Who <i>are</i> these idiots?

Monday, April 15, 2013

Who are these idiots?

From yesterday's USA TODAY, authored by that airhead, Jackie, daughter of Dennis, Kucinich:

"The Manchin-Toomey amendment to the Senate gun bill would require background checks on all firearms for sale at gun shows or on the Internet."

Really? "On the Internet."

Do United States Senators Joe Manchin (d-wv) and Pat Toomey (r-pa) actually think that anyone can purchase a firearm via the Internet, have it sent directly to them and take possession of it without a National Crime Information Center (NICS) background check?

Any firearms acquired through one of the Internet fire­arms auction sites (e.g., Auction Arms, GunBroker), or a sporting goods retailer with a web presence (Gander Mountain, Cabela's, etc.), must be sent to a Federally Licensed Fire­arms Dealer who, by law, must conduct a NICS check on the buyer before he or she can take possession of it.

That's the Law!

That law has been in effect since December 1, 1998.

Or are Senators Manchin and Toomey under the impression that whoever wants to can use the Internet to purchase a digital file that will be sent directly to then as an E-mail attachment, then feed that into a 3D printer et voila!, an unregistered, untraceable firearm for any criminal or mental defective who wants one?

Comments

1. Mrs Genetics said...

I'm not a gun owner, but it took me all of five minutes to find Armslist, where I can buy guns directly from a private seller. Armslist is quite clear that they do not "...in any way guarantee the legal capacity of any party to transact." Sounds to me like it's an Internet sale without any sort of background check.

Please go back and read the Disclaimer at the bottom left of their home page:
"Always comply with local, state, federal, and international law. ARMSLIST does not become involved in transactions between parties. Review our privacy policy and terms of use for more information. Report Illegal Firearms Activity to 1-800-ATF-GUNS."
Firerms do not travel "over the Internet." They are tangible property and must be shipped interstate or intrastate, and, as a matter of long-standing law, from one Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer to another, or in some instances, from anyone to an FFL.

At that point the purchaser, or "end user," in order to take physical possession of the firearm, but pass a NICS background check. That's the current law.

If you don't obey the law, there are criminal sanctions, and once convicted, you become a "prohibited person" without any Second Amendment Rights.

Now, what new legislation needs to be passed that would have prevented the murderous shootings in Newtown or Aurora?
Dean

2. W.R. Moore said...

I haven't bothered to read the actual bill, so I'm not sure, but I'm hoping that Internet thing is someone's twisted comprehension. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC, sales across state lines, i.e. mail order firearms, were outlawed in 1968. While there may be more recent legislation involving the Internet, the general principle was established much earlier. Your description of the Internet process is correct.

GCA'68, the Gun Contol Act of 1968, codifies and regulates the sale and acquisition of firearm. Importantly, it prohibited the mail order sale of firearms.

Today, the main stream media and anti-Second Amendment political figures cynically portray the Internet as a "world-wide, completely unregulated arms bazaar." It's a fiction.
– Dean

3. Jackie Bennett said...

This is their "talking points" to make the gullible, and largely uninformed voting public think they are doing something.

You're right! What they presently intend would not have saved a single life in Newtown or Aurora.
Dean

4. Mrs Genetics said...

Armslist.com doesn't appear to have any connection to sales through an FFL. It is a meeting place where individuals can arrange for the sale or trade of weapons outside the regulatory system. Yes, the website has a disclosure but it is there only to protect Armslist, not ensure compliance. I think sites such as Armslist should be illegal because they make it too easy to secure a gun without a background check, especially in metropolitan areas where two transactors can simply meet at the nearest Starbucks to do a deal.

One piece of legislation might have prevented Newtown, a law that requires guns to have biometric controls like dynamic grip recognition. According to news reports, the shooter in Newtown used his mother's guns. Had her weapons incorporated biometric controls, the shooter would not have been able to use them.

I think the gun debate should be viewed as a matter of risk mitigation yet many gun advocates seem to view any step to mitigate risk as an infringement on their rights. Let's take for example the rush to buy guns immediately after Newtown. What if all those guns entering circulation included biometric controls? The likelihood of those guns being used by a deranged or criminal person is greatly reduced if they fall into the wrong hands, as happened to a friend with 31 guns... he used to own 37, but six were stolen from his truck during a trip to the hardware store. We'll never be able to legislate stupidity like his out of existence, but we can take steps to stop the entry of more guns into circulation that can be used by anyone; and put an end to gun trading and off the books sales through sites like Armslist.

Thank you for more clearly revealing your position, one which likely includes the term "sensible" at every turn although you didn't use it in this Comment.

Although Armslist.com has been around for four years now... your previous post called my attention to it for the first time... it doesn't seem to have been a problem in the way you cynically posit as, arguendo, CraigList list has... unless you believe Mother Jones. You don't know that anything's "outside the regulatory system," only conjecture that's what happens.

Dynamic grip recognition? You're talking about "Smart Gun" technology, yes? Unproven, cumbersome and expensive, #1, and, #2, would you advocate something similar for motor vehicles, the unauthorized or unsafe use of which have a much higher mayhem quotient with attendant costs than firearms?

Sorry for the troubles of your friend with the six stolen firearms. You failed to specify the nature of what you characterize as his stupidity... was it because he left them unattended in an unlocked vehicle in full view of anyone (which would be stupid... happened to some FBI agents on different occasions over the past several years) or just because he has so many firearms?

Look, I get it... those who don't like guns don't like guns and don't think anyone should have them. I don't have any emotional attachment to firearms, but I like the fact that I'm able to own one for whatever reason I want.
– Dean

5. Rob F. said...

@Mrs Genetics: How is Armslist any different from a classified ad in a newspaper, many of which are now online for all to see?

A listing of items for sale is inherently innocuous. Blaming the list owner for people using listings to break the law is like blaming a restaurant menu for making one fat.

Point taken. Doubt she will, though.

(Sneaked a little "twitter-speak" in there, didn't you?)
Dean

6. Mrs Genetics said...

I'm not opposed to people owning guns. Have shot pistols, rifles, shotguns and killed countless nuisance rodents with a pellet gun. Oddly enough, there's an article about Armslist in today's NY Times. Hadn't read it when I posted this morning but it cites a number of examples where people that shouldn't have been able to buy a gun successfully purchased one. And then went out and killed someone.

Friend's stupidity was as you noted, leaving them in full view though the vehicle was locked.

And as I also noted earlier, had never head of the site 'til you referenced earlier.

Pretty thorough article... albeit with a couple of factual errors, i.e., FFLs are not required to check sellers, only buyers!

But in virtually all of the instances cited, the individuals broke existing laws and, so far, with impunity. Explain to us how new laws will help?
– Dean

Name
URL
Email
Email address is not published
Remember Me
Comments

CAPTCHA Reload
Write the characters in the image above