Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Confession time:

Whoah--Confession time:  This time the NRA admits that not every gun sold goes through a background check.  In fact, being able to sell guns to criminals might be a violation of the concept of "gun rights".

To the first point, it is incontestable that a vote for the Manchin-Toomey-Schumer bill constitutes a vote to take away gun rights.  Currently, gun owners in most states enjoy the right to privately transfer firearms.  They often do so by facilitating such transfers at gun shows and by advertising through online and print publications.  The private transfer restriction amendment would have outlawed this activity, making firearm transfers more difficult, and therefore less likely to occur.

Thank you, NRA.

The best thing to do is to let gun loons shoot their mouths off and screen cap their comments.

Law abiding, my arse.


Source:
www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2014/10/fact-checkers-appoint-themselves-arbiters-of-what-constitute-gun-rights.aspx

BTW, the above site has been mirrored.

24 comments:

  1. Have fun with that, Laci. I'm sure you'll get hours of enjoyment out of twisting that comment to say many more things that it doesn't say. Frankly, I'm disappointed that you only came up with one faulty interpretation of it so far.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This time the NRA admits that not every gun sold goes through a background check.

    I suppose asking you for any evidence of the NRA ever once denying that would be considered "rude" here?

    Anyway, at least you beat the shit out of that straw man--the only kind of adversary you'll ever defeat.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You don’t realize that the pro-gun rights argument against these “background check” proposals is that they ban the otherwise legal private selling of firearms? What do you think your big gotcha is here? Why do you think the NRA opposed M-T? You don’t need to be so clever as to screen cap comments and mirror sites. If you had been paying attention for the past few years, you would have seen these types of comments all over the place, and you continue to see them so long as the solution pushed from gun control folks is to make private sales illegal rather than expanding the system for private use.

    Heck, why not just read your own blog where you’ll see comments from me along those same lines? Be sure to screen capture what I said, because it’s only the hundredth time I said it:

    http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/10/if-gun-rights-folks-are-in-right-why-do.html

    Laci: “Law abiding, my arse.”

    And what’s not law abiding about what was said? If they were law breakers, why would they care if you made it illegal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You don’t realize that the pro-gun rights argument against these “background check” proposals is that they ban the otherwise legal private selling of firearms?"

      Yeah, like a lawful gun owner selling a gun to a mentally ill criminal. That's legal right now, but you don't ever mention that the background check requirement would stop that cold. You only focus on the innocuous transfers between two law abiding people an how they'd be so deeply hurt by the requirement.

      Delete
    2. You don't like to mention that the law treats innocuous transfers (including "hey can I check out your gun?") between two law abiding people the same as selling to a mentally ill criminal. Why do they have to carry the same punishment? But you make it seem like this is just about criminals getting guns.

      Delete
    3. The NRA promotes using a facility that they know ends up selling guns to criminals and others not eligible to by. They promote killing.

      Delete
    4. The NRA promotes using a facility . . .

      What the hell "facility" are you babbling about, Anon?

      Mr. Winniefield apparently has a question for you, too.

      Delete
    5. What's the post about idiot? Thanks for the death threat.

      Delete
    6. Mike--We worry focus on the innocent who are caught up in the law rather than the criminals it hopes to stop? And that's supposed to be a bad thing?

      That's the whole point of opposing laws for overbreadth. Of course, you've criticized us for being "other rights fanatics" as well as favoring gun rights, so it shouldn't surprise us that you prefer a jurisprudence that says "But look! We'll catch these criminals too!"

      Delete
    7. What "death threat," Anon? How is it possible for you to continue to get stupider with every passing moment, when you started at the intelligence level of a particularly dim dung beetle?

      Delete
    8. "We worry focus on the innocent who are caught up in the law rather than the criminals it hopes to stop? And that's supposed to be a bad thing?"

      Yep. And if we were to look at the percentage of new crimes proposed that are of the innocuous variety, we would find it is somewhere between 99 and 100% (when it should be zero). But we’re not supposed to worry about that.

      Delete
    9. "You don't like to mention that the law treats innocuous transfers (including "hey can I check out your gun?") between two law abiding people the same as selling to a mentally ill criminal. "

      I have no problem mentioning that. You're the one who ignores the great good that would be accomplished with a universal background check requirement, admittedly, at the inconvenience of some. The upside is lives would be saved because fewer guns would flow into the criminal world. But, because the law abiding gun owners would be inconvenienced, you're not interested.

      Delete
    10. Prison is more than just a little "inconvenient". When you keep proposing laws that send good people to prison, we are rightfully going to fight it- every time. Why not just write the law so that the crime is only when the bad guy gets the gun? You'd still have the same upside.

      Delete
    11. If "gun control" advocates are serious about coming up with a regulatory framework for banning sales to "prohibited persons" that would address the misgivings of many gun rights advocates (not me, but some rights advocates are less "militant" than I am), they should push for the Blind Identification Database System (BIDS):

      The heart of BIDS is an encrypted database of all persons who are prohibited from owning, using, or purchasing firearms. Only prohibited persons are in the database - no information on other citizens is in the database, ever. The BIDS database would be supplied to all licensed firearm dealers, who would store it in a dedicated BIDS computer or computers. Firearm dealers would verify the prospective gun buyer's driver's license or state-issued ID and enter name, date of birth, and state ID number into their BIDS computer. The computer would then search the encrypted database for a match.

      If there were a match, the computer would display that name and associated information, and the prospective buyer would be prohibited from making the purchase. If there were no match, the computer would display a message stating that fact, and the sale could proceed. No computer report or record is made of the name being searched for, so BIDS never informs the government as to who is attempting to buy a gun or who actually buys a gun.


      Actually, I suppose the "universal background checks" freaks would insist on a version of BIDS that expands the database check requirement to all sales, whether by licensed dealers or not, but even that would be vastly more acceptable to gun rights advocates than expanding NICS to cover what had once been private sales.

      Delete
    12. I will admit that you are more forthright about the need to throw gun owners in jail. Certainly the politicians and professional supporters of these bills are not so forthright. During the whole Schumer/M-T debates, I never heard one supporter even hint at the penalties being proposed. The law defines a new federal felony- you think that'd be worth mentioning.

      Delete
    13. You will let us know when someone does hard time for letting a relative handle their gun, won't you?

      Delete
    14. Then why write the law that way? If you agree that it is unacceptable, then don't blame us for fighting the law when it is written that way. Especially when there are so much better alternatives out there that accomplish your stated goals without ruining the lives of good people.

      Delete
    15. Like I said, do let us know what your drama-queen scenarios play out, OK?

      Delete
    16. Ah, the old “we have to pass to bill to find out if you’ll be arrest for it” bit.

      Delete
    17. Like I said, do let us know what your drama-queen scenarios play out, OK?

      Er, could we have that in English, please?

      Delete
    18. Kurt: "Er, could we have that in English, please?"

      I’ve become relatively fluent in Mike-Speak over the years. It roughly translates to: No one having been arrested for a bill that hasn’t past yet is proof that it is reasonable and should be supported.

      Delete
    19. TS, don't humor Kurt. He knows as well as you do what I mean. He thinks playing dumb and blaming it on me works in his favor somehow.

      Delete
    20. Thanks, TS--that helps a great deal.

      And yes, Mikeb, I should probably have been able to figure that out on my own, but in my defense, remember that your thinking is utterly alien and incomprehensible to me.

      Delete
  4. And again, if it such "common sense" that selling a gun privately should be a federal felony, how come none of the politicians mention the new criminal code they are proposing? Instead they say that it "provides background checks". How? It doesn't change a damn thing about the background check system. It only defines a new crime.

    ReplyDelete