Pro-gun myths busted

[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]

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! ;)

[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]

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

More info?

[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]

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."

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[BraveUlysses]

So I have a question for you smoothie. If California already is the gun free haven you like to pretend it is, why are you so hell bent on federal gun control? Are you stuck so far up your own ass that you think your way of thought is 'what's best' for the entire country? If you use the excuse that CA is not as safe as it should be since gangbangers can load up trucks full of guns in AZ and bring them over please punch yourself in the dick because you're being ridiculous.

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.

[smooth]

Where have I said California is a gun free haven?

I've said the opposite--we have guns all over the place, and we carry them, too; we just fucking register them!

You just can't pull your head out of your ass long enough to understand the reality of the situation is that registering guns and making it more difficult for people who shouldn't have access to them doesn't mean law abiding, responsible citizens have to be in a world without guns.

That's the nonsense you keep spewing--because you either believe it or believe whoever does your thinking for you. I don't know which it is, but I'd sure like to know where you and people like Mrs.Sleeve get your "information" about California. You two have incorrectly stated that California: doesn't allow citizens to carry, doesn't allow citizens to defend our homes, improperly confiscates properly registered firearms, and is a "gun free" state, among other juicy tidbits of misinformation.

[ParsedOut]

So I have a question for you smoothie. If California already is the gun free haven you like to pretend it is, why are you so hell bent on federal gun control? Are you stuck so far up your own ass that you think your way of thought is 'what's best' for the entire country? If you use the excuse that CA is not as safe as it should be since gangbangers can load up trucks full of guns in AZ and bring them over please punch yourself in the dick because you're being ridiculous.

[smooth]

Down here in Ga we live a little different. Woodstock, Ga is voted one of the safest places to live in the US. Why? Because there is a law that every person in Woodstock must have a gun in their household. Just think if that was a law for every household across America. That would stop so much crime. Just my opinion.

Where did you hear that Woodstock, GA has been voted the safest place to live?
It has about half as much violent and property crime as the rest of Georgia, but it's a tiny place (with around 20,000 people living in it). There shouldn't be *any* crime in a town that small but, measuring crime relative to density, it's twice as bad as the rest of Georgia.

Irvine, CA is actually the safest city according the the data. In fact, it's regularly listed as the top city over 200,000 population to live in (and interestingly three out of ten of cities listed as safest are in California where we don't require everyone to own a firearm): http://lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/crime/10-safest-large/

Irvine is a planned city based on the principles of my education: social ecology. Mrssleeve flipped his shit and started launching into all sorts of nonsense about social ecologists when I mentioned that before in a different discussion. He doesn't really know what he's talking about, or what social ecologists are, but it has the word "social" in it, which is grounds for every red-blooded, freedom lubbin' 'Merican to get his hackles up!