General Political Thread

[Hixter]

Also is it illegal to fail a background check?  I wasn't aware of that.  Your statement is confusing.  

From ATF Form 4473:

So you got your wish, the Senate listened to the 8-10% of Americans and said background checks are stupid, we are ok with selling guns to criminals (even if the likelihood is very small).  Aces to you and the gun lobby!

Yeah, because that's exactly how it happened. 

[KevinG]

From ATF Form 4473:

 

So it is illegal to lie on a federal background check (apparently not to simply fail one).  I am trying to figure out your point.  So did tens of thousands lie on a background check and were not prosecuted?  Or did tens of thousands simply fail?  

 

Yes it is a farce that a small number were prosecuted but with the NRA taking most of the teeth out of any AFT enforcement you can see where I lay the blame.  So I suggest if you have a problem with how current gun laws are enforced you should look at the organization you support.  

 

I guess you are ok with guns falling into the hands of criminals through gun shows, however small those chances are.  I and 90% of my fellow Americans are not ok with that.

Yeah, because that's exactly how it happened. 

 

Good I am glad you agree with me.  

[Winston Legthigh]

This guy says that failing the application is most often because of a mistake, and can be appealed. Perhaps that's why the prosecution rate is so low?

 

http://gunguy.tempdomainname.com/nicsfail.htm

[Hixter]

So it is illegal to lie on a federal background check (apparently not to simply fail one).  I am trying to figure out your point.  So did tens of thousands lie on a background check and were not prosecuted?  Or did tens of thousands simply fail? 

Have you ever read the form? The only way someone who properly fill out the form should fail the check is if he/she lied about their mental health history, criminal record, etc. That's assuming that nobody is stupid enough to try to buy a gun and answer "yes" to something like "Are you a convicted felon whose right to possess firearms has been rescinded."

 

As Winston mentioned, many of the failures are clerical, such as an incorrect Social Security number. The background checks are not actually stopping many criminals from acquiring guns because they are cheaper and readily available on the street with no questions asked.

 

Speaking of marijuana, anyone who smokes weed is forbidden to purchase or possess firearms.

[Winston Legthigh]

Hixter, can I ask you to clarify what you think is a farce about the failed test vs prosecutions total?

 

I originally thought it was because of the lack of law enforcement follow-up. Seems we would want close to 100% prosecution for failed tests. But if the failed tests are mostly false positives - is that what you're saying is the farce? Or is it a farce because a criminal certainly isn't going to fill out a form to purchase a gun...

[Hixter]

I originally thought it was because of the lack of law enforcement follow-up. Seems we would want close to 100% prosecution for failed tests. But if the failed tests are mostly false positives - is that what you're saying is the farce? Or is it a farce because a criminal certainly isn't going to fill out a form to purchase a gun...

If people knowingly sign a falsified document and it's a felony to do so, they should be prosecuted. I'm going to assume that more than 45 people do so each year. But the biggest farce is that it's already illegal for convicted felons, the mentally ill and drug users to purchase or possess firearms but the law hasn't stopped it from happening. Why does anyone think that making it illegal-er will change that fact?

[LouieB]

Joining the armed forces is certainly a way to gain all sorts of benefits.  When the draft ended, many people signed up because it was a job, a way to get out of their neighborhoods it offered an education, etc.  If it were only folks wanting to be patriotic or kick ass there would still be a draft because they wouldn't have enough people. 

 

Oh and by the way...nothing wrong with that.  I think in some ways we still need a draft, but a plenty of folks join simply because they don't know what else to do or don't have other options.

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

Have you ever read the form? The only way someone who properly fill out the form should fail the check is if he/she lied about their mental health history, criminal record, etc. That's assuming that nobody is stupid enough to try to buy a gun and answer "yes" to something like "Are you a convicted felon whose right to possess firearms has been rescinded."

 

I have not read the form, other than the bit you posted, you are the "expert" with this form so I was looking for you for clarification.  Simple as that don't get pissy on me now.  

 

You stated that, "tens of thousands of people fail existing background checks every year. How many are prosecuted? Forty or 50. It's a farce."  I actually found an article and facts to back that up.  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/us/politics/us-may-focus-more-on-gun-background-checks.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&.  It would have been so much easier if you would have link to an article to back up your statement.  I like proof I like facts "tens of thousands" seemed like you made that shit up.    

 

But here is the thing, the ATF who would be responsible for prosecuting a crime like this is woefully understaffed and has had it funding cut due to pressures by the NRA http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/atf-obama-gun-reform-control-alcohol-tobacco-firearms.  So you are complaining that an organization isn't doing it's job, when they don't really have the funding or the means to do its job successfully.  So you mad about this farce then ask the NRA why they are constantly making it harder for them to do their job.  This is a point I have brought up over and over again.  Yet there has been nary a peep from any pro gun "enforce our current laws" group on this.  How is the ATF suppose to enforce the current laws when it does not have the resources to do so.  

 

Second the background checks did their job, 80K lied on the application, they were found out, they did not get their guns.  Now, yes 44 where prosecuted, but with an under funded under staffed agency would prosecuting these people do any good?  But the big thing was 80K criminals did not get brand spanking new guns.  

 

So background checks are effective, why not expand that and possibly stop more criminals form getting guns?  I honestly do not see the problem in this.  What is the big deal with background checks?

 

So I guess Hixter (or any pro gun person) this is what I want to know

 

1. How you can cry that we should enforce the current laws on one hand but then with the other support the NRA who has constantly done everything they can to stop the ATF in enforcing these laws?

 

2. And really what is the problem with background checks?  

[Hixter]

I have not read the form, other than the bit you posted, you are the "expert" with this form so I was looking for you for clarification.  Simple as that don't get pissy on me now.  

Pissy? All I asked was if you had read the form. Please show me the same politeness as I've shown you if you'd like me to continue discussing the subject at hand.

 

It would have been so much easier if you would have link to an article to back up your statement.  I like proof I like facts "tens of thousands" seemed like you made that shit up.  

I'm not a liar and I don't "make shit up." I'm pretty good at prefacing my opinions and suppositions with phrases like "I believe" or "I reckon" so I'd rather not have to mark up my posts like a university term paper. If you question something I've written I'll be happy to provide a link if asked nicely, but you could probably Google it on your own in a few seconds.

 

But here is the thing, the ATF who would be responsible for prosecuting a crime like this is woefully understaffed and has had it funding cut due to pressures by the NRA http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/atf-obama-gun-reform-control-alcohol-tobacco-firearms.

You had me at 'Fast and Furious.'

 

1. How you can cry that we should enforce the current laws on one hand but then with the other support the NRA who has constantly done everything they can to stop the ATF in enforcing these laws?

Because the NRA is the only organization that stands up for my 2nd amendment rights in any effective way. Most of our gun problems fall under local police jurisdiction, not the ATF. I'm concerned about the millions of gang members and street thugs who are already carrying guns illegally and committing the overwhelming majority of the gun crimes in this nation. Mass shootings are tiny fraction of our nation's murders. "Assault" rifles are used in a fraction of crimes. One out of every 150 criminals bought their firearm at a gun show. Our leaders are trying to enact security theater that will do nothing to lower gun crime while infringing heavily on the rights of Americans who are responsible gun owners.

 

As a case in point, I recently read that Chicago decided that they'd had enough of the embarrassingly large murder tally in their gun-controlled city. Extra cops are pouring onto the streets and the murder rate has slowed rather drastically. I'm sure the overtime pay is substantial, but the end result is that murders are decreasing. That's how you enforce gun laws and lower gun crime; adding new legislation does nothing.

 

2. And really what is the problem with background checks?

I must have answered that question at least 10 times on this forum and don't feel like wasting my time repeating myself. Scroll back through the last few months' worth of my posts if you wish.

[KevinG]

Pissy? All I asked was if you had read the form. Please show me the same politeness as I've shown you if you'd like me to continue discussing the subject at hand.

 

I'm not a liar and I don't "make shit up." I'm pretty good at prefacing my opinions and suppositions with phrases like "I believe" or "I reckon" so I'd rather not have to mark up my posts like a university term paper. If you question something I've written I'll be happy to provide a link if asked nicely, but you could probably Google it on your own in a few seconds.

 

You had me at 'Fast and Furious.'

 

Because the NRA is the only organization that stands up for my 2nd amendment rights in any effective way. Most of our gun problems fall under local police jurisdiction, not the ATF. I'm concerned about the millions of gang members and street thugs who are already carrying guns illegally and committing the overwhelming majority of the gun crimes in this nation. Mass shootings are tiny fraction of our nation's murders. "Assault" rifles are used in a fraction of crimes. One out of every 150 criminals bought their firearm at a gun show. Our leaders are trying to enact security theater that will do nothing to lower gun crime while infringing heavily on the rights of Americans who are responsible gun owners.

 

As a case in point, I recently read that Chicago decided that they'd had enough of the embarrassingly large murder tally in their gun-controlled city. Extra cops are pouring onto the streets and the murder rate has slowed rather drastically. I'm sure the overtime pay is substantial, but the end result is that murders are decreasing. That's how you enforce gun laws and lower gun crime; adding new legislation does nothing.

 

I must have answered that question at least 10 times on this forum and don't feel like wasting my time repeating myself. Scroll back through the last few months' worth of my posts if you wish.

 

 

I still feel you failed to answer my question.  You said it was a farce that out of 80K 44 were prosecuted for lying on the federal background check application.  So that seems to be a problem for you.  The agency responsible for enforcement of that law is the ATF.  The ATF has been effectively neutered by the results of the NRA lobby.  So either it is a farce and problem that needs to be dealt with, or it is just something you are saying just to say.  

 

I think it is common courtesy to provide links, it not only can bolster your opinion, but provides clarification.  Believe it or not I do work and not have time to fact check your posts.  Vague  stats make it sound like you make shit up.

 

You bring up the fact that a small number of criminals bought a gun at gun show.  But what I don't understand is even if one buys a gun isn't that one to many? 80K failed background checks resulted in 80K criminals etc from getting guns.  Why not extend the same background checks to gun shows, it would stop criminals from getting guns, albeit a small number.  I guess what I wanted to hear about your objection against background checks is that it is so difficult and time consuming to complete that is impractical to conduct at gun shows.  I have never filled one out so I don't know.  Does filling one out really hamper your 2nd amendment rights?  There are two levels of gun purchases new and used, why have different rules?  I don't understand.   

 

I agree with you more cops equal less guns.  But anyway to stop guns getting in to the hands of would be a good thing.  

[Winston Legthigh]

80K failed background checks resulted in 80K criminals etc from getting guns.  

 

This is a bad assumption. You can't assume that every single failed background check is because a felon is lying on his application form. There could be errors made by the applicant, there could be errors made by the person transmitting the information to the FBI. There could be errors from false positives (similar names, similar birthdates, etc.). I don't know what percentage of failed applications are true positives, and I don't have a link.

 

What is your solution to preventing a single criminal from purchasing a gun at a gun show? Is it even realistic to expect that?

[Hixter]

The ATF has been effectively neutered by the results of the NRA lobby.

The ATF has 5,000 employees and an annual budget of $1.2 billion, so I beg to differ.

 

Believe it or not I do work and not have time to fact check your posts.  Vague  stats make it sound like you make shit up.

I am not a liar and such a condescending tone is not necessary in a civil discussion.

 

But what I don't understand is even if one buys a gun isn't that one to many?

The pro- gun control folks have made "Even if it saves only one life -- isn't it worth it?" a pillar of their campaign. It sounds good until you realize that they're admitting that they don't think their new laws will save many lives.

 

More than 30,000 Americans are killed in automobile accidents every year (far more than die from gun crime) so I propose that we could save tens of thousands of lives every year by mandating that vehicles be limited to driving no more than 20 miles per hour. Nothing other than public safety vehicles needs to drive more than 20 MPH. Hell, millions of southern Californians get by at those speeds on their way to and from the office every day. Don't worry that speeding, reckless driving and DUI are already illegal, think of all the lives we'd save! 

 

I guess what I wanted to hear about your objection against background checks is that it is so difficult and time consuming to complete that is impractical to conduct at gun shows.  I have never filled one out so I don't know.

It takes about 10 minutes to fill out the form. I suppose it would bog down the traffic and require extra infrastructure at gun shows.

[caliber66]

It takes about 10 minutes to fill out the form. I suppose it would bog down the traffic and require extra infrastructure at gun shows.

And?

[LouieB]

Ultimately 5000 employees isn't that much.  Think of all the people involved in regulating automobiles including every DMV for drivers licenses and plates, all the state and local police, etc. 

 

You want smaller government?  You got it. 

 

This is an argument which will never be won by either side until the public is sick of guns which are killing machines being lightly regulated.  Guns have very little purpose really, particularly the ones in question.  You have a right to them so you can get them. That seems to be the only logic there is.  They are fun to shoot, they kill animals, and they are collectables.  They are harmless until someone shoots someone else or themselves and then people care.  Other than that they don't.  The problem is so many people in this country are shot with them.  Until the carnage reaches the proportion that the vast majority of folks want them more closely regulated they will be easy to buy.  End of story really.

 

And I do believe there are other organizations that support 2nd amendment rights, but the NRA is clearly the biggest and most well known.  Again I don't give a shit who the rest are, but I know they are out there.

 

LouieB

[Winston Legthigh]

Other than getting rid of guns entirely (no, I don't have a plan for it), there's really no way to prevent gun violence. No laws about registration will make guns safer, if we're not going to do anything about the vast quantities of firearms that already exist.

 

And that's not going to happen.

 

If there's a shitload of guns (there is), the criminal element will get their hands on them, regardless of legislation.

[Guest Jules]

If I was in Watertown right now, I'd be really happy to have a gun around.

[calvino]

If I was in Watertown right now, I'd be really happy to have a gun around.

 

 

Well, they only person (that I am aware of) who was let go, was the SUV driver who was carjacked - I assumed he wasn't armed. I am also assuming that the MIT security person who was killed was armed or and had some sort of weapon (could be wrong though).

 

I do understand your sentiment, though. I don't share it, though.

[LouieB]

If I was in Watertown right now, I'd be really happy to have a gun around.

And it would be a great way to get shot too.  There are a whole bunch of good guys with guns who could easily mistake you for a bad guy with a gun.

 

LouieB

[Guest Jules]

And it would be a great way to get shot too.  There are a whole bunch of good guys with guns who could easily mistake you for a bad guy with a gun.

 

LouieB

 

Oh please.  I meant if some asshole (like a guy who the whole country is looking for) tried to get into my house, I'd like to be able to defend myself.

[JUDE]

On the whole "gun show loophole" thing.

 

If you are a dealer selling at a gunshow you are required to do a background check and collect a completed 4473 along with a call to NICS before you can hand over a firearm. If you fail to do so you are in violation of law.

 

If you are an individual who rents a table to sell firearms at a gun show, you are now engaged in a business that would most likely require an FFL and fall under the same requirements above.

 

Let's drop the whole gunshows are an unregulated free for all for criminals and gun nuts.

[LouieB]

Oh please.  I meant if some asshole (like a guy who the whole country is looking for) tried to get into my house, I'd like to be able to defend myself.

Buy all the guns you want. I certainly don't care.  Feel free to shoot whomever or whatever you want.  Gun owners often end  up shooting themselves.  I am not opposed to that either if you make that choice. 

 

LouieB

[caliber66]

On the whole "gun show loophole" thing.

 

If you are a dealer selling at a gunshow you are required to do a background check and collect a completed 4473 along with a call to NICS before you can hand over a firearm. If you fail to do so you are in violation of law.

 

If you are an individual who rents a table to sell firearms at a gun show, you are now engaged in a business that would most likely require an FFL and fall under the same requirements above.

 

Let's drop the whole gunshows are an unregulated free for all for criminals and gun nuts.

Gun shows are not the only place where background checks are not required. 

[Guest Jules]

Buy all the guns you want. I certainly don't care.  Feel free to shoot whomever or whatever you want.  Gun owners often end  up shooting themselves.  I am not opposed to that either if you make that choice. 

 

LouieB

 

Hey, nice, ok. Jeez.

[Hixter]

Gun shows are not the only place where background checks are not required. 

The only thing I can think of is individual-to-individual sales and that's the same thing that people are calling the "gun show loophole."

[JUDE]

Gun shows are not the only place where background checks are not required. 

 

If you are referring to face-to-face sales, the same standards apply.

 

If you advertise on message boards with the intent of reselling firearms you are engaged in the business of selling firearms and fall under BATF and FFL regulation.

 

If you advertise on Gunbroker to sell firearms you can be sure the ATF monitors that and if you are deemed to be acting as a dealer, you will get a visit.

 

Their are existing regulations that need to be enforced, and if the language governing face to face personal sales is too vague then that needs to be addressed.