E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA Manassas woman pleaded guilty to violating federal firearms laws after buying 31 handguns over a two-week span at three Virginia gun shows.
Kimberly Dinkins, 41, pleaded guilty Thursday in federal court in Alexandria to dealing firearms without a license. She faces up to five years in prison.
Court records show that Dinkins resold all of the guns for a profit.
More news from NBCWashington.com
Federal law does not require a person to register as a firearms dealer for occasional private gun sales, but it does require a dealer's license if a person devotes significant time and energy to the sale of firearms with a primary goal of making a profit.
A Virginia law limiting individuals to one handgun purchase per month was repealed last year.
By NBCWashington.com
Leave a Comment:
We need strict background checks and severe limits on gun sales. Ban semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines.
Agree with the background checks and high capacity magazines. Disagree with bans on semi-automatic weapons, gun registration, and any law restricting the ownership of handguns, rifles, and shotguns by an American citizen who has a clean mental health history and no violent felonies.
there is no reason at all to ban semi automatic or high capacity mags, a clip can be changed so fast it does not have any effect and semi automatic weapons result in less than 1% of gun crimes, its time for you to stop realing over sandy hook, you cant fix every tragedy in the world let go
if a clip can be changed that quickly, why would a high capacity ban matter to you? 3 clips x 8 or 10 is much less than 3 clips x 30. Correct?
Ban semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. A clip in time saves nine. 1% is too many. I don't buy your reasoning. Scroll down to see more pointless posts. Wall street bankers don't sell guns that end up murdering. Background checks will stop sales to dangerous individuals. Better defenders of gun rights will be along shortly.
Do you even know what a semi-automatic is? It's one pull on the trigger to fire one round, so it sounds like you're talking about a total ban on all firearms.
You're dead wrong on background checks and limits. What we need is for the law to make it as easy as possible to obtain firearms. Purchasing a gun or guns with 20 round capacities or less should be as easy as buying a candy bar; you should also be allowed to purchase as many magazines and rounds for such firearms just as easily.
The only background checks I would consider are for higher capacity weapons and magazines, but there is one problem: the people you are looking to weed out are not going to waste their time trying to get their firepower legally. I have no problem with background checks weeding out people with bank robbery, armed robbery, and drug dealing records, but I also know these kinds of people can get whatever they need to cause whatever mayhem they want to cause right off of the street. The only thing background checks will serve to do is prevent law-abiding citizens from being immediately able to defend themselves against human garbage.
like a pump or level action takes days to reload...these guys ain't got a clue...
In Virginia, a State with some of the most lax gun laws in the nation, you can be criminally insane and walk into any gun show and buy weapons and magazines from a gun dealer posing as a private seller without any background check at all. You might have to flash a driver's license or some form of ID, but otherwise, you are packing and ready to go.
Not surprising, Wayne LaPierre, executive Vice President of the NRA, is from Virginia.
Kind of explains it ...
Wall St. Bankers don't sell gun's that kill people? No, they are worse. Hop up on your Unicorn and ride off into the sunset.
So you want us to only own revolvers???
You're not very bright, clearly.
It's called freedom.
There's been one case in the last 50 years where someone shooting at people in a criminal manner (mass shooting or otherwise) was stopped while reloading. Smaller clips won't save lives...we had that ban for ten years and it had no effect on already declining murder and violent crime rates. As those clips and "assault" rifles have proliferated to historic levels over the last 20 tears we've had a 49% decline in both muder and violent crime rates, and
....continued....
As those clips and "assault" rifles have proliferated to historic levels over the last 20 years, we've had a 49% decline in both murder and violent crime rates, and over the last 10 years a 20% decline in those rates.
No correlation means, logically, no causation. If those things cannot be causal to murder or violent criem rates, what is the point of banning them, except out of emotional irrationality?
No bans of anything. We don't need more control of something that is not causing the problem. Bans caused this problem:
The ban on drugs (the Drug War) is directly responsible for 51% of our murders, including 51% of gun murders. Add up the drug gang murders and the non-gang trelated murders over drugs...it's 51%. Meanwhile, for perspective, ALL rifles are responsible for 1.7% of murders (3.5% of total homocides)...and "assault rifles" are only a small subset of the rifles category.
Guns aren't the problem, the Drug War is.
For you cowards that insist that the 2nd amendment means you can arm yourself with any weapon available? When does my freedom start. When do I get to feel safe from cowards that insist on wearing a gun?
If you cannot see, that a semi automatic weapon with a magazine that holds from 30 to 100 a shot makes a violent person more efficient I am afraid there is no hope you. So go ahead you little cowards and cower behind the 2nd amendment even though it really does not stop any government from regulation of the type of weapons available to your miserable cowardly azzes. I call for not only banning such weapons but recalling those that are already on our streets, and anyone caught with such a weapon is put in jail for a good long time and when they are released they are not allowed to own any gun even a water pistol.
When you start off by calling people "cowards" because they assert their natural right to own and bear arms, which the Founders recognized (did not GRANT) in the Constitution, we know you have no logical argument.
Look up natural rights and natural law, and what the Founders and Framers said in hundreds of quotes surrounding keeping and bearing ARMS (not just guns). I'll link you to a site with all the relevant quotes and answers to all your BS assertions.
http://guncite.com/
Your rights start and mine stop where I HARM or DEFRAUD you...and owning weapons does no such thing. As I pointed out, our weaponry is NOT CAUSAL to murder rates or violent crime rates. Take a Logic course. Stop being irrational. Your paranoia about guns is unfounded. Body counts have NOT risen as these weapons and high capacity magazines have proliferated...in fact the body counts per capita have fallen dramatically in the USA, and there has been no rise in mass shootings here either (despite more media coverage saturation). Learn to think for yourself logically and rationally and stop being ruled by simple intuition. If you can't do that there is no hope for YOU.
All you gun enthusiasts say there should be no limits on what types of weapons that you can possess because it's a right granted by the constitution. Then you also must be for no limits ona persons right to vote. It's also granted in the constitution so you should be out there demanding that all restrictions be removed. You say you shouldn't have to register your guns because it's your right but so is voting but you have to register to do that so registering your guns is also fine.
If a clip can be changed that quickly, why would a high capacity ban be implemented? Quick clip change means that a high capacity ban would be ineffective. Correct?
No right is granted by the Constitution. It RECOGNIZES natural rights. The Founders were classical liberals, and classical liberalism didn't believe rights can be granted or taken away by govts. Our govt cannot grant us a right to keep and bear arms, or speech, or anything else....it can only aggress against those natural rights we get by the virtue of being humans.
The fact you don't know that shows the failure of our school system and why you don't fundamentally understand the actual points we make in debate.
And voting isn't a natural right. It's a state privilege, like driving. That's why immigrants are entitled to a trial, speech, etc, but are not able to vote until citizens. Natural rights are not dependent upon citizenship status (you get them from being human, not an American). Civil rights are privileges granted by the state and confered to citizens, like voting, or driving, etc. Some civil liberties can be given to non-citizens, but tey are not natural rights because they can be revoked by the state.
This is why this country's courts have failed women and minorities. Never once have the courts confered the same equal natural rights of white males to them. They could have avoided the Civil War by doing so in the 1850s or earlier. Instead they lett the legislature vote-in rights for those groups...civil rights.
But that which can be voted in can be voted out. Civil rights are second class rights. Only natural rights are NOT up for a vote.
Hence, the legislature can only impose tyranny when limiting inalienable negative natural individual rights. Look up negative rights vs positive rights, alienable vs inalienable, natural rights vs civil rights, etc. "Inalienabe" literally means "not subject to citizenship, law, border, or vote; not separable from the individual". So you see, you cannot vote away our rights or restrict them via the legislature.
I invite you to not believe me...read the Founders and Framers for yourself. Both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Parties were classical liberals...one philosophy founded this nation. I know it well, as today "classical liberalism" is called "libertarianism" (actually they are ever-so-slightly different, but not by much). I happen to be a libertarian (not the Party...the philosophy).
from the article:
Alexandria, about a 5 minute drive from DC...
And people wonder how so many handguns make their way into DC and neighboring areas even though DC has strict gun control laws in comparison with Virginia.
Gee, I wonder if anyone out there is doing the same in Indiana (selling guns to Chicago) or Pennsylvania (selling guns to NYC). Nah, couldn't be...
Silverton You're a LIAR. You still trying to sell that? Nonsence!!!!! You are in error!
In order for the dealers to sell at the shows they are REQUIRED to do a NICS check. Thats FEDERAL LAW!!!
The so called "Loophole" does not exist. The term has been created to lure the ignorant. I have been to HUNDREDS of gun shows in the Commonwealth of Virginia, because I live here, and can tell you the places are SWARMING with cops from all branches. From feds, to troopers, to local, and deputies. Including plain clothed. The Background checks are done in a back secluded area, so in the event a person that should not have a firearm tries to buy a firearm they will be pounced on instantly. The confusion lies strictly on the private sale of a weapon. That is private property and should remain that way. The interference of private sales will include removing the ability to either gift, grandfather, or be left to someone. ("WILLED"). It is already illegal to knowingly sell or give a firearm to a felon. NO other law is needed.
Also I want to add that generally, When I present my CHP, I should be immune from the NICS check. I have NOT yet been passed over from the check. Due to the rules set forth by the FFL licence. They are required to do it anyway. AND THEY DO!!. So your "supposition' is without merit.
What SHOULD be considered is this... If a person has been deemed >"THAT"< dangerous, >"THAT"< much of a menace to society, via mental illness or violent criminality, they should be kept LOCKED UP, and/or EUTHANIZED, rather than return them to the streets to eventually kill.. >"THAT"< would curtail a huge amount of these problems. We can't punish the masses for the actions of the few.
Johntho,
How about we ban fools like you from commenting on a post. Or would that be taking away your 1st amendment rights. Funny how you liberal sheep only believe you have the right to have what you believe in.
I'm not fully blaming the movie or gaming industry but when you can play a game(grand theft) and shoot as many people or police as you want and then hit restart afterwards prob doesn't convey the best message. How many of these mass shooting are commited by a baby boomer? Not that many compared to the younger generation that has been subject to the violence in the games. Not to mention that most parents now days hold there kids in a do no wrong lifestyle. Not punishing kids when they something wrong.
Very nice straw man you have there. The Constitution grants the right to vote to all citizens of legal age. So long as you can prove you are a citizen and of legal age, I have no problem with you voting.
Silverton-The Information You are peddling is a Bald Faced Lie, You ever been to a Gun Show? A Dealer would never, NEVER, pose as a Private Citizen and peddle guns that way, they have way too much to lose. You really are a Special Kind of Stupid, Educate Yourself, Participate, Try the Sport you condemn so freely. Read Up a little on the founding of the Nation and it's beginnings, You won't be so quick to Give Up a Right.
The unrestricted flow of illegal guns and illegal drugs is the problem, not
the gun laws. The unrestricted flow of illegal drugs funds the purchase of
illegal guns. The NRA's success at lowering standards in other states creates
large profits for NRA sponsored gun dealers who sell to middlemen who then ship
them to Chicago and sell them at a nice profit, funded by illegal drug sales.
The NRA has succeeded in arming all the bad guys at a nice profit. Now the good
guys have to buy guns to protect themselves from the bad guys. Which generates
another round of profits, unless, of course, the good guys follow the laws.
And as the inner city youth become unemployable because of educational skills
that don't match a high tech economy and because of more high paying jobs going
overseas we will see more illegal guns and drugs with more shootings.
The end result is that we will eventually have to drop the gun laws and arm
everybody. Then we can look forward to the funeral business leading the way out
of this bad economy.
Re: #1.5; Actually, rodentwarrior, when I've chatted w/ FFL holders, they've told me that they have caught a few prople because of the background check, mostly felons and/or people w/ restraining orders. Hey, no one said all criminals were smart.
Liberals are braindead Obamazombie idiots. There is no reasoning with them, they follow no logic, and don't give a $hit about the Constitution. They are naive, ignorant Obamanauts who think the government can and will protect them from all the evils of the world and provide them with everything they want, everything they need, to live a long, happy, and prosperous life of liberty as a free person.
That being said, I do think this lady overstepped her boundaries a little bit.
And there is a site (that I can't get into) that refers to a catagory that the ATF names "criminal friendly FFL holders", & I have read, in the past, of the very small % of FFL holders that sold the overwhelming # of guns used in criminal activities, that could be tracked back to the seller (sorry, I don't have the reference info to name the source of that last statement).
Yeah, ban semi-automatic weapons. Like anyone's even talking about that. You see, this is why decent, well-rounded gun control legislation is impossible - those who advocate for it the most seem to know absolutely nothing about guns.
Johntho Comment collapsed by the community
As soon as you get psychiatric help for your irrational fear of people with guns. You call other people cowards but it's clear that the real coward is YOU. You don't feel safe so you want other people to pass laws to placate your irrational fear, that is the definition of a coward.
@ ProIndividual, you're my new hero! I too subscribe to the same theory that our drug war is the real problem. Now, much like during the prohibition of alcohol during our great depression, our country is once again experiencing unnecessarily high levels of crime and violence in what can only be described as our second great depression. History is repeating itself with the only difference being the prohibition of alcohol was our own, the peoples, undoing. Whereas, we voted to have it and when we realized our folly we again voted to repeal it.
The truth be told we never voted to have a war on drugs it was imposed upon us. Furthermore, the war on drugs was manufactured by the same people who were responsible for enforcing the prohibition of alcohol, the Bureau of Prohibition which became the Bureau of Narcotics the same year prohibition ended.
Here's the catch, the laws they, the government, created to enforce were all found to be unconstitutional in 1969. As a consequence we now have the Controlled Substance Act of 1970. Then President Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Agency and literally declared and escalated their war. He put the fox in charge of the hen house when he placed total control over scheduling substances under the CSA, as well as giving authority over the DEA, to the U.S. Attorney General. We the people have no say in this war, never have and never will.
The only thing that can change this is a Presidential Executive Order; in doing so, the President would eliminate thousands of federal jobs; jobs that should have been gone after the prohibition of alcohol in the 1930's. Plain and simple, their war is nothing more than an income generator for the federal government; a government for the government, tyranny.
How do we stop a massacre?
The answer is revealed in the stunning short video shown below. This remarkable solution:
• Requires no police.
• Costs the taxpayers no money.
• Requires no up-front paperwork.
• Protects innocent lives.
• Is deployed in as little as FIVE seconds.
• Works everywhere.
• Deters violent crime.
• Makes bad guys flee immediately.
• Is easy to learn.
• Functions at the local level.
• Does not require control or intervention by the United Nations or any government entity.
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/epZod2qyyN4
Spatman...
Not a perfect analogy. This one isn't either, but it fits with your logic:
Taking away law abiding citizens guns because they might be used in crime is like cutting out your tongue because you might yell 'fire' in a crowded room.
"ban takenaka" and those who want to ban our rights !
Hdumpty from Nowhere's post was so full of lies that if mentoring occurs, the mentor should ban Hdumpty for a while.
Yeah the exact reason why we don't need any gun laws of any kind, this poor woman was just trying to make enough money to feed her family and then bury her whole family who died suddenly.
Umm.... I believe doe is a deer. A female deer. (dang I can't remember the rest of the song) Dough is what the mobsters in movies call money, see, you take your heater, see, or the Chicago typewriter, see, and you stick it in the mugs face, see....See?
You dirty rat. You stole my Edward G. Robinson lines and now you're gonna pay, see?
@ Intedependant thinkerer, you are correct and I also agree with you But the "Wall Street" people have license's to operate legally she didn't. If she gets a license this wouldn't be an issue.
And I'll take a bakers dozen plzzz.
Robert-for the life of me I couldn't think of his name, thanks! So, did I sound like him? Have a good one!
Great. Ear worm. Thanks.
POOR WOMAN, Where have all the days when you could buy guns and sell them and see them at work at the local news."Teen kills his mom for buying guns"
If she didn't sell to kids or anyone barred from owning a weapon, what is the problem? Liscencing in this case seems to be a regulation meant to limit competition. If she sold to a kid or barred person then prosecute her, otherwise there is no harm and she's just an entrepeneur. If you left her alone she may have opened a gun store in a strip mall like any other legal gun dealer...now she never can.
If you don't understand why liscencing limits competition or causes worse service, google Liscences and Milton Friedman. Big gun dealers lobby for those liscencing laws.
GM Stonepipe and all others with the play on the word Dough - quite funny - all of them!
Doe, Dough, now add Play Dough and of course Homer Simpson "Dooh"
This woman could have filled out some papers, paid a fee and got a tax id number and she would have been legit. but noooooooooo she wanted to skip the tax part,,,,now go to your cell.
Its all about the taxes. The government gets no taxes from private sales. There are state sales taxes and federal excise taxes on firearms. Without a business license and a tax ID, a private seller doesn't collect or remunerate these taxes to the government. There are also no liscensing fees collected by the government as there is a federal Firearms license, a state buisiness license, a state firearms sales license, some local permitting fees, etc... ad infinitum to become a legally licensed gun retailer.
Will you feel the same way when you are required to fill out some papers, pay a fee and get a tax id number to be legit to exercise your 1st amendment rights or any of your other rights.
What is the definition of significant time and energy and who gets to determine what the definition is?
This situation is the same as the illegal aspect of moonshine. It is not that the government is looking out for you and trying to save some lives, it is that they want their cut. If they are not getting their licensing fees and taxes, then you better believe they are going to prosecute.
I am against any bans and restrictions on guns. However I do believe that what this woman did is wrong. There is no way of knowing to whom she sold them to. This is one way guns get into the hands of gangbangers. In Illinois everytime I buy a gun the dealer makes a phone call to the police to ensure that I have no wants/ warrants or felony convictions. This simple act keeps thimgs legit and should be used everywhere. It would also have raised a red flag long before she got to 40something guns in a month.
It'd be more scary if she bought 31 guns for her own use.
GMJ.
Not true. I've bought and sold private guns over the years, and I've always had a paper trail...sworn statements witnessed by a notary. Gangbangers don't want paper trails, and the affidavits save me and the other person from lawsuits and criminal chargers if one or the other is lying. Since I go to a notary, the two fo us are on camera doing the paperwork. It costs like $3 and takesl ike 20 minutes.
Over 80% of criminals get guns from friends and family, not legal gun owners, gun shows, or via theft. Those family and friends should be held liable like anyone else.
If you want to make it a law that people have to go to notaries, and if they don't they will be held liable if the gun is sold to a criminal, then I'm all for that law. But I'm against registries of gun owners (makes it easy for a tyrannical govt to go door to door to get guns like in Australia when they know who all the gun owners are, what tey own, and where they live), limits on magazine capacity, or bans on particluar guns. Even background checks are unnecessary if you make the law I suggested, as you can make it a felony to lie to a notary for a gun sale. To burden every gun owner with the background check when selling a gun is a little redundant. Clearly, if the felon/crazy wants a gun they are usually getting one from people that KNOW they are felons. You need to deter that...by making the person making the sale/giving them the weapon go to a notary. The felon/crazy won't want to go in front of a camera, and if they do, the seller who knows they are a criminal/nutjob won't risk the prison sentence for themselves.
Those are things no gun owner would resist. Notarized paper trails for sales and penalties for knowing selling to person barred legally from owning weapons. I thtintk those are good reforms that I already practice because I want to limit my liability....it benefits me anyways...and it would benefit other gun owners too. It also would benefit society. In my opinion, these should already be default law. When you sell a car you do this.
from the article:
Alexandria, about a 5 minute drive from DC...
And people wonder how so many handguns make their way into DC and neighboring areas even though DC has strict gun control laws in comparison with Virginia.
Gee, I wonder if anyone out there is doing the same in Indiana (selling guns to Chicago) or Pennsylvania (selling guns to NYC). Nah, couldn't be...
Bingo! We have a winner. I have a bill of sale for every firearm I've bought or sold.
But I'm against registries of gun owners (makes it easy for a tyrannical govt to go door to door to get guns like in Australia when they know who all the gun owners are, what tey own, and where they live)
What is it with this "tyranical government" crap. If your government turns tyranical, those couple of pea shooters you have ain't gonna make a difference. And I believe gun registry should be implemented. Heck, your car has to be registered ! And that includes the information of where you reside. That tyranical government could come and confiscate your car !! Oh...thats right....cars are not included in the 2nd amendment.....
Rick,
The most she could use at onetime is two if they are handguns. Anything purchased after 2 is just a waste. Why is that scary?
No, she can't just file for a tax ID number... if you are making a business (which she obviously was) of selling guns, you need a Federal Firearms License (FFL) which is totally separate from a tax ID number. If you have an FFL, you can no longer make priivate sales (all your guns are considered inventory) you have to run a background check on anyone buying from you, you have to have a specific business address, etc. Plus the penalties for unregistered sales are pretty stiff. Learn some facts, folks.
Interesting Movie Trivia:
Edward G. Robinson never said "you dirty rat" in any of his movies. Not once. Not ever.
Leo the Builder:
YOU WROTE: "What is it with this "tyranical government" crap. If your government turns tyranical, those couple of pea shooters you have ain't gonna make a difference."
MY RESPONSE: Approximately 25,000 to 40,000 Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are fighting the US military plus other NATO forces to a stalemate using only small arms and IEDs that they made themselves. Guerrilla warfare tactics enable a smaller, weaker force to defeat larger, stronger forces.
Your statement is especially ignorant if you recognize the fact that the USA is a nation founded by a small number of outgunned individuals who defeated the superpower of their time (the British). The Afghans defeated the Russians using the very same tactics with small arms. The North Vietnamese Army/Viet Cong guerillas also defeated the USA using the very same tactics.
Moreover, the US military might not side with the government if it becomes despotic. The Russian army did not side with the hard-line communists in 1991; they refused to fire on their own people. Furthermore, alliances can always be made for smuggling hard-to-get heavy weapons into the hands of freedom fighters. That’s done all the time. Go read a history book.
PBH-674663 Comment collapsed by the community
typical liberal BS. No one is suggesting we have no gun laws of any kind but you know that without gross exaggeration you sound like the whack-a-doodle you're try to make the other side look like with your ridiculous statements.
PBH,
In other words, gun laws we already HAVE can be made to work if they are enforced.
Wow!!! What a concept!!!!!!
Rhonda,
Not to crap on your parade - well, yes, I'm crapping on your parade - but you have no concept of what it would take to wage a protracted guerilla war. The Afghans can continue to fight because they have the logistical support of neighboring countries. The Soviets were defeated in the 80's because the US was pumping massive amounts of armament into the country (including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles).
Secondly, and this is not meant to denigrate our revolutionary forefathers, but had it not been for France's involvement and their hatred for the British, we would still be saluting the Queen mother. So what foreign power do you propose to engage to defeat your government? Canada? Mexico? Would that be considered American or would it be treasonous? Just wondering.
Oh, one more question: at what point does a government become tyrannical? Is it when the white house is occupied by a black guy with a (D) after his title?
JM-1992894
LOL! The members of our armed forces are sworn to uphold the Constitution and are forbidden by law to operate on US soil. This means that any member who refused to participate would be protected by law. In addition you forget about the National Guard, they are under the command of the Governors. The Federal Government, by law, would be forced to rely on the co-operation of city police forces and sympathetic Governors. Such a thing would not be anywhere near as simplistic as you are trying to make it.
No, that's just the assumption that is made by simple-minded people.
And ban sharp sticks too!!!!!
and those deadly rocks...
Just start cutting off hands and feet. Without those faculties most would not be able to wield a weapon of any type. The number of automobile accidents would likely drop because many would no longer be able to drive. This would also help solve the obesity epidemic in this nation as it would make it much more difficult to eat as well.
no to the sharp sticks, rocks and paws... else how would some of you retarded, unemployed neanderthals get your dinner? It's only high capacity magazines, clips and guns we're after.
While you can certainly kill someone with anything, people need to stop the whole "well you might as well ban this or that too!!!" It's like the only defense. The important thing is all the other things people think they're being witty when they suggest being banned have other uses. Guns were invented to kill people. As far as I'm concerned, when someone murders someone with a gun, they're using the gun for what it was invented for in the first place. If I bludgeon someone with a laptop computer, I am not using that for what it was invented for. See the difference? Of course you don't. Most people seem to want to deflect the blame onto anything BUT guns. You don't care about really fixing the problem, you just care about no one talking about different potential gun laws. Yes there are a lot of contributing factors beyond guns, but to suggest nothing, at all, should be talked about involving potential changes to gun laws is completely ridiculous and shows most don't REALLY care about getting to the problem. You just want to put a band aid over it and suggest everyone should just be armed and it will all fix itself. Riiiiiiight.
Zorloc though I agree with the fact that pointing out rediculous items as they have in this point seems a bit childish they have a point. You will improve nothing by banning assualt weapons,clip capacity or even weapon calibers. And you are right honest conversations need to be had without all of the side stepping. Better back ground checks, longer sentences for crimes committed with a firearm, better education about firearms, more incentives for families to make sure their weapons are secure, and mental health issues are key. I mean would it be a bad thing if you could get a tax deduction for buying a gun safe. I spent 800$ on mine.
For those who might think I am siding with anti guns you would be wrong. Carry every day .40 semi auto and i do have my permit. I have several at home and am actually going to get a new one today.
Guns were invented to move a projectile downrange to strike an intended target, That target may be human,animal,paper,steel,clay or any number of other inanimate materials used to make a target.
What does it matter what the object used was, Quit trying to reduce crime by limiting objects and concentrate on reducing crime by prosecuting criminals. All you do when you make objects illegal is make criminals out of law abiding citizens who have purchased those objects lawfully in the first place.
...
...
...
Just an FYI fellas, but reducto ad absurdum is a quick way to lose any argument...
no, the history of guns is that they were invented to kill humans specifically. They were designed specifically for warfare, and only later were adopted for hunting etc., when their accuracy improved. To argue otherwise shows an ignorance of history.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/inventions/who-invented-the-first-gun.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yuan_chinese_gun.jpg
drowning: Can you hear the chorus of "huh's"? That is what's most troubling - these are the thought processes (?) we're dealing with. I wonder what it's like - I've never been there.
@Prober - "It's only...guns we're after". So you and the other Dems are admitting that you want to totally ban guns?? Is that correct? The problem with the proposed gun control legislation is that it hardly addresses the issue of most semi-automatic handguns, which are actually the most common weapon used in gun crime, according to DOJ and FBI reports. You will notice that she wasn't buying SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles for resell, just HANDGUNS. The kind of weapon that is easy to hide in public.
@Prober and Zorloc, here is some additional retarded, unemployed, neanderthal, thoughts for you to think about today.
The FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2011 shows that out of 12,664 murders committed that year, only 323 of them were confirmed as being committed using a rifle of any type. The so called assault weapons that you seem so afraid of are a very small portion of the total number of rifles owned in this country. Meanwhile, knives or other cutting instruments were used in 1,694 murders. Other weapons, clubs, baseball bats, and so forth were used 1,659 times while hands, fists, feet, etc., were used in 728 cases. According to those statistics, you are much more likely to be killed with a knife, or other non firearm weapon, while the chances are nearly double someone will beat you to death rather than being killed by a rifle. To be clear, 6,220 of those murders were confirmed as being committed with a handgun.
So, you would like the government to spend all of its time and energy banning something that only accounts for less than 3% of all murders in a year, while not doing anything about the other causes of death in this country. Yes, going after all the low hanging fruit always makes the most sense, even when it will be ineffective. Remember, they already tried the assault weapons ban and it was ineffective and thus allowed to expire.
Guns were not invented for the sole purpose of killing people either. There was a time when you actually had to hunt for your food rather than walk to the nearest McDonalds. Many of you city dwellers have no clue that a lot of people in this country still hunt to put food on their table and do not buy meat from grocery stores. Many of you believe that an AR-15 cannot be used for hunting and that is a huge myth. The reason many do not use them for hunting is the size of the round is much smaller than a .270, .308, or 30-06, and you need to be a much better shot in order to guarantee a kill. A well placed shot to the neck with an AR will drop a deer where it stands with no problem whatsoever, while not destroying a bunch of meat in the process. I spent over 10 years in the Marines and am fully capable of making shots like that count.
People have always killed people and always will, no matter what tools are available for them to use. Of course guns make it easier to kill someone from a distance, but getting rid of all guns will not stop the violent crimes against humanity.
zorloc, you sound like you're from outer space. Or at least spacey. You totally miss the REAL reason we don't want our guns registered - if the government makes us register ANYTHING, they have our names and addresses, and down the road, when they decide they need to pick up our guns, they'll have an easy time of it. Now, I know what you'll say next, that we're paranoid - this beautiful, wonderful, safe government would NEVER do that - they only want to protect us. Is that why they are wasting our children's money, opening our borders to illegals, destroying everything Americans have fought so hard for? We are out of jobs, homes, not allowed to raise our children as we see fit, can't practice our religion as we are taught, kill our babies minute by minute, and are becoming so dependent on our government, our youths have become without motivation. If you would just open your eyes, you would see that MANY major countries have done the same thing - taken guns away from law - abiding citizens - Mexico, Australia, to name a couple - check and see what their crime rate is now - WAY UP! How many innocent men, women, children have died in Mexico from the drug cartels? Guess what - the cartels are HERE. Do you really think THEY will give up their guns? Do you think ALL law - abiding citizens will give up their guns? No, they'll become criminals.
When are you folks going to realize Obama is only trying to make it into the history books, nothing else. Why do you think he's pushing gun control, when MILLIONS of REAL Americans are out of work, out of their homes - when's the last time you heard him talk about our failing ecenomy, our devaluing dollar. When's the last time you heard him say he would CUT THE DEFICIT IN HALF (oh, four years ago?). When are you going to get your head out of the sand, and realize we need to get this guy IMPEACHED, and get ALL of these highly paid, worthless politicians voted OUT OF OFFICE? Stop voting on a persons' popularity, and start using your heads for what it was intended for.
Here is another point to consider as well semi-automatic weapons, such as AR-15s, more handguns than you can name, and numerous shotguns, work on the principle of one trigger pull per round going down range. These weapons come with magazines that carry rounds separately and can usually be used to reload rapidly. A revolver also works on the same principle where one trigger squeeze fires one round. They have speed loaders available for revolvers that make it even faster to reload then removing and inserting magazines.
So, when you say you only want to ban semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines you have an ineffective argument as to how that is really going to make a difference. First you go after AR-15 style weapons and high capacity magazines. You find that has no impact, as was noted during the earlier ban, or you find the murder by gun rate continues to climb. Then you decide to go after semi-automatic shotguns. You still don't see a change, so a few years later you ban semi-automatic pistols. This goes on and on until you have eaten the elephant one bite at a time, but still see no downward trend in the rate of violent crime and murder.
What will your next step be?
Ahhhh, name calling. The mark of a thoughtful, well reasoned and persuasive argument. Were you also one of those people who said, "WE don't care where you smoke. We just want a warning on the cigarette pack."?
She sounds like my kind of girl. A firearms enthusiast and the money to pay for them too.
Let's ban excessive shoe buying too! No one needs 20 pairs of shoes! Women must be to be evaluated for mental stability!
mwolf:
"Guns were not invented for the sole purpose of killing people either." Might want to check your Chinese history on that point.
Bill: Sure, we could have voted for McCain and Palin - they're both brilliant.
Excellent post Bill, The only problem is that the left wing gun grabbers refuse to listen to facts and common sense. THEY have caused more deaths in this country due to their restrictive gun laws. THEY prefer people get killed one at a time because their right to self defense was restricted by law.
I wonder how many of those guns will end up being used in a crime. We'll probably never know because the NRA has gutted the ATF's ability to actually do the job it was set up to do. Gun dealers don't even have to keep track of their inventory.
We should be able to trace any gun in any crime in the U.S. to the dealer that originally sold it. We can't.
Lets talk about these kinds of laws. The truth is that it is so easy for criminals to get guns from the gun market that there is no need for a black market. What is wrong with making dealers and gun owners more accountable for their weapons? This doesn't go against the second amendment. I know gun owners who were pretty disgusted to find out how much the NRA has defanged the ATF.
MM-584706---Maybe cars are registered and guns are not is because no one ever took over a country with a car? I believe you do not understand the people writing the constitution inserted a certain section to ensure the government did not retain all the rights and dominate the people. Cars are registered because someone decided to impose a fee to supplement government, Guns are not registered because the best way to control them is to register them, just like cars. One difference the constitution does not say right to drive cars shall be uninfringed. There is the difference. The government already has the right to say you are crazy or unfit, the next step is to start limiting who can own a gun and then who will get approved to own a gun, to the government taking the gun. Logical process of the beautiful civilized human being. So no to background checks, no to registration by the UN, not to all you logical people who cannot see past your own nose and no to the government who is supposed to run the country and not run it's people not the people.
J.Heron---How do you trace a gun with no numbers, stop punishing law abiding citizens you bully. Your very comments that government should be all powerful and not subject to civil pressure is ridiculous and more scary than any gun has ever been.
denver bill 2---Way to go but I doubt anyone of the believers are listening, they are busy trying to think up new words to call us non-beleivers. Politically correct words that is.
Zorloc, thank you for portraying the typical naive, ignorant liberal!
Bill,
"when they decide they need to pick up our guns"
While you and others like you have been paranoid about your guns being taken away "they" have been chipping away at your other rights (since 9/11). By the time you realize it's time to do something about it, enough of your rights will have been stripped that your gun rights are meaningless. If you decide to do something about it, you will be arrested for some BS reason, convicted of a crime that wasn't a crime before, and because you have a gun it will be a felony. You will then be forced to forfeit your guns shortly before they "escort" you to a private prison where you will spend your time providing manual labor without getting paid. And it will all be legal because the gun manufacturers, private prisons, judges, and politicians are all owned by the same people. It won't be democrats or liberals that take your guns, it will be republicans taking your guns after they make it illegal for you to use your second amendment right to regain the other rights they took from you. The whole time convincing you that you had to give up freedom for security.
Nahhh. "Political correctness is tyrrany with manners." (Charlton Heston). Most of the true believers are ill-mannered, in my experience.
Well I see the sheep are here and going on and on with their usual liberal nonsense. MSNBC is posting every possible story they can post about guns, all the while, getting crucial parts of their reporting absolutely wrong because they were more concerned with getting out a story first to ramp up their ratings. First the nut at Sandy Hook killed the teacher who was his mother; then he had handguns and used them while a rifle stayed in his car. Then they released the wrong name of the shooter instead of waiting for exact confirmation from law enforcement.
They glorify and create these killers by calling them clever and posting every photo they can of him, while forgetting about the victims. How many stories and debates have been published by MSNBC (or ANY news outlet for that matter) that address the root cause; MENTAL ILLNESS. Gun-free zones create KILLING GROUNDS. MSNBC and their coverage and comments create the trigger and increased motivation for these killers and copycat nut jobs to die with their 15 minutes of fame; extended due to media coverage.
Cops are snapping left and right. I'll NOT register my guns. I will NOT and have NOT killed anyone and store them responsibly. There is no reason to ban assault weapons...........its a buzzword. I won't be disarmed because of liberal fear and media's irresponsibility.
don't agree don't read it go back to fox
tsk tsk tsk...such angst!! I guess he just told all of us...
Perhaps it's time gun nuts were brought face to face with the unfortunate but inevitable end results of their all or nothing Second Amendment.
Does anyone else out there think it's about time the media started showing photos of the damage caused by a semi-automatic on a 6yr old child's body? Or would that harm everyone's precious sensitivities too much?
How about car accidents or abortions, Kiwi? Brilliant plan otherwise.
stonepipe, changing the subject is a sign of desperation utilized by those who have no lucid response.
Meanwhile, all us people in the middle are waiting for the two fringes of American society to stop shouting at each other.
Is it asking the liberal media too much that, if they insist on reporting every single shooting that occurs, that they also report every incidence of a firearm being used to protect oneself, one's family, etc.? EVERY day guns are used by the good guys to stop/deter the bad guys - why doesn't the media report on these instances? Because it does not suit their agenda.
The following is attributed to JHall138 on Politico - It presents a very well thought out case of why the federal government has no authority to regulate what firearms or ammunition citizens may own. (And yes - the 2nd Amendment refers to individuals - NOT an organized militia- as SCOTUS ruled in Heller)
"When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for
ratification, it was prefaced with a preamble [http://billofrights.org/]. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses”were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the federal government any power over individual rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the federal government concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments.
If the Second Amendment is read through the preamble, we find it was incorporated into the Bill of Rights as a “declaratory and restrictive clause” to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its power” to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
The federal government claims it was granted the constitutional
authority to determine the extent of the individual rights enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights.
This assertion is absurd.
The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to ignore, circumvent, modify, negate or remove constitutional restraints placed on its power by the Amendments or convert them into a power over the individual right enumerated in the particular restraint.
A denial of power or an enumerated restraint on the exercise of power is not subject to interpretation or modification by the entity the restraint is being imposed upon. The restraints imposed by the
Amendments, which were adopted 4 years after the Constitution was ratified, override the legislative, executive, judicial or
administrative powers of the federal government. If this were not the case, then the restraints would be meaningless because the federal government could simply circumvent, modify or remove them. Why would the States have requested and adopted enumerated restraints on federal power, subsequent to their ratification of the Constitution, if the federal government possessed the authority to nullify them?
Answer- it doesn't.
The federal government derives no legitimate authority and has no power vested in it by the Constitution to regulate private arms- and is CLEARLY given the RESTRICTION that it SHALL NOT INFRINGE on the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights.
Opponents of the Second Amendment always try to diminish the right enumerated in the Amendment by asserting that rights are not absolute. This is just another straw man argument because the Amendment is about imposing a restraint of the powers of the federal government concerning a right: not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In addition, a review of the Second Amendment shows that the restraint imposed by the Amendment does not contain any exceptions."
Sheep follow a flock. Sounds much like your stupid comment.
Don't you tards have anything original to say ?
Or do you get your information from Wayne and Alex.
I have a new name for you dillusional Losers.
We will call all you sheep Wayne's World.
Guns don't make you intelligent. They just make more intelligent guns for Losers with no talent.
The Second Amendment was insisted on by the slave states so they could continue
the Slave Patrol Militias to recapture escaped slaves.
and to put down any salve rebellions that were not uncommon.
The southern planters were more afraid of a slave rebellion than they were
of King George, Napoleon or threats from the outside.
The south got stinking rich under King George.
The tyrants you keep speaking of were the Northern anti-slavery wing.
Thomas Jefferson had hundreds of slaves, he didn't want to lose his slaves
and he would spill his fellow citizens blood to save his slaves.
Some if not all slave states required every white male to
own a gun and serve on the Slave Patrol Malitia one day month.
You Johnny Rebs don't deny your own heritage.
Shout it loud.
Be proud of your well regulated Slave Patrol Militias.
LOL...This is the new talking point for the anti gun zealots, Their logic is if they can try to turn this into a racial thing they can try to get rid of the 2nd amendment.
Slavery was legal in all 13 original colonies, Yes even those colonies in the north, Your weak attempt to make this a North versus South thing shows your hate, Yes even you Damn Yankees had slaves!
I'm sorry, what were we talking about again? I got sidetracked.
Mules brother may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but that kind of thinking combined with shake and bake arguments that have no basis in fact or logic play well to the mob.
IKNOWTHIS... I truly believe that if all gun owners were responsible we would have fewer 'Sandy Hook' type incidents. Read that - less idiots would get their hands on legal guns. However, I also believe that registration and licensing would be a good thing - maybe not in the short term but look to the future. If we register guns and license guns today then we will have fewer guns being handed down from a father to his son. Who may or may not be mentally unstable. Today there is no protection against some inbred idiot getting his fathers guns and going off on someone just for fun. Or even better, taking those hand-me-down weapons and selling them to some street punk. Do you see where this can go?
So, you are responsible and others are not. Sometimes we have to suffer a little for the greater good. Remember we are all in this together. We who don't own guns still deserve our Right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' and we can't have that if we have idiots running around with guns (not you).
So try to understand that we don't want to take away your guns or your rights. What we want to do is protect the citizens of the US from guns getting into the hands of irresponsible persons.
Kiwi-I'm sure you did. Rick, it is called a comparison, really it is in the dictionary look it up.
I know:
Alright with you if the rest of us break whatever laws we choose? In your neighborhood. And save the threats - threats are for kids.
One gun reseller down, about 2 million to go. Its AMAZING what you can do when you actually enforce the law. :)
Even more amazing if background checks were required for all gun sales - as endorsed by Wayne LaPierre in 1999.
jw.,
Just an aside, so ALL of YOUR thoughts, decisions, and choices made in 1999, you would NOT change, even with UPDATE INFORMATION.
Well, I'm honored to be on the same forum with you, NEVER blogged with a perfect human being before. Thank You.
everyone who believes that LaPierre represents gun manufacturers raise your left hand. All who think he cares about your right to defend yourself raise your reich leg. Hmmm...they barely have a leg to stand on...
In my way of thinking is that the NRA and their mouth piece LaPierre is against the second admendment !!
The admendment says "a well regulated militia" _— and the NRA is against "all regulations" so either do away with the second admendment or let the NRA rewrite it for us to go by their rules.
@myownthoughts56, I guess if you don't have an argument then an ad hominem attack will do, eh?
Clayton......the "well regulated militia" refers to keeping our military in check (and those who would use it to oppress the citizens), by having well armed civilians. And before anyone starts the "how could we resist our army" crap, just explain why the Afghanistan war has taken many years
Rob, Afghanistan has lots of mountains and rugged territory for the Taliban to hide in... are you planning on moving to one of the Rocky Mountain states and dig yourself a hole big enough for all of your guns and relatives?
PRrober might want to look at a topographical map. There are heavy woods and less populated areas all over this great country of ours. Not only that it is easier to hide yourself in a major motropolis than it is in the woods or moutains. Just ask that former police officer in California who is killing cops.
In US vs. Miller the Supreme Court acknowledged the definition of militia as "all males capable of contributing to the common defense". Also that each of these males would be expected to "provide his own weapon" and that it "shall be of the type in common use". This is the case in which the liberals tried to claim the court ruled that the right to bear arms only applies to the militia. Most have never read it and still try to spin it that way.
PRober - Go back to school and learn American history. The colonials had a army of sorts, but they also relied on guerilla warfare tactics. A well trained marksman can demoralize an entire troop with well places shots. Besides that, who is to say that the majority of the military would back an action that shoots American civilians.
And BTW - it was reported yesterday that California cops shot innocent citizens thinking that it was the cop killer they were looking for. So much for the highly trained gun toting police that the liberals want as the only citizens owning or carrying guns in the USA.
rob:
It might have to do with the billions of dollars of hardware the Soviets left behind.
It might have to do with the $40 billion in hardware and cash the US and Saudi Arabia gave the Taliban.
It might have to do with fighting on your own turf against invaders utterly unfamiliar with the geography or the culture.
avg: Are we assuming that an 'entire troop' wouldn't have 'well trained marksmen'? Your little scenarios conveniently omit even the most obvious realities.
One gun seller down ????? I think if you were to enlighten yourself by checking with your states commission on sentencing. You will find that the real criminals are getting slapped on the wrist for gun crimes. What this woman did was wrong, Period, but most criminals get arrested 5 or 6 times before doing any prison time.
The gun and ammo shelves at Cabelas and Scheels are practically stripped. Looks like a grocery store before a big blizzard.
So you're arguing that everyone should be able to possess any weapon that the miiltary currently has?
Correct, that's exactly what the 2nd amendment means
It use to be, that there were many of the 'kitchen table' FFL dealers, before ATF thought it too much trouble to have that many LEGAL gun dealer. This is the result, really good job there atf. Brass Hat thinking.
A little more on the ATF and gun shows, if you look at an application it specifically states they will not give a FFL to someone who only sales at gun shows. In order to get a FFL you now have to operate a store, they want to visit the actual building. To top that off they look at zoning and other laws before issuing the FFL. Why is the ATF checking zoning laws shouldn't the local government take care of that or is it just an attempt to find a reason not to issue the license?
Not true, I know of several FFL licensed dealers that operate out of their house with no storefront. In fact I've bought from them sitting at their dinning room table while their wife completed the NIC's check.
hope she gets all five years
Hmm. we'll have to send TWO black helicopters to her place...
If we were to do a background check, a Psychological examination and a drug test on 435 congressmen and 100 senators, we'd lose half of them.
Only half? Damn!
We'd only lose those on the left.
Yeah, because it's the crazies on the left that think it's God's will that your daughter gets raped...oh wait.
Another idiotic statement, He did not state that the rape was a gift from god and he in fact said the rape was a criminal act, he stated that the creation of a life was the gift. And it was the statement of 1 man, So can we now start attributing every comment made by any individual from the left as the position of all the left
Rape? Did I hear someone mention the main topic of conversation for our beloved Rethugs? And how would we know it was really rape? I mean, they haven't defined that for us yet. The American Tealiban has been too busy trying to regulate vaginas and deregulate banks, gun dealers, oh and force their version of "God" upon the rest of us.
PRober...hahaha, those American Tealiban...you certainly are such a f*ckin nut ball. Leave it to a pathetic, can't take care of their own family, liberal to compare people who want others to try and take care of themselves, to radical muslims. I pray you are the one who tries to come disarm my house...I'll leave your carcass to warn off others.
mark:
Clearly you're too stupid to be dangerous. In your imaginary amateur anarchist world, the intelligent will survive - you will not. You remind me of the clown at the grocery store packing his pride. A quick step, a cheap bottle of Merlot and I own his gun, his wallet and his life. You guys may scare each other - men are another issue altogether.
Whatever lets you sleep at night, Mark D-1621162, no matter how ridiculous you sound.
Mark, your statement should qualify you to lose your right to own a firearm. your childish and vile statement does your cause more harm than good. keep up the good work moron and lets see how well your pop gun works against a blackhawk
Jesus saves, open up your heart and accept his wisdom! The gun is just a pulpit in which to preach from
The only reason they caught this woman is the national attention focused on guns and gun shows. Six months ago nothing would've been done about this the laws are in place they just need to be enforced. Unfortunately the people in charge of that only do their jobs when they are under a microscope. If you want security you had better provide it for yourself.
Things are moving in a positive direction. Gun restrictions now.
Yes, Chicago is such a safe place with all their gun restrictions.
Takenaka you will be the first one crying when they take your freedom of speech away. you need the 2nd the protect the rest. get your heads out of your asses. do you really think sandy hook was coincidence. we the people need fire power as equal as we can get to fight a tyranical govt. you dont find anything alarming about the govt buying all the ammo so there is none for civilians. destroying all spent casings so we cant reload, or drone strikes on americans. they are up to something think about it for a while.
Lost, are you suggesting that there aren't enough guns in Chicago?
Chicago's problem is too many guns in a city with too many poor people.
And glock, what does freedom of speech have to do with a bunch of idiots that misinterpret the 2nd amendment? A well maintained militia has nothing to do with crazies that imagine they can outgun the government.
What makes you think they are up to something?
I am suggesting that the law abiding citizens of Chicago have been denied their 2nd amendment rights
Chicagos problem is only the criminals have guns
So you seem to be one of those crazies that think YOUR INTERPRETATION is the correct on! Once the 2nd amendment is gone there will be no 1st or subsequent amendments.
Tell that to the Syrians, The Libyans ,The Afghans,The Viet Cong. Or better yet tell it to the Revolutinaries who fought against the most modern and best armed military of its time, That would be the Colonist who fought and beat the British Army during the American Revolution, The Constitution does not regulate the powers of the people, It does not grant rights to the people, The constitution regulates and restricts government.
LOST IN THE... I really wish you gun advocates would stop using Chicago as an example. The problem with Chicago is their diversity/ their poverty, etc. It has little to do with gun laws. Here is the fact - guns can be moved from state to state/from city to city. So if I have guns to peddle illegally where would the best place to peddle them be? Maybe a place that has strict gun laws?
So - ask yourself where did those guns in Chicago come from?
a. legal purchases in Chicago
b. illegal purchases in Chicago
c. a 3D copy machine in Chicago
d. carried in from another city/state
e. probably b and d
So we learn that gun laws don't work UNLESS they are inacted universally. Oh, I get it (do you?). That's why our government is trying to create universal gun laws. Wow, they're really thinking aren't they?
None of the "gun nuts" I see referenced here are mis interpetting the 2nd amendmant. This has been decided in the supreme court, if there was an interpitation that allowed the government to regulate seize weapons from the citizenry it would have been played, used. If this woman was buying weapons from an evil gun show where none of the purchases are tracked how was she charged in the first place? "Do you think thats air your're breathing." Step back out of the media matrix,take the red pill see how far this rabbit hole goes. Why are we passing legislation to regulate fire arms? Why would anyone honestly think any of that will solve the problem? Since the vast majority of these shooters are without any doubt at all insane, why isn't the focus on early detection and assitance? Or why isn't it on or about why triggers them and pushes them over the proverbial tipping point. This is an argument about fundamentally changing your/our protection from an over reaching government no more, no less. And we were all told fundamental change was on its way, if this right falls all the rest go the same way...just a matter of finding the right trigger to excite people enough to stop them from thinking. Like children dying. It's my deepest hope this change fails, sad to see so many people happily marching all of us into a form of slavery that is potentially irreversable. The constitution is the only document that if left intact can keep everyone free, because without its restriction all you will every have is what the government lets you have. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are gaurenteed at the moment. The eventual destination of our fundamental change will have them handed to you, when they feel like it, by your government masters. Just like food stamps, unemployment checks, health care...list is growing. Wake up.
Poor Don, Then why dont' states with lax gun laws have the same gun violence rates as cities that have restictive gun laws like Chicago.
I am not a criminal so quit treating me like one and start treating the criminals in Chicago like criminals
A civilian national security force circumvents the Posse Comitatus Act.
"fastdraw", "glock"? Remember guys, the potato goes in the front.
Rick - "Chicago's problem is too many guns in a city with too many poor people". If Obama makes everyone rich, then there won't be anymore gun crime. <sarcasm>
SDN say what you want but when theres no gas and no food you anti gun freaks will be the first to suffer.
LoL at SDN. Potato guns shoot much more than a potato. The Potato is simply used to check the trajectory verses the weight of a potato.
Don, why don't you move to Europe if you want to have universal laws. Obama has an agenda and you've bought into it lock stock and barrel; except, he and his lemmings, armed by our tax dollars will be the only ones pointing the barrels when all is said and done. That's only if the sleeping giant America doesn't wake up soon.
LOL @ Don 11.7 You try and make a point and miss the point all at the same time! Chicago is used as an example for numerous reasons which is exactly the point. If, as you say the reasons Chicago has so many problems is because of answers B & D, then the point would be that it doesn't matter what gun laws you enact, the criminals will still find a way to get them!
What you and those who think like you don't seem to get is this: You can enact all the gun laws you want and the shootings will continue. Darn that law didn't work, lets enact another - and the shootings will continue. More laws targeted at criminals do nothing but restrict the freedoms of the law abiding citizen. Where does your scenario end? It doesn't because it can't. Here's another your probably tired of hearing: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I am forever amazed at what you don't understand about that.
Don., re: # 11.7
So, your
"So we learn that gun laws don't work UNLESS they are inacted universally. Oh, I get it (do you?). That's why our government is trying to create universal gun laws. Wow, they're really thinking aren't they?"
is an admission that American gun laws will not work. That we need WORLDWIDE laws for gun laws to 'work'.
Well, that hold sovereign nation thing was pretty selfish of us.
This is an abuse of over-regulation of uncertainty of law to make an unwritten law of interpretation to allow the government to establish two weeks as a time period to define "significant time and enerygy". For example, two weeks as a vendor at a swap meet to do upto 37 transaction for 37 hand guns is not the same level of investment of time and energy as spending six months to meet a buyer, setup exchange time, setup swiss bank account, logistics to move 37 guns for a single sale transaction.
government definition of "significant time and energy" is willy nilly. Willy nilly means random. So, what is "significant time and energy" as define by government to use to intrepret law?
If she wanted to be a vendor she should have paid for the license. She'll have five years to reflect on that decision.
a Vendor license permit from the government is commitment of time and energy to buy and sale guns for the period of the permit. To do business for that lengthy period of one year or what the permits allow. The news article says the law actually allows for "occasional" private sale for profit without a permit. That spirit of the law is a poorly recognize "spirit of law" or negligent in this case; and that identify another level of willy nilly to allow for in interpretation of law using spirit of law.
This woman was likely just a 'mule' for some gangbanging gun runner. Some 'ho' without a record who could read and write and actually had a real address other than her auntie's house.
The buying up guns now they think that if there is strick controls they will be able to sell at double the price they paid to the criminals and gangs.
Bet if some one would go to LaPierre and told him they would like to purchase a thousand rocket launchers he would be more than happy to oblidge.
If she wanted to make money legally, she would have gotten her permit to sell/deal in firearms, she did not!!! The only thing she was wanting, was money!!! I would like to know, who the hell did she sell all those guns to, at a proffit no less? Gangsters? Gangs? Friends? Relatives? The military? The Police? Who???
Why didn't all those buyers of hers simply go to the gun show, and buy them themselves, cheaper? Hmmm, sure makes me wonder?????
Obviously she sold them to people who didn't want a paper trail and used their library card for identification. How many will end up in schools ?
You'd be okay with her actions if she had sold them at break-even or at a loss?
Hilarious.
mpa: Familiar with the terms 'knee-jerk', and 'irrelevant'? Well, oh yeah.
If she bought these guns legally, stop your whining!
Bought them legal, sold illegal.
And you know this for a fact?
VLGil Almost all illegal guns was legal at one time.
VLGil-re read the article it says she bought and sold too many guns. I am pro Second, just stating facts.
The law she violated was that she made a profit on the sales, If she had not made a profit she would not have been in violation of the law.
Define significant time and energy gun haters. A very arbitrary point of law. Two weeks is significant time and effort? That's a stretch.
Making a profit? How many of you would buy something of value such as diamonds or gold and sell it at a loss if you didn't have to? That's right..none of you.
People who buy gold and diamonds then turn around and immediately sell them for a profit are called Jewelers.
Here's the problem with the law they're now deciding to enforce; it's too ambiguous and is therefore arguably unconstitutional under due process clause of the 5th Amendment.
What defines "occasional," what's the benchmark that determines when "making a profit" becomes a "primary goal" and be it one or one hundred who's goal is ever to sell something at a loss? Isn't one's time and effort worth anything? What hobbyist doesn't devote a significant amount of time on what they like to do? Non-profit's can cover their expenses; inclusive of paying those who do the work.
So much for the gun nutters claims that all we need to do is enforce existing laws. They even bitch and moan when exisiting laws are enforced.
From my point of view, it looks like all the legislators who want to take our guns all look like folks with a long past history of having been beat up in school for their lunch money.
From my point of view, you sound like an insensitive moron.
You sure seem to know a lot about "folks with a long past history of having been beat up in school for their lunch money"... how much did you and your bully friends net each day anyway?
How do I change my profile picture?
Keep the one you got. It reminds me of Nancy Pelosi.
ha/ha/ha, I have it changed on when I type this message, want a Gunsmoke pic.
VLGil, you're ahead of me. I don't even know how to put one up in the first place. I'd leave it alone. That's a good self-portrait you have there.
I found that cat one just for these comments, my cat has hair! I love Gunsmoke
and how appropriate nowadays!
This lady seems an excellent representation of why there is a need for 100% background checks.
Who got the weapons she sold.... who knows???
Has there ever been, could there ever be, a more perfect illustration of how the illegal gun culture of inner city gangs is fed by Virginia's legal gun trade? Maybe the handgun that took the life of Hadiya Pendleton in a Chicago park last week was one of those bought at a gun show in Virginia.
It also points up the solution to the inner city gun violence that the NRA is so keen to change the subject to when the issue of mass shootings comes up.
And if you think the violence and murder can be kept in the inner city, well, you are dead wrong.
From what I understand if there are multiple sales like this one, then the gun shop owner should notify the BTAF asap, that's what my cousin did years ago, but...they told him to keep selling and turned around that one of the guns was used in a crime in N.Y., and Bloomburg sued him for this, the batf screwed up and admitted it, he lost his license, but his health was bad so it worked out.....not everything is perfect and right, especially when it comes to the government.
Too many things are perfect for The Government, but, not necessarily right.
That's right, trust what the government tells you to do. Each and everyone of us, liberals included, have the ability to decide if we will do something that seems illegal or unethical. If the ATF, FBI, or DOJ tells any gunshop owner to sell guns contrary to law, then there needs to be a court filed affidavit, signed by the judge instruction said action. The feds will cover their own butts and claim they knew nothing about it. Remember "Fast and Furious"?
fck Bloomberg ,can't wait to see everyone sue his ass off,it was illegal what he did for his anti gun stings as his "private" investigators bought guns with taxpayer money and where techinically "straw purchases" he is a control freak ,he even went after soda &drink sizes,now he is after the cups now!
What about the 9 year old girl who who shot and stopped the would be home invader? What about the off duty police woman who shot the would-be theatre assailant? what about the other side of the coin MSN?
How big of a pile of straw did you have to sift through to find this needle of a story?
What a rag!
the main stream media doesnt want you to know about the good uses of guns they only want to push the antis agenda. its sad they should be called govt run media you know like china and all those other free countries, oh wait they had their guns taken away to.
You and 8% of the Country agree.
Poor Grandpa, Your dementia is showing today, While only 8% of the population are members of the NRA a greater percentage somewhere between 39% and 51% of Households in the US have a firearm in them. With many of those households having 2 or more registered voters.
It is the anti gun nuts like you who are a small minority, you may be a vocal minority but you are still just a small minority
possibly even more because a lot of gun owners wont admit they own guns due to fear of the govt.
None of these new laws they want will do any good. Why? Because they already have laws that aren't being enforced which would do the same things. No one mentions the fact that a handful of GOP senators have done everything they possibly could to make ATF worthless when it comes to guns. They've changed or blocked most laws that use to allow the ATF to do their jobs. Dealers no longer have to keep inventory and ATF can't make them or even check their inventory. So many of the current laws aren't being enforced and should be.
Dealers must keep accurate up to date records of all transactions(purchase and sale)and the ATF can make a warrantless search of the FFL Dealers place of business and anywhere else the Dealer may use to possess and store firearms.
You really need to do a little research before repeating something that someone told someone else who heard it from someone else.
www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-ffl-compliance.html
Mike, that's a alot of nonsense. I hold a FFL license and I can tell you I have to keep books on all transactions made and the BATF can walk in anytime they like and look at the books.
Close the gun show loophole NOW!
And Mr. President, deploy those gun-sniffing drones by the squadron over the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas, Arizona and Colorado.
Go back to Vietnam Nung, we don't need you in the land of the free. And please take the Marxist in charge with you, you both should feel right at home next door to China!
Darrell, I understand there's an executive position in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula that fell open some months ago. As it was formerly occupied by an apostate American who didn't like how things are run around here, it would be ideal for you. Why don't you head over to the interior of Yemen, and apply in person?
Just think, lots and lots of guns, great big ones...and no government to spoil your fun!
PS: I am not myself of the Nung people though I'd be proud to be. That the Viets understand they only were doing their job.
@ Nungman, shut your loophole NOW!
Buying and selling cars with out a dealer's license is illegal too (your state laws may vary). This was a business for this woman, not a personal defense issue.
You say business, she says hobby!
Actually the law says business. Get over it.
The "law" seems a little vague, how many private firearm transactions can you make before your required to get a FFl license?
Buying and selling cars without a dealers license is legal, there is just a limit to the number of transactions you can make before you are required to have a dealer license.
If people have the money to spend on boats, guns, hobbies...not my business. But they better have a lot of savings in reserve and never ask for a govt handout.
I think the same thing when I see the people in line in front of me at the grocery store and they have 2 shopping carts, One for the WIC items and another for their cash goodies and when the get out into the parking lot to unload their groceries they are putting it into a nice new car parked next to my used car, I think the same thng when I see people who I know are on welfare buying lottery tickets and booze and cigarettes.
...and hookers and blow along with dub's for their hoopdie.
she should have just kept all them guns ,why sell them so quickly,its not like the price is going to drop anytime soon
What are remarks about welfare, cigarettes, "booze" and lotto tickets got to do with the issue of guns? I don't believe people can use their welfare, WIC or other benefits to purchase such items. WIC is entirely for children and women (mothers, many are young and on their own). The benefits are to purchase selected food items - food stamps are not used for cigarettes, liquor or lottery tickets. You know, many of these people are employed - they just don't make enough to make ends meet. I seriously doubt if someone was well off enough to purchase a boat or even a home they would need assistance.
She's a poster child for the NRA and all the gun nutz, who insanely believe that more guns will decrease gun violence. Absolute insanity.
Your a lib nut. She's wrong and most people think so. Sounds like hoarder.
And you are a poster chld for the anti gun nuts that think severely restricting access of guns to law abiding citizens will reduce crime, All one has to do is look at cities that have these strict gun laws and you can see they do not work. I give you Chicago as a fine example of what restrictive gun laws do!
You're right , what a s*it hole.
I wonder how many of these guns she bought are now in places with restrictive gun laws, like Chicago and NY ?
Of course, she bought and sold them to no one but respectable people that were just trying to protect their identities, right ?
Ashley, They were able to catch this woman because she purchased these guns at gun shows where she had to have a NICs check for every purchase and where every purchase she made was recorded.
Guns shows are regulated, Every deler at a show has to perform a NICs check and document the sale, Sales to out of state buyers can not be made unless the firearm is shipped to a licensed FFL dealer in the state where the buyer lives.
The current laws worked to catch this woman.
Hank - Ever wonder where all the guns are that Eric Holder allowed his minions to allow to be sold to "straw buyers for illegal use?
I guess the American people will try to blame President Obama for this one too, huh?
no but he started the gun buying frenzy and this dumb bitch only wanted to make money off them.
Those trailer-dwelling idiots who rushed out to plunk down $600-$700 for some AR-15 clone have all outsmarted themselves. They will not be able to buy ammunition for it, will never get their money out and will have to pay a stiff licensing fee or surrender up the weapon--or face jail time if they're caught with it.
Spoken like a true remnant of the people's communist regime Nungman!
If that comes to pass; you can have my guns; remaining bullets first, all you have to do is man up!
P.S. Those coming to get mine will probably have plenty of ammo for the taking!
How can we defenseless, non-assault weapon owning Americans ever thank you for saving us from the Red Menace all these years?
Wish I had a quarter for every such empty threat I ever heard. You'll hand your toys over meekly enough when the time comes.
If you can't live in a country that bans ordinary people from owning military weapons, there are cheap flights to Somalia. Everybody's got a gun over there and there's no government to spoil your fun.