Virginia Gun Show "Loophole:" Interesting Story on NY Local News

wylde007 said:

Thirty deaths by drop-side crib in the past decade and now we have a full-on federal ban of drop-side cribs coming in June.

They claim lives will be saved, just like by banning guns.

One need only look at the facts to see that people are going to die when they behave negligently or recklessly. Banning "objects" only serves to create a culture of fear surrounding those objects instead of objectivity.

I am reminded of the story of Sleeping Beauty. The king had all of the Spindles in the kingdom destroyed. That did not stop someone with evil intent and blackness in their heart from harming the princess.

While a fanciful comparison, it is valid and accurate in its correlation.

Click to expand...

I support the ban on drop-side cribs.

Gun bans? Not so much.

nova said:

The thing about that is, even if the ATF puts 4473s into a database, all that does is tell them that person A bought gun B at time C. Not that person A has gun B.

Click to expand...

The problem is that, if the time comes, the fedgoons won't care whether you ever sold the gun or lost it in a tragic boating accident. They just want a little something they can twist and use as an excuse to search every stitch of your property when you can't or don't present the gun.

According to them, you could be lying that you sold it or lost it or it was stolen. So, now they have their barely tenable excuse to search everything and everywhere.

Or, fine you for not registering it when the GCA is updated and registration is viewed by the courts as a reasonable restriction to keep guns out of criminal hands for public safety.

They really don't/won't care whether you sold it or hid it. They just want something that gives them an excuse to search or fine or yank you into their maw.

longwatch said:

We shouldn't be arguing about whether or not all gun sales should have background checks. I think we should be looking at whether such checks even have a significant impact on crime rates. I am skeptical that they do. Anyone know any studies on the subject?

Click to expand...

Oh, crime soared. Hundreds of times a day all across this country, government invades people's privacy by demanding a backround check.

And still, nobody has ever been able to come up with a reason why these forms for background checks require the serial number of the gun you are purchasing.

There is apparently no limit to how dumb the government thinks we are.

A yes/no approval to buy a gun does not require any information about the gun being bought.

TFred

TFred said:

And still, nobody has ever been able to come up with a reason why these forms for background checks require the serial number of the gun you are purchasing.

There is apparently no limit to how dumb the government thinks we are.

A yes/no approval to buy a gun does not require any information about the gun being bought.

TFred

Click to expand...

Now, this I didn't know. Does the serial number get transmitted, too, along with the backround check identity info?

Citizen said:

Now, this I didn't know. Does the serial number get transmitted, too, along with the backround check identity info?

Click to expand...

Would you believe anyone who tells you "no?" And transmitted or not, the information is there. But why? "Qualified to purchase" does not depend on a serial number.

See Page 3.

TFred

TFred said:

Would you believe anyone who tells you "no?" And transmitted or not, the information is there. But why? "Qualified to purchase" does not depend on a serial number.

See Page 3.

TFred

Click to expand...

See this snapshot of "Purpose of the Form" from the link quoted above. Nothing identified in this purpose requires a serial number.



TFred

I guess teh thing to do is stand there and watch the data that gets entered into the keypad for transmission.

TFred said:

Would you believe anyone who tells you "no?"

Click to expand...

My thought exactly.

Citizen said:

The problem is that, if the time comes, the fedgoons won't care whether you ever sold the gun or lost it in a tragic boating accident. They just want a little something they can twist and use as an excuse to search every stitch of your property when you can't or don't present the gun.

According to them, you could be lying that you sold it or lost it or it was stolen. So, now they have their barely tenable excuse to search everything and everywhere.

Or, fine you for not registering it when the GCA is updated and registration is viewed by the courts as a reasonable restriction to keep guns out of criminal hands for public safety.

They really don't/won't care whether you sold it or hid it. They just want something that gives them an excuse to search or fine or yank you into their maw.

Click to expand...

True, but the FOPA of '86 prohibits a national gun registry. And yes, I know that doesn't mean they don't have one/won't make one anyways.

Obama is creating a registry anyway

nova said:

True, but the FOPA of '86 prohibits a national gun registry. And yes, I know that doesn't mean they don't have one/won't make one anyways.

Click to expand...

The WaPo:

Proposal calls for gun dealers to report bulk sales of assault weapons

Kurt Hofmann

Gun owners must speak up to stop long gun sales reporting requirement

Repeater said:

The WaPo:

Proposal calls for gun dealers to report bulk sales of assault weapons

Kurt Hofmann

Gun owners must speak up to stop long gun sales reporting requirement

Click to expand...

There was another WaPo article from last month or so that talked about how BATF didn't have the room for all the boxes of records they were collecting from gun dealers. What would BATF need boxes and boxes of gun dealer records for other than creating a database?

Citizen said:

The problem is that, if the time comes, the fedgoons won't care whether you ever sold the gun or lost it in a tragic boating accident. They just want a little something they can twist and use as an excuse to search every stitch of your property when you can't or don't present the gun.

According to them, you could be lying that you sold it or lost it or it was stolen. So, now they have their barely tenable excuse to search everything and everywhere.

. . . .

They really don't/won't care whether you sold it or hid it. They just want something that gives them an excuse to search or fine or yank you into their maw.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is probably the attitude of some in the law enforcement community.

But then again, there are "checks" here ie: the probable cause and warrant requirements.

Even if a member of the law enforcement community is able to find a very friendly judge to issue a warrant, there is also the exclusionary rule if the judge bases his warrant on balderdash.

By the way, in case any member of the law enforcement community ever asks, I would not tell them about unfortunate boating accidents.

I would tell them this: " ."

These "assault weapons" are > .22 Sim-auto, magazine fed rifles, nothing more. HARDLY the definition of an Assault weapon!

HeroHog said:

These "assault weapons" are > .22 Sim-auto, magazine fed rifles, nothing more. HARDLY the definition of an Assault weapon!

Click to expand...

<sirens, alarm bells, flashing lights>

A crime! A crime, I tell you! Using the anti-gunner and government terminology!

ASSAULT WEAPON!?! There is no such thing!

If you picked up a rock and threw it at me, that would meet the criteria of an assault weapon.

Assault weapon is a misnomer. Is a weapon suppose to tickle people or give them hugs?

Oh yeah...here's another good anti-gunner phase: guns kill people. Assault weapons just kill them "deader". *rolls eyes*

palerider116 said:

...here's another good anti-gunner phase: guns kill people.

Click to expand...

This morning I had an employee of a major nationwide outdoor sporting goods store tell me that guns had shot people in some stores.
After giving him that "you can't be serious" look for a second, I corrected him: guns don't shoot people.
People use guns, either intentionally or negligently, to shoot things.

Citizen said:

<sirens, alarm bells, flashing lights>

A crime! A crime, I tell you! Using the anti-gunner and government terminology!

ASSAULT WEAPON!?! There is no such thing!

Click to expand...

Citizen, I have long been sympathetic to your above opinion re. taxonomy.

Yet having considered many members of this forum's viewpoints on this and related issues of grave social import for several years now, I am now very confused as to what to call this catagory of weapons.

I used to think that something like "Black, Ugly, Semi-Automatic Carbine" ["BUSAC"?] would suffice, but my only one is actually colored green, and I have seen pictures here of the "Hello Kitty AR-15" which is pink.

And "ugly" is really not a good descriptor either: while some are ugly, others are kind-of attractive.

I think that they are almost always semi-automatic carbines, but I am not positive: is (for example) the TEK 9 a carbine? The Uzi?

It gets especially confusing here when one considers the law: for example, my 1944 Underwood M-I carbine would not have been covered by the Clinton AWB, except that I went to a gun show a few years before the AWB went into effect, and bought a $10 banana magazine for it, to allow for longer, uninterrupted plinking at cans. My understanding is that because I did that (and I could be wrong) if I still had the magazine when the AWB went into effect, my M-1 suddenly would have been illegal, and would have had to be buried with me if I died back then -- unless before I died I threw away the magazine, in which case everything would be hunky dory for the funeral.

But this problem never arose. Strangely, I lost the $10 banana magazine for a while in a tragic boating accident. Mysteriously, on exactly the tenth anniversary of its loss I found it again, fishing one day. It came up snagged to a lure.

Which begs the question: what should these things be called? The best I can come up with now is something like "Repulsive -- Yet Often Cool -- Semi-Automatic Carbines:" "RYOCSACs"

Seems kindof clunky for an acronym.



PS: Besides, I have always been a fan of the Average White Band (AWB).

Porno guns

The Donkey said:

Citizen, I have long been sympathetic to your above opinion re. taxonomy.

Yet having considered many members of this forum's viewpoints on this and related issues of grave social import for several years now, I am now very confused as to what to call this catagory of weapons.

Click to expand...

Try Porno Guns. Now, you might ask: What is a 'Porno Gun' ....

And the answer would be, you know it when you see it.

Repeater said:

Try Porno Guns. Now, you might ask: What is a 'Porno Gun' ....

And the answer would be, you know it when you see it.

Click to expand...