recently or have some kind of "violent misdemeanor" from 30 years ago (aka a bar fight that resulted in assault charges when they were 21).

Actually Cleaning lady there are about 2.5 million incarcerated in prisons and jails while another whopping 7.5 million are on parole. That is a cool 10 million felons not counting ones that are off parole or have not been caught yet. Now does anyone think guns are the problem and NOT people? Laws are for people that obey them. The ones that don't could care less and are called criminals. There is absolutely no way you can tell that at any given time someone could go off the deep end and rob, steal or murder someone for anyone of a 100 different reasons or just because they can. People break laws not guns, period.

Moose8684,Excellent and intelligent comments.

Last I checked it's illegal under federal law for a convicted felon to posess a firearm. My qestion, why is this not enforced, I worked at the county jail an probably half of the inmates arrested for crimes involing guns had prior convictions. I don't recall the feds ever coming after any of these.

Gungrabberz do not want firearms in the hands of criminals. Responsible gun owners do not want firearms in the hands of criminals.

If you want to put a dent in criminals purchasng firearms, take the results of this survey to your Congressional representatives and demand that the existing laws be enforced. Fine and imprison the felons making these attempts.

Big headlines. Big PR for the ATF and a deterrent to all these attempts. Big press for the pols.

Win, win & win!

Milwaukee County Sheriff Clark has told all honest law abiding citizens of Milwaukee County to arm themselves. Milwaukee Police Chief is nothing more then Dem. Mayor Barretts puppet. Good thing he lost the election TWICE to Gov. Walker!

roc1960 The vid of the sheriff is very good, the guy knows and cares what he is talking about. He actually tells the truth.

Chief Flynn was a disaster in that Senate hearing, just plain stupid comments.

When the criminals can buy brand new guns by the truckload, what would you do?

The agents faced numerous obstacles in what they dubbed the Fast and Furious case. (They named it after the street-racing movie because the suspects drag raced cars together.) Their greatest difficulty by far, however, was convincing prosecutors that they had sufficient grounds to seize guns and arrest straw purchasers. By June 2010 the agents had sent the U.S. Attorney's office a list of 31 suspects they wanted to arrest, with 46 pages outlining their illegal acts. But for the next seven months prosecutors did not indict a single suspect.

On Dec. 14, 2010, a tragic event rewrote the narrative of the investigation. In a remote stretch of Peck Canyon, Ariz., Mexican bandits attacked an elite U.S. Border Patrol unit and killed an agent named Brian Terry. The attackers fled, leaving behind two semiautomatic rifles. A trace of the guns' serial numbers revealed that the weapons had been purchased 11 months earlier at a Phoenix-area gun store by a Fast and Furious suspect.

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

Hell of a lot better than PETA.

Today's comments are brought to you by concerned citizens and NOT felons. I made comments and I don't belong to the NRA nor do I own a weapon, but even I know the problem is NOT guns but people. Criminals and gang members ALL have weapons no matter what the Laws. They get them illegally because they can. Why you bash honest people is beyond on me. Those that break laws are your problem and not others that obey them. You wish to punish everyone else but the people that should be accountable for their own actions. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Get a clue.

Then why aren't you "concerned citizens" lobbying for universal background checks like the 92% of us Americans?

I would really like to know where this 92% number comes from. Every gun shop I go in across the country is sold out or all guns and all ammunition. If 92% of the country wants this why are all the shops sold out?

The last poll I saw that posted numbers like this was done in the North East by a known liberal organization of only 1000 people attending known liberal colleges, and yes they were all students. I wouldn't say that is a true poll of the American people.

Where in my statement did I say I did not want background checks? I most certainly do. I was pointing out the responsibility of People. The ban gun crowd is certainly not 92%. Some on here want to blame everyone else besides the perpetrators who committed the crimes. They blame Bush, Obama, The Left, The Right and The NRA, everyone else under the Sun besides Whom broke the law. You want crime to stop. Then fix people. Read above how many are in prisons, jails and on parole. Those are the criminals, gang members and felons you need to worry about. Then the ones that just go off the deep end for whatever reason. Laws are only good for people that obey them.

@miklkit

Then why aren't you "concerned citizens" lobbying for universal background checks like the 92% of us Americans?

How about we get the system we have (The National Instant Criminal Background Check System - NICS) working right. Make the Feds and states turn over the records of people not suppose to have access.

Don't think my father should have to pay for your universal background checks to pass down to my son a shotgun or when he passes I have to come up with a bunch of money to inherit his collection.

Not all of us are the NRA, and you should actually try reading the Second Amendment first before commenting. Most of us, including myself have to fill out paper work to have a background check, along with a basic fire arm safety card. To me, it is a form of registration with both State and Federal government, and I would imagine even for a few local governments as well. Now does that not defeat the purpose of the Second Amendment? The Second Amendment is suppose to be there for our protection, not for the governments protection. Can't help but wonder why people keep mixing rights with privileges?

More and more of this is showing up. This is a crime as well. Maybe background checks on people working the poles? Or maybe Obama voters need a background check?

Uh...that would be "Border" Patrol Tim. You must belong to the Spelling Regime...

I have had to show I was armed some years ago to stop a robbery or worse, and there are thousands more out there reported in newspapers all over the US. But due to the lamestream medias bias you will rarely see them reported.

Every month the NRA magazines have at least seven instances of it. They are ONLY taken from verified stories in newspapers so they have been vetted.

My story would never get printed because I never bothered to report it. No shots fired, no damage done and no injuries to me or my motorhome. But I and my wife are very glad I had weapons with me and could protect myself.

Tim and Deen,Great comments.

The agents faced numerous obstacles in what they dubbed the Fast and Furious case. (They named it after the street-racing movie because the suspects drag raced cars together.) Their greatest difficulty by far, however, was convincing prosecutors that they had sufficient grounds to seize guns and arrest straw purchasers. By June 2010 the agents had sent the U.S. Attorney's office a list of 31 suspects they wanted to arrest, with 46 pages outlining their illegal acts. But for the next seven months prosecutors did not indict a single suspect.

On Dec. 14, 2010, a tragic event rewrote the narrative of the investigation. In a remote stretch of Peck Canyon, Ariz., Mexican bandits attacked an elite U.S. Border Patrol unit and killed an agent named Brian Terry. The attackers fled, leaving behind two semiautomatic rifles. A trace of the guns' serial numbers revealed that the weapons had been purchased 11 months earlier at a Phoenix-area gun store by a Fast and Furious suspect.

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

You're not news. You're propaganda

You are so correct champagnesabre.

Champagne - they're called police officers. Show us one event of a 'citizen with a gun takes down criminal.' We're waiting.

Because it happens so infrequently it is not worthy of the news. Besides, the gun tragedies are much more prevelant lately. To not report these crimes would be worthy of NRA propaganda.

theblaze dot com/stories/2013/03/07/knife-wielding-home-intruder-meets-gun-wielding-homeowner-it-didnt-end-well-for-one-of-them/

It happens every day.

The Blaze? Talk about propaganda...

Like I wrote earlier.... typical leftists, smear the reporter and ignore the story.

What about the FBI? More propaganda there? Privately owned firearms are used several times more frequently to deter and defend against crime than to commit them, it is just a fact.

That's a right wing propaganda site Sabre! They don't even pretend to be objective. Fox News would be proud.

champagnestupid - Again, for the millionth f*cking time, the sane majority is not advocating that you give up your guns.

Get a clue and stop taking a bath in the NRA kool-aid.

Like I've written several times earlier, the paranoid are easily influenced by conjecture and flat-out nonsense.

The sane majority? Who cares about the sane majority? The fact of the matter is that in the past most every Democrat member of Congress has opined that private citizens should not be able to own a gun, that includes your "Commander in Chief".

Show us one event of a 'citizen with a gun takes down criminal.' We're waiting.

Like shooting fish in a barrel:

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/tx-store-owner-shoots-and-kills-would-be-robber-armed-with-toy-gun/

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/homeowner-shoots-violent-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife-and-kicked-in-two-doors/

.

Next......??

Moosedung...please point to a source that proves that statement.

the sane majority is not advocating that you give up your guns.

Same barrel, different fish:

Straight from the Mouth of a U.S. Government Attorney

The U.S. government argues in federal court (U.S. v. Emerson information page) that there is absolutely no right of an individual to own firearms!

Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"

Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes"

Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

Meteja: "Exactly."

Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn't enough to protect the private ownership of a firearm. It wouldn't protect the guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard.

Garwood: "Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is needed?"

Meteja: "The weapon in question must be used IN the National Guard."
(Excerpt of oral arguments in U.S. v. Emerson, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 13, 2000)

champagnesabre, NBC News. Propaganda at its finest.

more people legally defend themselves than the mainstream news wants you to know about. it doesnt work for their agenda. did you know the mall shooter forget where it was, one of the more recent ones ,shot himself because he was confronted by an armed citizen and was too much of a puss to get in a gunfight with him. the news didnt tell you about that small detail. and not long ago and off duty texas sherriff shot a guy in a theater who could have potentially killed people but was unable too. it happens. but libbies dont want to belive it. and its about not naving to give up certain things i am entitled to have like my ar15 and 30 round mags.

Steve...point the barrel at your head and pull the trigger.

Like I said, THE SANE MAJORITY.

The majority of Americans support the 2nd Amendment (as do I).

The majority of Americans support stronger firearm safety (as do I).

The majority of Americans (over 85%) support a more robust background check system (as do I).

The majority of NRA members support all of the above.

Don't point to some crackpot fringe liberal attorney as someone who speaks for the majority.

Stop listening to Wayne LaPierre...he does not represent you or the NRA that we once knew. His pockets are being filled by firearms manufacturers.

PERIOD!!

Come to the table and be reasonable instead of being such a f*cking azzhole.

I hate to type but I could spend an hour giving you article after article about good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns. I will do one, maybe more.

From,,, Courier&Press,,, Evansville, IN 12-25-12

When a 79 year old man heard arguing outside his home he went outside to investigate. In the front yard the man discovered his 17 yr old granddaughter being beaten by a 19 yr old male. When the grandfather confronted the suspect he was threatened with a stun gun. The suspect approached the elderly man. The grandfather warned him to stop but the suspect continued toward him. The grandfather pull out a handgun and fired once. the suspects wound proved fatal.

I hate to type,,,, this kind of thing is all over all the time. However you will not find this bias left leaning site to publish any, it doesn't fit their agenda. Very sad.

hey leave the gun guy your more of a azzhole than anyone else on here. well at least untill pigotry and redhead show their ugly faces

@Leave

Moosedung...please point to a source that proves that statement.

When we do it's disregarded and smeared by you leftists as a story from a "right wing propaganda" source.

So what's the point of us citing sources?

Nice name calling, BTW..... You lose.

#18.16

Clearly you're not terribly clever.

What part of my post #18.13 is giving you difficulty?

Or are you just being deliberately ignorant?

Don't point to some crackpot fringe liberal attorney as someone who speaks for the majority.

Your 'crackpot' attorney was arguing for a total ban on guns at the SCOTUS. He is a Federal prosecutor.

Sucks to be you, huh?

When we do it's disregarded and smeared by you leftists as a story from a "right wing propaganda" source.

So what's the point of us citing sources?

Typical response from someone who simply cannot be reasonable let alone point to a source to support a claim that YOU KNOW is total bullsh*t.

Like a junkie addicted to crack, you just can't help yourself from throwing out the "leftist" tag at someone whenever they disagree with you in even the SLIGHTEST amount huh?

Steve,

Clearly, you're not very humble (aside from being a text book example of why nothing gets accomplished in government given that Congress is a direct reflection of the pig-headed electorate).

I don't give two sh*ts whether this guy was a federal prosecutor or not...the fact remains he doesn't speak for what we both know is the majority "thinking" of Americans on this issue as a whole.

Stop trying to pawn that off as representative of the majority...it's irrelevant!!

@Leave the gun, take the cannoli

Here's a link to a source you might not find quite so objectionable as a source for the use of a firearm in defense. It really DOES occur quite frequently.

http://www2.wspa.com/news/2013/mar/09/homeowner-shoots-suspect-during-attempted-break--ar-5758964/

Here's the headline...

Suspect Shot After Kicking In Front Door Of Residence

Typical response from someone who simply cannot be reasonable

Aaaaaand we're off!

Get a clue and stop taking a bath in the NRA kool-aid.

Like I've written several times earlier, the paranoid are easily influenced by conjecture and flat-out nonsense.

Steve...point the barrel at your head and pull the trigger.

Stop listening to Wayne LaPierre...he does not represent you or the NRA that we once knew. His pockets are being filled by firearms manufacturers.

Like a junkie addicted to crack, you just can't help yourself from throwing out the "leftist" tag at someone whenever they disagree with you in even the SLIGHTEST amount huh?

Clearly, you're not very humble (aside from being a text book example of why nothing gets accomplished in government given that Congress is a direct reflection of the pig-headed electorate).

Leave the gun, taking the lead in this year's hypocritical grand championship!

I don't give two sh*ts whether this guy was a federal prosecutor or not...the fact remains he doesn't speak for what we both know is the majority "thinking" of Americans on this issue as a whole.

You're wrong. Sorry.

Mateja was arguing for the United States.

I refer you to the very first sentence:

The U.S. government argues in federal court (U.S. v. Emerson information page) that there is absolutely no right of an individual to own firearms!

.

@thickerstrings------------- You must be jockeing. Your post can't be for real.

XD...you came into the conversation late...that's not what I'm disputing. Read the full string from 18.10 on down.

*rolling eyes*

You're wrong. Sorry.

That's all that matters to you steve...you're right and the rest of the world is wrong. Okay fine. The grass is blue and the sky is green...I GET IT!

I can see I would have a more meaningful debate with my German Shepherd.

Bonsoir.

You brainwashed liberals just don't understand.

I do, because I was the victim of a home invasion. Eleven Mexican banditos broke into my house with evil intent. They were armed with Uzis, AK47s and AR-15s, and I could tell with a glance that every gun was stolen from the neighboring town's gun buyback program.

They rushed into the living room where I was waiting in my Abrams M-1 tank. Those evil-doers looked into the 120 mm smoothbore barrel and wet their pants.

I told them to leave at once---they pretended to not understand English but I raised my voice which I've found always works with foreigners---and they left.

You never saw this on the news because the liberal main-stream media refuses to cover stories of arms used to thwart criminals. Also, I never called 911 because I'm the self-reliant sort, and because I didn't want Obama and Pelosi and the other socialist gay Muslims coming for my tank or my guns.

/irony

Those of you who don't get this let me give you the stats: 91 gun-related deaths EVERY F'ING DAY here in the states; 1 successful defensive use of a firearm every other week.

Those of you who don't get this let me give you the stats: 91 gun-related deaths EVERY F'ING DAY here in the states; 1 successful defensive use of a firearm every other week.

Source?

Thickerstrings must be absolutley ignorant to believe that guns aren't used by citizens to take down the bad guys. I wish ignoramuses like thickerstrings would open their eyes to things other than the commenting area of articles on the computer. I bet he didn't even read the article...

@ Bob in Cuba

91 gun-related deaths EVERY F'ING DAY here in the states; 1 successful defensive use of a firearm every other week.

Yeah right. There are an estimated 85+ million gun owners with 270 - 300 million firearms in the U.S. & you think there is only 1 defensive use of firearms every other week. Show me your source for your B.S. Oh yeah, you can't because you're pulling numbers out of your ass. LOL

As for you 91 deaths per day, well, you're adding in accidental shootings (i.e. people cleaning loaded guns that go off etc...) & suicides. As if many of the people who committed suicide wouldn't do so anyway by some other method if a gun wasn't available.

BTW, you can't buy an M1 Abrams tank.

However, you are free to buy front line battle tanks from other countries as a private citizen of the U.S.A. The largest tank collection in the U.S. is owned by a private citizen (multimillionaire) out in California.

Study by Dr. Gary Kleck & Dr. Mark Gertz

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.

Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.

Justice Department study:

3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun.

74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.

57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.

So like I said yesterday if you & your fellow gun grabbers don't like guns:

1. Don't own one

2. Don't associate with people who own them

3. Don't go near gun stores/shows/ranges.

But mind your own damn business & quit trying to dictate how other law abiding citizens need to live their lives according to your standards.

Oneslackr

When we have effective laws in place that prevent the guns of legal buyers from getting into the hands of people who should not have guns, then we we mind "our own damn business." At present we have too many licensed dealers willing to sell to criminals, too many straw purchasers buying guns for those who cannot pass a background check and too many private gun owners who sell guns to people who should not have guns. We need better laws and better enforcement. Quit standing in the way of public safety.

@ don

Quit standing in the way of public safety.

Telling a law abiding citizen that they can't own a 30-round magazine, an AR-15 etc... isn't going to stop the next Adam Lanza from shooting up a school, mall, office, etc....

Public safety, really? Your odds of getting murdered by a gun (all types combined) in the U.S. is a small fraction of 1%. You odds of getting struck by lightening are greater.

Go worry about something that has a much higher probability of killing you like cancer, a heart attack, or getting killed in a car wreck.

Having said that I'm not against:

1. Universal background checks for all sales (including private sales/gun shows) - Though I still don't see how you could entice people to do so for private sales like one relative selling to another or a neighbor selling to a neighbor.

Perhaps they could make sure there is a harsh penalty if someone was caught selling firearms without running a background check.

2. Make mental health records, if any exist, part of the NICS background check - Yes, people start to cry about HIPAA violations, who would pay for it, how would it be implemented etc...

3. Make sure law enforcement has the resources & funds to prosecute straw purchasers or anyone who is forbidden from owning a gun, like a convicted felon, who lies on the 4473 form for the NICS background check

4. Have law enforcement actually crack down on gangs & gang violence - This would reduce gun related deaths by a great deal

5. Implement better mental health screening in the U.S. & offer more assistance to those with mental health issues.

6. Audit the records FFL dealers more frequently & prosecute those who violate the law

7. Make the CHL requirements universal nationwide so those who have their permits can legally carry concealed in all 50 states

But who will do all of this & where will the money come from?

I'm not for:

1. Gun registration - That would just lead to eventual confiscation and/or having guns taxed so heavily that people couldn't afford to own them

2. Registering bullets or limiting how many are bought - It would do nothing to prevent crime.

3. Limiting normal magazine capacity of handguns, rifles etc...- Once again it does nothing to prevent crime. A criminal would just bring more magazines and/or guns with them to compensate for the lower magazine capacities.

If you want to eliminate high capacity 100-round magazines for AR-15s & the like that is fine. They're junk anyway & usually end up making the gun jamb.

4. Banning certain types of firearms (i.e. semi-auto black rifles like AR-15s etc...) - There are only 2 differences between:

a. Black, plastic/metal detachable magazine fed semi-auto AR-15 rifle

b. Wooden stocked, detachable magazine fed semi-auto hunting rifle

1st difference - The way they look. Otherwise, they function the exact same way & they both have the same rate of fire (i.e. 1 bullet fired with each squeeze of the trigger, no more no less).

2nd difference - Hunting rifles are usually chambered in larger calibers than the .223 caliber cartridge used by the AR-15. Therefore, the average hunting rifle can cause more damage, at greater distances, more accurately than the AR-15 ever could.

Besides, AR-15s are used in such a miniscule number of crimes that it is almost nonexistent.

The last registered owner of a gun should be held responsible for ALL crimes involving that gun, unless it's been reported stolen.

The same thing happens with cars. If you don't transfer the registration when a car is sold, the last registered owner is held responsible.

I guess that car registrations and DLs are only for law-abiding citizens too. Let's stop those! Right? < sarcasm >

Yes, you're right, Paul-rereg . . . . that's why we should repeal ALL laws & regulations <snark> That way we can cut the budget some more by doing away with prisons & courts & police officers . . . .

hhhmm . . . .maybe you'd rather live is Somalia? that's what it sounds like.

The only ones that don't follow the rules and regulations are the criminals. Why make it easier for them Paul?

Never said to make anything easier... quite the contrary... how 'bout enforcing the laws already on the books? How 'bout making sure that law enforcement has enough staff to actually do it? How 'bout holding those that actually commit crimes responsible. You can register, regulate, document and pass all the laws you want.... but.... criminals will still find a way to get around the laws. But enforcing the laws... and making them reasonable... AND HOLDING people accountable for their actions is key to any law.

As a dealer... I put several person's in jail for attempted straw purchases. Gratifying. Especially the kid on his 18th birthday buying one for his underage friend. BUT as I have said repeatedly... it was against the law years ago.... so how can making it "more illegal" solve anything? The problem at Sandyhook was NOT the gun. It was a mental health case that was overlooked, pigeonholed and ignored because of lack of funding for mental health, lack of involvement because we don't want to hurt someone's itty bitty feewings.... and a system that puts things like mental health at the "back of the bus."

And as for "regulating" our way out of this mess.... works well for drugs and the illegal alien issue doesn't it? Again... seems a lack of enforcement and staff to do it seems to be key.

The last registered owner of a gun should be held responsible for ALL crimes involving that gun, unless it's been reported stolen.

So, if someone steals your car in the middle of the night and kills someone, you should be prosecuted for the crime too.

After all, you didn't report the car stolen, did you?

.

BTW

There is no requirement to register a vehicle once you purchase it unless you will be operating it on public roads.

Herron....Just stop and think for a moment what you posted....Are you serious or just another misinformed liberal?...so if my home is broken into and someone steals my guns from the locked or unlocked vault, then its my fault if they use that gun to harm someone?....You are a LUNATIC!!!

Mpa

And many operate vehicles on the road without proper registration. DMV Laws haven't stopped them.

Paul L,Loved your entire post.

Guns should be well regulated just like cars are.

@ Herron

The same thing happens with cars. If you don't transfer the registration when a car is sold, the last registered owner is held responsible

100% wrong. Even if the buyer doesn't properly register/insure the car & it's then used in a crime/involved in an accident the previous owner is not held responsible. All the original owner has to do is prove that they sold the vehicle. This happened less than 6 months ago to my father who sold his old truck to the 18 year old son of an acquaintance of his.

The 18 year kid turned out to be a criminal punk who didn't register/insure the truck, got into a high speed pursuit with the police, ended up destroying private property during the chase, crashed the truck, & escaped on foot. The police found drugs in the truck.

The police ended up at my parent's house since my dad was still listed as the registered owner. My dad explained to the police that he had sold the truck a week earlier & let them know who he sold it to & that was the end of it. The police caught up with the punk about a week later & arrested him. Last I heard that kid was sitting in jail waiting to get prosecuted on a number of charges.

Clearly, you don't know the NRA position.

I've got you a free clue:

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2013/private-sales-restrictions-and-gun-registration.aspx

.

Optimist...go home and play with your pussy...you sure don't know what your talking about.

Clearly, you don't know the NRA position.

pot.kettle.black

You saved me the trouble of pointing to the relevant NRA information. The NRA itself says that it opposes background checks on private gun sales.

Ummm, LaPierre has been on the news (Fox included) stating HE OPPOSES UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS. He IS the NRA, is he not? At one time they supported universal background checks but recently that's just too darned much of a bother to their gun manufacturing masters. You people are buying into a sales ploy. Someone gets shot? Buy a gun! Stock market loses ground? Buy a gun! Next year is y2K? Buy a gun? A black guy gets elected president? Buy a gun, build a shelter, horde ammunition, buy Glenn Becks latest book, march in the town square wearing your security blanket and live in constant terror. Because somebody wants to sell you more guns! You all are really not all that bright. Sounds like you're they type that would buy speakers out of the back of a van or make a deal for the Brooklyn Bridge. Dee-you-em, dumb.

Universal background checks are supported by 92% of Americans. The 8% is here.

I seem to remember watching a debate where LaPierre and the NRA suggested a booth be set up at gun shows to run back ground checks for private sales and the idea was shot down, not even considered by the committee.

miklkit, name your source. What do you mean by "Universal background checks"? I have bought 3 weapons and a background check was done for every one. That is the law. If you are talking about weapons sold by individuals, that is a different subject. If I want to sell a weapon to my son, do I have to call the FBI? Maybe a liberal poll says that 92% of Americans support this, but that does not mean 92% of all Americans. No one asked me. If you do a telephone poll and ask 1005 people in Connecticut, then do another poll and ask 1005 people in Montana, my guess is you would get a different result (no matter what the question). 1005 people do not speak for all Americans. Yes the NRA does oppose background checks for private sale of guns. I do too. I would be for reasonable changes to the gun laws, but the liberals are never reasonable, so I am against anything they propose. All efforts of the gun grabbers are a piecemeal approach to a total ban of guns owned by law abiding citizens. No thanks. If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine. I don't propose any laws that demand that you own one. Just don't deny my constitutional right to own mine. I spent 30 years in the USAF defending the rights of all citizens. I do not plan to be denied my rights.

Well now for a little clarification The National Instant Criminal Background Check System - NICS is the current law.It's major disadvantage is the Feds and states don't keep up to date records of prohibited persons. To me its seems like we ought to get the kinks out of this before we ever try for "Universal Background Checks".

The NRA did at one time support Universal. Though it is not quite the same as it was with addition of registration qualifications. Also it goes against some grain of the American fabric. If my father wants to give my son a shotgun and we know he is not prohibited why should we have to pay for a check. When my father passes and I inherit his collection, why do I need to pay a large sum to do so?

My wife's mother lives in a trailer park and there have been several break ins, since I know she not a prohibited person but under Universal checks I would have to pay for a check to lend her a gun. When the guy doing the break ins is caught and she returns it I would have to pay to do another.

But if you were a criminal this is not how you are getting your gun. Your stealing it, or buying it already stolen. Getting your girlfriend to buy it for you. Anyway you look at it you would not be submitting to the Universal Check.

Read the whole article Ian. It impacts the law-abiding gun owner as well.

40,000 gun sales per year DO NOT HAPPEN because gun sellers (from stores to individuals who sell at gun shows) follow the law. Sounds good to me.

Not to me.

What good is it if we don't prosecute these people? They will just get their guns elsewhere.

.

I wish they could prosecute these criminals that try to buy a gun Illegally. The big problem being they usually don't use their real name or ID to try this. They need to keep criminals from getting the guns for sure, as well as the mentally ill. Too many times in this country the mentally ill are not reported to the authorities like is required. The latest cases are in the news....in Tucson, in Aurora, Co. And in Newton Ct. Everyone of them might have been stopped if they had been reported as they should have been. I saw what will happen in Illinois when man was reported by his doctor.....the state police went to his house and took away his guns. And they should have.

The agents faced numerous obstacles in what they dubbed the Fast and Furious case. (They named it after the street-racing movie because the suspects drag raced cars together.) Their greatest difficulty by far, however, was convincing prosecutors that they had sufficient grounds to seize guns and arrest straw purchasers. By June 2010 the agents had sent the U.S. Attorney's office a list of 31 suspects they wanted to arrest, with 46 pages outlining their illegal acts. But for the next seven months prosecutors did not indict a single suspect.

On Dec. 14, 2010, a tragic event rewrote the narrative of the investigation. In a remote stretch of Peck Canyon, Ariz., Mexican bandits attacked an elite U.S. Border Patrol unit and killed an agent named Brian Terry. The attackers fled, leaving behind two semiautomatic rifles. A trace of the guns' serial numbers revealed that the weapons had been purchased 11 months earlier at a Phoenix-area gun store by a Fast and Furious suspect.

Why did the prosecutors not do their job?

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

Romney in a landslide? Yes, surveys are bad...

No surveys said Romney was going to win in a landslide.

They had him tied, with 3% undecided. And then Barack Obama flew in on his Magic Wings, and won by 3.5%.

Never had a survey that stated 100% of the people surveyed and this is a fact.

Funny how you swallowed those "Romney by a landslide" surveys hook, line and sinker though huh?

Especially if they are from California, New York or Washington DC, communist strongholds of the DNC.

So by all means move to Chicago, you will be perfectly safe there.

WOW you are uneducated ( stupid in plain language ) Please show me your facts not just your mindless dribble.

Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns.

People with more chainsaws tend to injure and kill more people -- with chainsaws.

.

Salsa-forever....If your just going to post drivel, then go to another site...what a maroon....

That so called "study" is just another example of the junk studies that were defunded some years ago and now Obwan has used his illegal power of executive order to refund, over the votes of lawmakers. Obwan and his puppet masters is illegally bypassing existing laws and rules to do what he illegally and unconstitutionally wants.

Where do the guns in Chicago come from? Outside of Chicago where there are no laws.

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

Salsa,

You might want to check your "facts" before posting. I am pretty sure that Chicago (very strict gun control laws) has one of the highest murder rates in the U.S. I have a concealed permit and have never shot nor, shot at anyone. However, I will not hesitate to protect my family if someone breaks into my house. If the liberals can repeal the 2nd amendment, what other constitutional rights are next? Freedom of speech? Maybe the liberal media would object to that one.

Funny thing about that Chicago gunlaw ordeal. Outstate may have "no gun laws" but they still are breaking Chicago law when they bring gun into city. Seems the law makes no means of stopping transport into city.Imagine that they BROKE the law wow!

salsaforever....myth#4, your an intelligent person....fact-check: progressives never check the facts they just assume everything and then convince themselves by continually telling themselves that their right...

salsa.once again your made up "facts" defy logic.Links me boy,links since we all know how far you always stretch the truth.

FACT! 77% of all statistics are all made up on the spot by someone trying to prove a point.

Sandman, I think a recent study said it was up to 83%

But that was from a recent poll conducted by a group nobody ever heard

of asking misleading questions?

And Factcheck is known to be funded by leftist sources trying hard to prove what they can't prove. Repeat a lie often enough and some will believe it.

Sandman,Good one.

salas your #s are wrong. hey dick dont be a dick

Fact #1 .... you're not taking my f* *ken guns.