Representative Michael (DFL-64B) and State Senator Scott Dibble (DFL-60) have once again introduced legislation that would severely regulate the sale of firearms at gun shows.
House File 2960 and Senate File 2659 would force private sales at gun shows to go through background checks. Gun prohibitionists, such as State Representative, falsely claim that a large number of criminals get their guns from gun shows; however, the most recent federal study on gun shows put the figure at only 0.7 percent. This effort is a stepping stone for gun control advocates seeking to ban all private sales, even among family and friends.
This is where the pro-gun apologists get their ideas from. And it doesn't matter if they make sense or not, obvioulsy.
The first idea is stated as fact, that the gun control folks "falsely claim" something which in fact is debatable. That vague reference to "only 0.7%," with no link to back it up. is easily offset by other stats which support the gun control side.
The second idea is more of the mindreading that gun rights people like to do some much. Also stated as fact, they're saying what's in the mind of gun control advocates, something which they cannot know.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
is easily offset by other stats which support the gun control side.
ReplyDeleteBullshit MikeB. Prove it. Back up what you say.
I believe the 0.7% come from the FBI.
ReplyDeleteMikeB, read the definition of "Gunshow" in these proposed laws. They usually define them as any place two or more people come together to examine, buy, sell or trade guns. Therefore, all private sales will be affected. This isn't a reach, jump, mind reading or stepping stone. It is part of the plan from the onset.
Mike W. has a point. If you are going to call the NRA's statistics vague and easily offset, then you should provide links to your own vague (and probably easily refuted) statistics.
ReplyDeletehis is where the pro-gun apologists get their ideas from. And it doesn't matter if they make sense or not, obvioulsy.
ReplyDeleteBingo!
End of discussion [but I'm sure that your 'faithful' will unload their bullshit in their usual diuretic fashion.]
Wear your goggles, Mike!
FWM says, "They usually define them as any place two or more people come together to examine, buy, sell or trade guns."
ReplyDeleteAren't you confusing that with the Biblical thing about two or more gathering in His Name?
That's a joke, but it sounded just like it.
About private sales being subject to the same common sense rules, I say, Amen, brother, can I get a witness?
Mikeb: "The second idea is more of the mindreading that gun rights people like to do some much. Also stated as fact, they're saying what's in the mind of gun control advocates, something which they cannot know."
ReplyDeleteMikeb; "About private sales being subject to the same common sense rules, I say, Amen, brother, can I get a witness?"
AMAZING!
First, Mikeb condemns the NRA for "mindreading." Then, in the comments, Mikeb shows that the NRA was EXACTLY RIGHT.
AMAZING!
About private sales being subject to the same common sense rules, I say, Amen, brother, can I get a witness?
ReplyDeleteAll right then, I gotta ask why anti-gun activists continue to call it the "gun show loophole". If you indeed want to end all private sales without going through a background check why not say so? Why the duplicity?
Also, so no stats then to easily refute the NRA's numbers?
"Aren't you confusing that with the Biblical thing about two or more gathering in His Name?"
ReplyDeleteNope--they tried the same thing here in Colorado to close the "gun show loophole*." It specifically said that anytime two or more people were present with more than one firearm offered for sale, it was to be considered a "gun show." So, you invite a friend over and get to talking guns, and look in the safe, and he asks if you're willing to sell one of the guns? Guess what, a gun show just happened!
It failed, as it should have.
"About private sales being subject to the same common sense rules..."
Again with the prior restraint.
What "common sense" are you refering to? Why should the fact that criminals attempt to buy weapons limit me (someone who is not a criminal) from buying in a legal manner? Why in a free society should I be forced to prove my innocence and good standing in order to buy a legal product?
This is where we "pro gun apologists" get our ideas from--it's called liberty, and it is precious to us.
Common sense?
We don't force people to show that they don't have a history of drunk driving, vehicular homicide, or speeding tickets before they buy a car. Yet cars kill way more people per year (using your 'logic,' that guns kill, and not irresponsible or criminal people). Would that not be a measure in line with your brand of "common sense?"
Why can't we close the drunk-driver loophole*???
*It's not a loophole. It's merely a legal activity that hasn't been outlawed by tyrants and anti-freedom bigots, yet.
Well MikeB, at least you are honest about it.
ReplyDeleteSo you believe that private citizens should have to get permission from the government before selling their personally owned property even outside of gun shows?
ReplyDeleteBut didn't you just earlier claim that the NRA inferring that's what gun-banners want requires "mindreading" and is "something they cannot know"?
You, as well as untold numbers of other hoplophobes, have flat out TOLD us that's what you want...just like you did in this thread. No "mindreading" required.
The fact that you undermine your own points if given half a chance would be quite funny if it weren't so pitiable.
It must be hard going through life dealing with the cognitive dissonance you must face every day.
It must be hard going through life dealing with the cognitive dissonance you must face every day.
ReplyDeleteNo Kidding. I have no clue how they function in society on a daily basis while completely untethered from reality.
"Also stated as fact, they're saying what's in the mind of gun control advocates, something which they cannot know."
ReplyDeleteIt's not mind reading so much as it is extrapolating the gun controller's past actions.
The gun controllers have said many times in the past that their goal is to ban guns, either some or all. So it's only logical to assume that any action supported by gun controllers is one that works towards their goal.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteAbout private sales being subject to the same common sense [HA!] rules, I say, Amen, brother, can I get a witness?
Which means there would be no private sales (no legal ones, anyway), because any sale in which the prospective buyer has to have his criminal record (and now, with the growing focus on mental health of prospective gun buyers, his medical records, as well--HIPAA notwithstanding) scrutinized by the government, which then grants permission for the sale, is not "private" in any rational sense of the word.
Yes, I guess if we had it my way, we couldn't very well call them "private" transactions any more.
ReplyDeleteSailorcurt and Mike W., That's really funny, that cognitive dissonance line.
Shrimp said, "This is where we "pro gun apologists" get our ideas from--it's called liberty, and it is precious to us."
ReplyDeleteThat's not liberty, that's not wanting to be inconvenienced in the least, damn the consequences. And since you're such a law-abiding character yourself, you wouldn't be all that inconvenienced. You wanna buy a gun, you submit to a background check. You wanna sell one, you insist on the buyer submitting to the check.
Why are you so against this? Is it the idea of someone telling you what you have to do? Don't you already submit to a long list of these kinds of requirements already? Why all the resistance with guns?
Mikeb: "You wanna buy a gun, you submit to a background check. You wanna sell one, you insist on the buyer submitting to the check. Why are you so against this?"
ReplyDeleteBecause it WON'T stop there.
Some would dismiss that as "slippery slope" but it's real and I have given evidence that it's real and I can and will continue to do so.
"That's not liberty, that's not wanting to be inconvenienced in the least, damn the consequences."
ReplyDeleteNo, Mike, that is liberty!!! That is exactly what liberty is!
I don't know what you consider freedom or liberty to be, but having to submit my background information to some bureaucratic cog isn't my idea of freedom. Freedom is being able to do what I want as long as I don't intrude upon another person's liberty, life, or property. I can own guns, I can shoot guns. However, if I own a gun and shoot at another person, I'm violating them.
Freedom is about trusting that your fellow citizens are grown up men whom also are responsible, and only when they prove themselve not responsible, do we punish them.
Again, you push prior restraint.
Why should I have to prove myself a good guy? Do I have to prove myself a good guy to buy a car? Do I have to prove myself a good guy before I buy a set of golf clubs? I can kill quite easily with either of those. But I'm not limited to one car a month, or to worrying about background checks with golf clubs. Why, then, am I infringed upon to prove my goodness when buying a firearm, something that is my right? And that is liberty??
"Why are you so against this? Is it the idea of someone telling you what you have to do? Don't you already submit to a long list of these kinds of requirements already? Why all the resistance with guns?"
Because it doesn't stop there, it never does.
Yes.
Exactly my point about it not stopping.
Because, once the guns are gone, that's the last and final step.
Let me ask you this--if a government is bent upon forcing its will upon the people it governs, what will stop that government once the people have no recourse to violently overthrow it?
That is the purpose of the second amendment, when we take away all the fancy dress and language. Our founding fathers knew that government needed to be kept in check, and having just successfully thrown off the yoke of tyranny, with guns, they knew that the most successful plan included having arms.
They knew that self defense is an inalienable right. That's why it's there.
No one would fault a deer for attempting to kick at a wolf, or use its antlers to fend off the wolf. We expect it to do so.
Humans have no antlers, and our soft pink/brown/yellow/blue/green skin offers little in the way of protection. However, we have our brains, and the ability to make tools. Those tools offer us great advancement over predators, prey and enemies. Logically, those tools are our "antlers." They are the extension of our natural ability, or what nature provided us. Whether given to us by a Creator, or nature, we have this set of tools (mind, imagination, awareness of self, hands, tool-making) and they are our natural defense.
It is illogical to decry the tools that we have as invalid, unless you also are saying that the right to self defense is invalid.
Are you?
Shrimp asked, "Do I have to prove myself a good guy to buy a car?"
ReplyDeleteI hate comparisons like this, but since you brought it up, yes you do have to prove yourself to be good enough to buy a car. You have to pass a test and do certain registering and insuring exercises, don't you? That's for the Common Good. If the country comes to its senses some day, you may very well have to do this kind of thing to own guns.
"That is the purpose of the second amendment, when we take away all the fancy dress and language. Our founding fathers knew that government needed to be kept in check, and having just successfully thrown off the yoke of tyranny, with guns, they knew that the most successful plan included having arms."
This illustrates one of my favorite points. What you describe made perfect sense in 1790, but doesn't work today. The U.S. government has the heaviest and most sophisticated weaponry on the planet. Aren't you being a bit grandiose to even talk about resisting them with "arms?" We're not talking musket against musket, like it would have been in the beginning. We're talking about Waco and Ruby Ridge type massacres.
FishyJay says, and not only him, "Because it WON'T stop there."
ReplyDeleteWhy do you say that because that's what happened in Armenia 100 years ago, or all those other examples you guys keep trotting out? What do they have to do with us?
Mikeb says:
ReplyDelete. . . you do have to prove yourself to be good enough to buy a car. You have to pass a test and do certain registering and insuring exercises, don't you?
In what state is that? I've never lived in a state where such things were required to buy a car--yes, you would have to pass a test and navigate other bureaucratic hoops to legally drive it on public roads, and probably to get a car loan, but to buy a car with cash, I've never encountered any such requirements. There may be some states that have them, but I'm not aware of them.
The U.S. government has the heaviest and most sophisticated weaponry on the planet.
What was the last insurgency the U.S. successfully put down? Nearly a decade of blood in Iraq and Afghanistan hasn't done it in either place. We didn't do it in Vietnam . . . my history is a little weak--have we ever done it, anywhere, since the 1860's?
Ruby Ridge and Waco weren't "insurgencies." You don't fight an insurgency by waiting in your home (or even your "compound") for the government's firepower to come visiting you. You attack them from the shadows, and slip back into the (supposedly) peaceable, non-belligerent population.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteWhy do you say that because that's what happened in Armenia 100 years ago, or all those other examples you guys keep trotting out? What do they have to do with us?
I've asked you this before, Mikeb: what has happened in the last century, or what is so magically different about the U.S., to make us so blessedly immune to the horrors of a government gone out of control?
Don't tell me that it's our Constitutional form of government, because that only works as long as the government is kept within the constraints of the Constitution. If the .gov decides to try to bust the chains, who is to stop them, aside from an armed and determined people?
"...yes you do have to prove yourself to be good enough to buy a car. You have to pass a test and do certain registering and insuring exercises, don't you?"
ReplyDeleteNo, you don't*. You can buy any car, anywhere. At no time do you have to show a license, or prove that you have insurance. In fact, if you walk in with a checkbook or cash or other way to pay, you can buy the vehicle right then, right there.
Now, if you want to take the vehicle for a test drive, that's another matter. To protect their interest in the vehicle, most if not all dealers will require you to provide your license to photcopy. But, if you tell them you aren't interested in test driving it, or that you already did and you are here to buy, they'll whip out the paperwork.
If it's a private sale, there is absolutely no requirement at all, except that you provide the funds necessary to purchase the vehicle.
*My answer involves the two states I am most familiar with, PA and CO. Other states that like to interject themselves into people's lives (like NJ, CA, MA, IL) I cannot answer for.
"Aren't you being a bit grandiose to even talk about resisting them with "arms?" We're not talking musket against musket, like it would have been in the beginning. We're talking about Waco and Ruby Ridge type massacres."
ReplyDeleteProof of two things--One, our founding fathers intended for us to have the equivalent weapons to any standing army of the day. That means we should have (as individuals) fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers and recoilless rifles, grenades, mines and flamethrowers just like the infantry has. Anything less, and we could not serve our purpose as a citizen militia.
Secondly, your examples clearly provide evidence that armed attackers from the government can indeed be held at bay (even if it was only temporary) by armed defenders. It also shows that gun owners clearly are not the threat you seem to believe that they are. Were gun owners the kind of people you seem to suggest (willing to overthrow the government, eager to kill, looking for an excuse to shoot), why wasn't there a massive reaction to those incidents? Why didn't gun owners rise up and go on killing sprees, wasting government agents where they lived, slept and worked?
There is another lesson being learned right now, in Afghanistan and Iraq. People armed with guns and small explosives can indeed hold off the biggest mightiest military that has the "heaviest and most sophisticated weaponry on the planet." Granted, they're losing, but not for lack of effort. How would they fare had they been totally disarmed, as you are advocating? Add in the unpopular and not real likely scenario of US soldiers shooting at US civilians, and it becomes less of a massacre and perhaps even possible.
The reality is, it isn't ever supposed to get to that. The very idea that we can is supposed to keep the government in check. If it fails to, then we have that option, as poor an option as it may be.
You have to pass a test and do certain registering and insuring exercises, don't you?
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to do any of these to purchase a car.
yes you do have to prove yourself to be good enough to buy a car. You have to pass a test and do certain registering and insuring exercises, don't you?
ReplyDeleteMikeB, wrong again as usual. (Don't you ever get sick of being wrong??)
I don't need a license to buy a car. There's no test to pass, nor am I required to register and insure it.
"You attack them from the shadows, and slip back into the (supposedly) peaceable, non-belligerent population."
ReplyDeleteAnd that is why the "heaviest and most sophisticated weaponry on the planet" isn't doing a bit of good in Iraq or Afghanistan.
It's not just about Armenians 100 years ago. Britain banned and confiscated all handguns and all pump & semiauto rifles & shotguns about 20 years ago.
ReplyDeleteShrimp: “My answer involves the two states I am most familiar with, PA and CO. Other states that like to interject themselves into people's lives (like NJ, CA, MA, IL) I cannot answer for.”
ReplyDeleteIt’s legal even in CA. Illegal immigrants without driver’s licenses and insurance buy cars every day and it is a perfectly legal transaction. It is not legal for them to drive on public roads, but of course they do that anyway. Then they sell the car when the registration is up and look on craigslist for another cheap car with 11 months on the tag.
Also, if I buy a vehicle without the intent to drive in on public roads, it is completely unregulated. I can have a racecar with slick tires, nitrous injection, straight exhaust with no muffler, no bumpers etc.. and trailer it to the racetrack on weekends. I can have a Jeep with 48” tires, no doors, no windshield, no bumpers and drive it all around public BLM land too.
Note when gunowners carry their guns in public (the equivalent of driving on public roads) there is usually a special carry license required.
CA is a great example of what is going on with gunshows. There is no “gunshow loophole” in CA. ALL private transactions need to go through a FFL (My biggest problem with this is the $75 that goes to the dealer). Yet after all that was accomplished they *passed* a 2009 law banning the Cow Palace gunshow entirely. The law passed, not just proposed, and it took a veto from Arnold (who is no friend of gunowners) to overrule it. I can only hope the next governor would do the same because it will keep coming back.
-TS
This is one of the reasons I hate the car comparisons, but since so many of you spin doctors refuse to agree with what I said, I'll say it like this.
ReplyDeleteWhat percentage of car buyers and car drivers do NOT submit to any bureaucratic registering or licensing. Less than 1%, wouldn't you say. I know if you own a farm you can have a vehicle there without doing these things, but what's that compared to the normal drivers, of whom there are millions.
Shrimp, you brought it up, and I called you on it because it's misleading. Yes, you could do that, but who does? Do you? Do you buy and operate your vehicles without submitting in any way to the government's demands?
FishyJay said, "Britain banned and confiscated all handguns and all pump & semiauto rifles & shotguns about 20 years ago."
ReplyDeleteSo when can we expect genocide over there? Where are all the reports of tyrannical government crushing the poor disarmed people?
FishyJay said, "Britain banned and confiscated all handguns and all pump & semiauto rifles & shotguns about 20 years ago."
ReplyDeleteMikeb: So when can we expect genocide over there? Where are all the reports of tyrannical government crushing the poor disarmed people?
Gunowner advocates have not made predictions for that in Britain. They DID predict that gun registration and licensing would be followed by gun bans and confiscations. CHECK.
Gunowner advocates aso predicted that gun violence would not subsequently decrease as a result. CHECK.
What we see has happened in Britain so far is the loss of an important right that many Americans hold dear, with not much subsequent benefit to show for it.
What percentage of car buyers and car drivers do NOT submit to any bureaucratic registering or licensing. Less than 1%, wouldn't you say.
ReplyDeleteI can tell you don't live anywhere with a high immigrant population. Judging by what my friend who is a police officer tells me, I'd say that number is closer to 25% here.
Nice job, MikeB, trying to get me to defend a position I didn't take! Way to turn the argument on its ear!
ReplyDeleteThe only comparison I made to automobiles was that no background check was necessary to obtain one. (and that is 100% true). I could have just as easily said that no background check was necessary for a garden shovel, or a hamburger.
I used the auto because it is easily seen that there are a considerable number of vehicular deaths each year, thus making it as close a comparison as possible for items that can be used to cause death. Golf clubs can be used to blugdeon someone to death (and are a surprisingly popular weapon), so again we could have a valid "death causing instrument" comparison.
I did not make the analogy that cars and guns should be registered or not, and so on. You're attempting to make me defend a position I did not take.
I understand completely your reluctance to use the "car to gun" analogy, and agree that it isn't a great analogy, because they aren't a perfect fit for each other. Guess what, there are no analogies that are a perfect fit for each other. The only perfect fit for an analogy about guns is...guns.
But, since there are some similarities, people attempt to use the ananlogy to show a point, highlighting the specific similarity. No analogy will be perfect, but some are better than others.
Shrimp, Sorry, I got a little carried away with that argument. You're right, you didn't say what I turned it into. I think it was the chorus of support you get from the other that got to me.
ReplyDeleteI like what you said about the analogies. I've said as much myself. Guns are unique and gun issues are unique. That's why I hate all the comparisons.
"What percentage of car buyers and car drivers do NOT submit to any bureaucratic registering or licensing. Less than 1%, wouldn't you say."
ReplyDeleteIt took 17 years for the federal government to register 300 million cars with a compliance rate of 77%. That's 23% non-compliance. A bit more than 1%.
Sorry MikeB, I got carried away with the car analogy too. My main point is that purchasing/owning either is different than using them in public. It is not about the percentage of how people use them. I fully support a license requirement to carry a loaded firearm in public as I support licensing to drive a car on public roads and the registration costs that help pay for those roads. I shouldn’t however have to pay money just for the right to buy something.
ReplyDelete-TS
There are a couple reasons that people like me, who utterly reject calls for licensing and/or registration of firearms, accept registration of cars (and licensing of their use on public roads) without more than a little grumbling.
ReplyDeleteOne, there is no expectation of privacy with regard to car ownership--you drive it out on the streets, it's in your driveway, etc.--it's obvious you have a car, and what kind of car it is.
Two, you don't really worry about that, because no one expects, or even advocates, government mass confiscation of cars. A corollary to that is that there is not a single class of citizen whose right to own cars is denied--felons, drunks and drug addicts, wife beaters, sexual predators, crazy people, etc. can all buy all the cars they can afford. Even the license to use a car on public roads is pretty easy to get and keep (and cannot, to my knowledge, be denied "for life," under any circumstances), and must be accepted in every state.
Zorro, Thanks for that answer about car regestration vs. gun registration. The rest of them are still playing the obfuscation game of arguing that you don't need any documents to buy a car.
ReplyDeleteThanks for addressing my point. What you said makes good sense.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteThe rest of them are still playing the obfuscation game of arguing that you don't need any documents to buy a car.
Well, earlier, I also countered your claim about documentation being necessary to buy a car, because I consider it not an "obfuscation game," as you call it, but a valid and necessary response to your earlier claim about such a requirement for buying a car. However, I consider you to have been as well-schooled on that point as you're likely to get, so I figured it was time to move on.