Pro-gun myths busted

[mrsleeve]

the amount of vitriol you spew on these forums is rather pathetic and actually quite sad. I can't even imagine the shitty existence you feel to cause you to act like this to complete strangers on an internet forum.

Lofty equine is quite lofty, I sure hope you dont lose your seat and take a tumble.

the Supreme Court just ruled on this. Short version is that you're wrong (as usual).

Are you E.S.L. or something. Swing and a miss.........

We shall use braves link form the great conservative gun rights news site of CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/16/justic...traw-purchase/

Abramski confirmed he was the buyer, but said he made clear all along that he planned to sell the weapon legally to his uncle was told the transfer could be completed by a licensed dealer, which he completed days later................ And on this issue, it narrowly ruled for the stricter control, saying the "actual transferee/buyer" must disclose any intent to resell at the time of purchase.

Funny where have I heard that before................. Oh yeah thats right

So long as your intention when you bought the weapon was to keep it and not specifically for transfer to someone else at the time of sale then its not a fucking straw buy, like you trying to infer

Guy B walks into a store with the EXPRESS INTENT to buy the weapon for Guy A. That is a straw buy.

. A straw buy is based on the fucking intent of the buyer at time of original sale, not what he does with it latter down the line, this is how the law reads. This why your ilk like to say a straw buy is a hard crime to prove, you are attempting to move the goal posts to fit your agenda, with no legal precedent or statutes (that I know of) to support it . This is how the law has been fucking interpreted and up held by law enforcement this is not my opinion but how the god dammed law is applied, and how the courts have upheld the statutes since the 80's .

So the SCOTUS up held the current law wow amazing. What this did is widen the scope to basically include anyone selling a firearm though the private transfer laws (which the compromise you brought up earlier was congress not wanting to mess with when the NICS was passed decades ago) with the possibility of getting caught up in a similar situation. Not to mention this it a very vague and ambiguous and unclear ruling at best that will likely end up before the courts again for further clarification. This case would not have fallen into a family transfer because an uncle is NOT up or down to direct family....... While this was a stretch (both legally allowed to purchase and another legal transfer completed a few days latter) it does fall with in the guide lines of a traditional straw buy definition but it was kind of a shady prosecution.

[ParsedOut]

This is why it's difficult to discuss this topic with you: you're unable to discuss an argument without you making up a list of bullshit strawmen against the person you're arguing with.

Where's the strawman? He's the one that said people will "go to AZ and buy truckloads of guns from people like parsedout". He keeps using CA as the example the rest of the country should follow but his excuse for it not being as effective as it could be is other neighboring states don't have the same restrictions. If you or anyone think that the mass majority of people using guns in violent crime have the means or motivation to drive to another state to make a straw purchase you're simply making excuses.

[CorvallisBMW]

If you or anyone think that the mass majority of people using guns in violent crime have the means or motivation to drive to another state to make a straw purchase you're simply making excuses.

So... you don't think most criminals would make the (minor) effort to cross state lines to buy a gun?

[ParsedOut]

So... you don't think most criminals would make the (minor) effort to cross state lines to buy a gun?

Most criminals won't travel 15 miles to commit their crimes in the "nicer" parts of town where people don't have bars on their windows...so no.

[smooth]

Most criminals won't travel 15 miles to commit their crimes in the "nicer" parts of town where people don't have bars on their windows...so no.

It wouldn't require individual criminals driving over to various states for this to be a significant problem. Anyone who wants to make a quick buck can load up on firearms and sell them back in California on the streets without any paper trail at all.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Maybe agenda isn't the best word, but belief that just because the Supreme Court rules something doesn't necessarily mean it's "right". They are humans with political leanings and wouldn't be surprised if there is some pressure to rule one direction vs the other.

The 17th amendment makes the Senate ineffective. Anything they do (e.g. confirmation of Supreme Court justices) becomes a political football rather than an action undertaken to accomplish a purpose.

I'm with Scalia:

"The court (majority) makes it a crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner," he said. "Whether or not that is a sensible result, the statutes Congress enacted do not support it."

[The Dark Side of Will]

Where did I insist this?

You've never established a clear way of demarcating between straw purchases and legitimate transfers.

Therefore, you think there are no legitimate transfers. Your silence on the matter states your point of view better than your words.

Don't worry, you're in good company, the UN's arms trade treaty pulls the same stunt. It never states that there can be legitimate arms sales to private citizens or that these sales should be protected... just like the UN UDHR omits the right to self defense.

If every scheme to regulate private sales you've ever heard of denies people from dispensing of their private property, then you need to educate yourself more about the topic.

Every scheme put forward by statists like yourself to regulate private sales BY DEFINITION puts the government in the middle of every transfer it covers.
Given that only a tiny fraction of guns transferred privately make it to crime scenes, that's not an acceptable "compromise". It isn't a compromise at all because it puts the government in charge of the sale.

No one is preventing strangers from dispensing of their private property however they wish, except if you mean that you'd like to break the law and dispense of your private property to people who can't legally own a firearm (which is really where your arguments tend to fall apart under scrutiny).

Actually, I have heard of "sensible" schemes to check, but none of them are going to happen because they don't put the government in the driver's seat.

For example, instead of being run by the FBI, NICS could be a public access database, with anonymous accounts able to check on someone using a social security number. The database knows who's been checked, but not by whom, and not what weapon was or was not transferred.
There are commercial background check services that scour public records to do essentially the same thing for landlords checking on prospective tenants.

I don't see why a background check has to be any different than a credit rating... but then, unlike you, I want the government to have as little power as possible.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Irvine is a planned city based on the principles of my education: social ecology.

More info?

[The Dark Side of Will]

we just fucking register them!

And then they get confiscated

improperly confiscates properly registered firearms

Depends on your definition of "Improper", I guess. To me, improper means without conviction for a crime. I know that's the lofty standard the founding fathers set via the 5th amendment, but I'm a high standards kind of guy.

[The Dark Side of Will]

It wouldn't require individual criminals driving over to various states for this to be a significant problem. Anyone who wants to make a quick buck can load up on firearms and sell them back in California on the streets without any paper trail at all.

Get on it! ;)

[smooth]

You've never established a clear way of demarcating between straw purchases and legitimate transfers.

Therefore, you think there are no legitimate transfers.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Non-responsive. ;)

[einhander]

So you're admitting that your argument is trumped up bullshit? nice. At least you can admit it.

% of rapes that get reported in the US? Who knows, but I'm going to guess 40%.

% of rapes that get reported in India? Who knows, but I'm going to guess 0.04%. Nothing happens to the perp, and the victim gets punished by the culture, so why bother reporting?

No, shrimp dick, I'm not admitting that.

I'm tired of this forum. I'm going back to not posting.

[2761377]

^^^^ LOL - ad Hominem followed by "Good Bye Cruel World:("

since smooth is unresponsive, can an adult summarize his current position, please?

tia

[Ether-D]

He probably just realized you guys are right. Before you disagree, it's just as likely as you realizing he's right. So there's a chance...