Thursday, April 21, 2011

Mr. G Guy on Debbie Wasserman

Our friend the Mr. G Guy is up to his old conservative tricks again.

Conniving witch, Debbie Wasserman Schultz seems to think we don’t already have enough gun control laws on the books. Licensed gun dealers are already required to do a background check before selling a gun to a prospective buyer.
Under current law, licensed gun dealers are required to do background checks to ensure that prospective buyers are legally eligible to own firearms. Felons, illegal immigrants and the severely mentally ill, for instance, are barred from owning guns. Licensed dealers must perform these screenings in all venues – including gun shows – but unlicensed dealers are under no obligation to follow them anywhere. Critics of the policy discrepancy call it the “gun-show loophole.
There’s a discrepancy in this statement. You cannot sell guns at a gun show unless you have a license to do so. And some states already prohibit private sales of hand guns without a licensed intermediary.
As far as I’m concerned, the Second Amendment is my gun permit.
Now, calling the lady a "witch" seems a bit over the top. Is that basically because she's a Democrat or a Liberal and sees things differently? Is it simply because she thinks the current plethora of gun control laws are ineffectual and easily circumvented?

What do you think he means by, "You cannot sell guns at a gun show unless you have a license to do so?" That doesn't seem consistent with the gun shows we often talk about. And isn't it true that although some states do prohibit private sales of guns without a background check, most don't?  Isn't that a misleading statement which adds nothing to the discussion of what Ms. Wasserman is calling for?

And finally, what do you make of that last remark about the 2nd Amendment?  Wouldn't someone who really believes that end up in jail? Does the 2nd Amendment permit people to do whatever they want with guns? That's what some extremists say.  "Shall not be infringed," means exactly that, no restrictions.  Do you think that's what Mr. G Guy means, or is it just the usual bluff and bluster we've come to expect from our pro-gun right-wing conservative friends?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. Maybe Wasserman is a 'witch' because she is a close, long term friend of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, still recovering from that shooting earlier this year? The one that resulted in a mass shooting with 19 dead and wounded, including women, a child, and elderly people?

    Perhaps Mr. G Guy has a painfully short memory. Or maybe his brains have leaked out of a hole in his head - the part with recent memory centers?

    That would be the shooting where the (alleged) shooter, who certainly appears to have been mentally ill, acquired a legal handgun, demonstrating just how badly the current laws are inadequate.

    We have Mr. G Guy who whinges on and on about having enough gun laws, and how the bad guys are barred from owning guns....except that Giffords was shot by a legal gun owned by someone who demonstrated behavior which appears quite strongly to suggest mental illnes.

    That would be the shooting in the gun nut state of AZ which has provided only a few hundred names of the hundreds of thousands of people who should appear on the NCIS check list data base who are mentally ill, felons, illegal aliens, or drug users (another category the alleged shooter may qualify for) - Mr. G Guy left out drug users from his list.

    Hooray for Ms. Wasserman, and god bless her for acting on behalf of victims like her friend, and prospective victims of gun wielding nuts - and gun nuts.

    So either Mr. G Guy is really that bone ignorant about how poorly our laws work currently, or he is bone ignorant about the actual laws in this country. He certainly appears to be stupid on the topic of how our 2nd Amendment can and should be interpreted and can be properly limited re gun laws.

    (MB- I'm back!)

  2. What he means by can't sell guns at a gun show without a license is federal law prohibits being in the business of selling guns without an ffl. Many if not most gun shows require a FFL to buy a table to sell guns.

    Yes in some states it is legal for individuals to walk around with a firearm and try to sell it either to a dealer or an individual, but the vast majority of sales are thru FFLs.

    Almost everything behind the "gunshot loophole" is media hype and hyperbole from the anti side. For the most part it just doesn't exist. The antis find a large room or convention hall filled with guns scary. All it really does is show how many gun dealers an area has.

    In Minnesota we had a politician try and push a bill here to close the "gun show loophole" and at the hearing on the proposed bill, the local sheriffs office was asked how many guns they had recovered from crime scenes or traced after crimes which had come from a gun show. The Deputy answered "zero". This from a county of 800,000 people.

    Factual data is the enemy of the Anti gun movement. "Feelings" and "fear"'are it's fuel.

  3. You are cherry picking data P.

    Minnesota has supplied ZERO names of people to the NCIS for example who are disqualified from ownership on the basis of dangerous mental illness. ZERO.

    Meanwhile under the state check, there have been multiple people disqualified from gun ownership, because the police who have to approve the license DO the check, they don't wait for it to be provided to them.

    Or are you going to try to argue that there aren't people who should be barred from gun ownership because they are dangerous?

    HERE in MN, a person like the shooter(alleged) in the Giffords case would have slipped through the cracks and been legal to buy a gun at a gun show with an NCIS check.

    So, clearly we need to do two things - get our contribution of information / names in to that data base; and not go with the GOP plan to eliminate the state check as redundant - because it isn't.

    Among other reasons, they track domestic abuse as well as the other criteria.

  4. P, Your defense of what Mr. G Guy said is admirable. You gun guys are loyal to one another, if nothing else.

    He did not say many or most gun sellers at gun shows have the FFL. He said they do, period.

    About that tired old argument of where crime guns come from, it's very simple. They all come from legally owned sources. The trick you guys try to use is that in many cases they pass through more than one criminal owner before being confiscated in a crime. But even in those cases, the gun did not originate there among the criminals, if you trace it back you'll find a legitimate owner who, in many cases was at fault in allowing it to become part of the Mighty Mississippi of gun flow.

  5. Here are some facts for you. These are studies done by the Federal Government.

    • Under current federal law, it is illegal to “engage in the business” of “dealing in firearms” without a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.1 “Engaged in the business” means buying and selling firearms as a regular business with the objective of profit.2 Violations carry a five year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.3

    • A licensed dealer may do business temporarily at a gun show, just as he could at his permanent licensed premises. Every legal requirement applies equally at both types of location, including background checks and record keeping on all transactions.

    • People who “engage in the business” without a license can be arrested and convicted of a federal felony—whether they “engage in business” at a gun show, or out of a home, office, or vehicle.

    Gun Shows Are Not a Source of “Crime Guns”
    • A 2006 FBI study of criminals who attacked law enforcement officers found that within their sample, “None of the [attackers’] rifles, shotguns, or handguns … were obtained from gun shows or related activities.” Ninety-seven percent of guns in the study were obtained illegally, and the assailants interviewed had nothing but contempt for gun laws. As one offender put it, “[T]he 8,000 new gun laws would have made absolutely [no difference], whatsoever, about me getting a gun. … I never went into a gun store or to a gun show or to a pawn shop or anyplace else where firearms are legally bought and sold.”4

    • A Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report on “Firearms Use by Offenders” found that fewer than 1% of U.S. “crime guns” came from gun shows, with repeat offenders even less likely than first-timers to buy guns from any retail source. This 2001 study was based on interviews with 18,000 state prison inmates and is the largest such study ever conducted by the government.5

    • Previous federal studies have found few criminals using gun shows. A 2000 BJS study, “Federal Firearms Offenders, 1992-98,” found only 1.7% of federal prison inmates obtained their gun from a gun show.6 Similarly, a 1997 National Institute of Justice study reported less than 2% of criminals’ guns come from gun shows.7

    You all are making much a do about nothing. Like I've said before...if you don't want a gun or guns, don't buy them, but you have no right to tell me I can't have one or two or however many I or any other citizens want.

    And for your information, if the local sheriff in Arizona had done his job, Loughner wouldn't have been able to legally buy his gun. Numerous complaints had been lodged against Loughner because of his craziness as well as his drug use, but his mother, who worked for the county, had the complaints quashed.

    Mike G.

    P.S. dog gone, thanks for denigrating my intelligence. That's what I "like" about the left...everyone but them is/are numb as a pounded thumb or dumb as a rock.