(09-10-2019 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 10:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 08:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you look at the Midland shootings, the shooter failed a background check when he tried to purchase a gun. Because of that, he went through a private seller, where background checks aren't required, and he was able to procure the gun.

On the facts, false. As noted before, the guy was 'building guns' and selling them. A sale of a 'built' a check is required. Second, simply based on the 'selling' aspect, he was doing enough sales to require him to obtain an FFL. FFL requires *every* sale to be backgrounded.

On the facts you are incorrect. *That* sale, for any number of reasons, required a background check. But ignore what actually happened to make it fit your narrative and implicate the private sale exemption. I really do enjoy it when people play make believe with underlying facts.

The facts about the seller in no way, shape, or form enable this to to be characterized in any way, shape, or form as anything in the same galaxy as a what is a legal private sale that is exempted.

You change the narrative to 'lets change all the facts and characterize an event and person who in no way should be classified as a private seller and enjoying an exemption as a private sale.' Then you say, 'but if you ignore those facts and pretend it was a legal private sale, then the actions implicate the private sale exemption.' Lolz.

Quote:Turns out the guy he purchased from was illegally building and selling guns, so another step is increasing enforcement of existing laws (a plan Warren points out) so that these issues don't fall through the cracks.

And so enforcement of existing laws is the only slot this should be pegged into. That is until you ignore the illegal nature of the seller en toto then try to shoehorn the illegal sale into a 'private sale'.

Tanq, maybe it's best to not ascribe my intentions to me if you don't actually know them. I didn't change the narrative - I used what I read across multiple media outlets to inform my opinion. It turns out, the story is a bit convoluted and has changed over time (just google Midland, private seller to see for yourself).

My understanding is that your comment in bold is not correct. You can be a seller of weapons and by definition be a private seller. The key is that a licensed dealer is defined as

Quote:[A] person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.

But let's say for the sake of argument that this guy should have been licensed, because it does sound like he should have been, then he should have done a background check and the purchaser should have been flagged again.

I agree that this should be pegged into "enforcement of existing laws," which is fine. Because I was responding to Owl#s regarding what existing laws would have stopped mass shootings...

No sake of argument. The *second* you sell a firearm that you made you are then *automatically* a 'gun manufacturer'. And subject to even *stricter* regulation than an FFL holder.

I can make a gun, no problem. I can sell *any other gun* and still be a private seller, no problem. The millisecond you sell a gun you manufactured you didnt just make the jump from rookie ball 'private seller' to AA ball FFL requirement, you jump straight to the World Series in gun regulation as a manufacturer.

Your statement of FFL is correct. But has zero applicability to FFL. I was trying not to wade into the details and dumb it down. But your attempt at a 'gotcha' is completely wo foundation.

Sometimes it might be best to not attempt Google Lawyer as the end all.

Dude, it wasn't an attempt at a gotcha, no matter how hard you try to say it was. You're trying to imply an intent that wasn't there - I was not trying to be disingenuous or misleading.

Like I said, I read news stories and used those to inform my opinion. They did not delineate the issues as we have now. I wasn't attempting to be a Google Lawyer in my first post, just an informed poster who had read a number of news articles (all of which failed to make the distinction).

My latter point still stands:

I agree that this should be pegged into "enforcement of existing laws," which is fine. Because I was responding to Owl#s regarding what existing laws would have stopped mass shootings...

First the question thrown out was

Quote:OK, so what law or laws would have prevented the actual mass shootings that we have had?

You pointed to the Midland shooting as an example that, and I quote,

Quote:Because of that, he went through a private seller, where background checks aren't required, and he was able to procure the gun.

The Midland shooting seems doesnt seem to fit that issue at all.

So your answer to the question on 'what law or laws would have prevented' Midland (or any mass shooting for that matter) still cannot include the removal of the private sale exemption as a "law [that] would have prevented the actual mass shootings that we have had', correct?

(09-10-2019 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Like I said, I read news stories and used those to inform my opinion. They did not delineate the issues as we have now. I wasn't attempting to be a Google Lawyer in my first post,

Fair enough.

Quote:just an informed poster who had read a number of news articles (all of which failed to make the distinction).

And that is another topic completely. The fact that "all .... failed to make that [fact known]" doesnt seem to be limited by the media to this fact that an actual, high level, gun trade was violated. These are the same asshats who seem wedded to the concept of "fleeberjeeber rifles".

(09-10-2019 02:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Like I said, I read news stories and used those to inform my opinion. They did not delineate the issues as we have now. I wasn't attempting to be a Google Lawyer in my first post,

Fair enough.

Quote:just an informed poster who had read a number of news articles (all of which failed to make the distinction).

And that is another topic completely. The fact that "all .... failed to make that [fact known]" doesnt seem to be limited by the media to this fact that an actual, high level, gun trade was violated. These are the same asshats who seem wedded to the concept of "fleeberjeeber rifles".

Ironically, one of the sources I read was the National Review:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/odes...vate-sale/

(09-10-2019 01:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  [quote='tanqtonic' pid='16291204' dateline='1568128479']

On the facts, false. As noted before, the guy was 'building guns' and selling them. A sale of a 'built' a check is required. Second, simply based on the 'selling' aspect, he was doing enough sales to require him to obtain an FFL. FFL requires *every* sale to be backgrounded.

On the facts you are incorrect. *That* sale, for any number of reasons, required a background check. But ignore what actually happened to make it fit your narrative and implicate the private sale exemption. I really do enjoy it when people play make believe with underlying facts.

The facts about the seller in no way, shape, or form enable this to to be characterized in any way, shape, or form as anything in the same galaxy as a what is a legal private sale that is exempted.

You change the narrative to 'lets change all the facts and characterize an event and person who in no way should be classified as a private seller and enjoying an exemption as a private sale.' Then you say, 'but if you ignore those facts and pretend it was a legal private sale, then the actions implicate the private sale exemption.' Lolz.


And so enforcement of existing laws is the only slot this should be pegged into. That is until you ignore the illegal nature of the seller en toto then try to shoehorn the illegal sale into a 'private sale'.

Tanq, maybe it's best to not ascribe my intentions to me if you don't actually know them. I didn't change the narrative - I used what I read across multiple media outlets to inform my opinion. It turns out, the story is a bit convoluted and has changed over time (just google Midland, private seller to see for yourself).

My understanding is that your comment in bold is not correct. You can be a seller of weapons and by definition be a private seller. The key is that a licensed dealer is defined as

Quote:[A] person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.

But let's say for the sake of argument that this guy should have been licensed, because it does sound like he should have been, then he should have done a background check and the purchaser should have been flagged again.

I agree that this should be pegged into "enforcement of existing laws," which is fine. Because I was responding to Owl#s regarding what existing laws would have stopped mass shootings...

No sake of argument. The *second* you sell a firearm that you made you are then *automatically* a 'gun manufacturer'. And subject to even *stricter* regulation than an FFL holder.

I can make a gun, no problem. I can sell *any other gun* and still be a private seller, no problem. The millisecond you sell a gun you manufactured you didnt just make the jump from rookie ball 'private seller' to AA ball FFL requirement, you jump straight to the World Series in gun regulation as a manufacturer.

Your statement of FFL is correct. But has zero applicability to FFL. I was trying not to wade into the details and dumb it down. But your attempt at a 'gotcha' is completely wo foundation.

Sometimes it might be best to not attempt Google Lawyer as the end all.

Dude, it wasn't an attempt at a gotcha, no matter how hard you try to say it was. You're trying to imply an intent that wasn't there - I was not trying to be disingenuous or misleading.

Like I said, I read news stories and used those to inform my opinion. They did not delineate the issues as we have now. I wasn't attempting to be a Google Lawyer in my first post, just an informed poster who had read a number of news articles (all of which failed to make the distinction).

My latter point still stands:

I agree that this should be pegged into "enforcement of existing laws," which is fine. Because I was responding to Owl#s regarding what existing laws would have stopped mass shootings...

First the question thrown out was

Quote:OK, so what law or laws would have prevented the actual mass shootings that we have had?
[/quote[

You pointed to the Midland shooting as an example that, and I quote,

Quote:Because of that, he went through a private seller, where background checks aren't required, and he was able to procure the gun.

The Midland shooting seems doesnt seem to fit that issue at all.

So your answer to the question on 'what law or laws would have prevented' Midland (or any mass shooting for that matter) still cannot include the removal of the private sale exemption as a "law [that] would have prevented the actual mass shootings that we have had', correct?

Disagree. The correct implementation of the background check law kept the gun out of the shooters hand originally.

He was reliant on an illegal seller, who did not conduct background checks as required, because he did illegally operated as an unlicensed seller, to get the gun.

There seems to be a good likelihood that this rampage would have happened sooner, had he been able to obtain a firearm in 2014.

Lad

Here is the problem with your (and the left's) argument in this regard. You're essentially admitting that you've based your opinions on things you've read... and when given the actual facts, you learn that what you were initially told was not factually correct so the solution you've proposed and think makes perfect common sense, and anyone that disagrees is (fill in the blank with some negative connotation of varying degrees).

But the REALITY is that given the facts and the laws, things that SOUND good when not given facts or laws do nothing. Even after being faced with this on numerous occasions, you STILL come back with the definition of a licensed seller. You don't have to be a licensed seller to be subject to background check requirements. This guy was not a licensed gun manufacturer either. It seems rather self-evident that criminals or people seeking to evade the law would not license themselves any more than drug dealers license themselves like pharmacies. Laws applicable to pharmacies don't apply to drug dealers... because it's illegal to do what they do without a distribution or manufacturing license.

The issue for most people is the ability to sell a gun that they own without having to jump through crazy hoops or pay crazy fees to do so. If you make a living from selling guns, and we can define that however you reasonably want... whether selling $5,000/yr or 5 in a month or 15 in a year... you choose... then I think you'd get lots of support... but you WON'T get a lot of support if you're talking about 3 a year or something. If the police want to get involved, then create a 'safe space' at police stations where people can conduct their transaction with some oversight, but not be SPECIFICALLY monitored... i.e a bit like at gun shows. We should be ENCOURAGING private gun shows, not discouraging them. Sellers are safer because they don't have to pay the bid/ask spread of a dealer or pawn shop but they're also not in an alley somewhere with a guy they don't know.

(09-10-2019 02:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Disagree. The correct implementation of the background check law kept the gun out of the shooters hand originally.

He was reliant on an illegal seller, who did not conduct background checks as required, because he did illegally operated as an unlicensed seller, to get the gun.

There seems to be a good likelihood that this rampage would have happened sooner, had he been able to obtain a firearm in 2014.

but here is the point...

The guy illegally manufacturing illegal guns and illegally selling them to people who can only illegally buy a gun doesn't care if you make it even more illegal for him to do what he's doing illegally.

Catch and convict that guy of what he's already doing that is already illegal.

Don't make it so that I can't easily sell my 9mm, which would have had zero impact on these events.

Seriously... if background checks for all situations were 100% mandatory, what would have changed here? Nothing. The guy who can't pass the check still would have found the guy who is illegally selling and manufacturing guns.

(09-10-2019 02:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Lad

Here is the problem with your (and the left's) argument in this regard. You're essentially admitting that you've based your opinions on things you've read... and when given the actual facts, you learn that what you were initially told was not factually correct so the solution you've proposed and think makes perfect common sense, and anyone that disagrees is (fill in the blank with some negative connotation of varying degrees).

But the REALITY is that given the facts and the laws, things that SOUND good when not given facts or laws do nothing. Even after being faced with this on numerous occasions, you STILL come back with the definition of a licensed seller. You don't have to be a licensed seller to be subject to background check requirements. This guy was not a licensed gun manufacturer either. It seems rather self-evident that criminals or people seeking to evade the law would not license themselves any more than drug dealers license themselves like pharmacies. Laws applicable to pharmacies don't apply to drug dealers... because it's illegal to do what they do without a distribution or manufacturing license.

The issue for most people is the ability to sell a gun that they own without having to jump through crazy hoops or pay crazy fees to do so. If you make a living from selling guns, and we can define that however you reasonably want... whether selling $5,000/yr or 5 in a month or 15 in a year... you choose... then I think you'd get lots of support... but you WON'T get a lot of support if you're talking about 3 a year or something. If the police want to get involved, then create a 'safe space' at police stations where people can conduct their transaction with some oversight, but not be SPECIFICALLY monitored... i.e a bit like at gun shows. We should be ENCOURAGING private gun shows, not discouraging them. Sellers are safer because they don't have to pay the bid/ask spread of a dealer or pawn shop but they're also not in an alley somewhere with a guy they don't know.

I dont think it matters Ham. lad has a serious hard on for expanded private checks. To the fing extent he is using some asshat who makes guns in his garage and sells those 'homemades' as the picture implementation of expanded checks.

Good fing grief.

It doesnt matter that the gun maker is facing 10 in the fing fed pen for selling those guns in that manner to people who *would* pass a background. Oh, and he would be facing the same 10 in the fing fed pen *even* if he did a background. The background is utterly superfluous there.

And lad, because there are no fing examples of the horrific 'private gun exemption' that actually pass the question posited by #s, has to stretch the fingernail hold here as an exemplar. Absolutely rich.

lad world motto -- more laws are always necessary. Why bother with enforcement of ones that would would actually be germane?

(09-10-2019 02:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 01:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 11:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  [quote='tanqtonic' pid='16291204' dateline='1568128479']

On the facts, false. As noted before, the guy was 'building guns' and selling them. A sale of a 'built' a check is required. Second, simply based on the 'selling' aspect, he was doing enough sales to require him to obtain an FFL. FFL requires *every* sale to be backgrounded.

On the facts you are incorrect. *That* sale, for any number of reasons, required a background check. But ignore what actually happened to make it fit your narrative and implicate the private sale exemption. I really do enjoy it when people play make believe with underlying facts.

The facts about the seller in no way, shape, or form enable this to to be characterized in any way, shape, or form as anything in the same galaxy as a what is a legal private sale that is exempted.

You change the narrative to 'lets change all the facts and characterize an event and person who in no way should be classified as a private seller and enjoying an exemption as a private sale.' Then you say, 'but if you ignore those facts and pretend it was a legal private sale, then the actions implicate the private sale exemption.' Lolz.


And so enforcement of existing laws is the only slot this should be pegged into. That is until you ignore the illegal nature of the seller en toto then try to shoehorn the illegal sale into a 'private sale'.

Tanq, maybe it's best to not ascribe my intentions to me if you don't actually know them. I didn't change the narrative - I used what I read across multiple media outlets to inform my opinion. It turns out, the story is a bit convoluted and has changed over time (just google Midland, private seller to see for yourself).

My understanding is that your comment in bold is not correct. You can be a seller of weapons and by definition be a private seller. The key is that a licensed dealer is defined as

Quote:[A] person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.

But let's say for the sake of argument that this guy should have been licensed, because it does sound like he should have been, then he should have done a background check and the purchaser should have been flagged again.

I agree that this should be pegged into "enforcement of existing laws," which is fine. Because I was responding to Owl#s regarding what existing laws would have stopped mass shootings...

No sake of argument. The *second* you sell a firearm that you made you are then *automatically* a 'gun manufacturer'. And subject to even *stricter* regulation than an FFL holder.

I can make a gun, no problem. I can sell *any other gun* and still be a private seller, no problem. The millisecond you sell a gun you manufactured you didnt just make the jump from rookie ball 'private seller' to AA ball FFL requirement, you jump straight to the World Series in gun regulation as a manufacturer.

Your statement of FFL is correct. But has zero applicability to FFL. I was trying not to wade into the details and dumb it down. But your attempt at a 'gotcha' is completely wo foundation.

Sometimes it might be best to not attempt Google Lawyer as the end all.

Dude, it wasn't an attempt at a gotcha, no matter how hard you try to say it was. You're trying to imply an intent that wasn't there - I was not trying to be disingenuous or misleading.

Like I said, I read news stories and used those to inform my opinion. They did not delineate the issues as we have now. I wasn't attempting to be a Google Lawyer in my first post, just an informed poster who had read a number of news articles (all of which failed to make the distinction).

My latter point still stands:

I agree that this should be pegged into "enforcement of existing laws," which is fine. Because I was responding to Owl#s regarding what existing laws would have stopped mass shootings...

First the question thrown out was

Quote:OK, so what law or laws would have prevented the actual mass shootings that we have had?
[/quote[

You pointed to the Midland shooting as an example that, and I quote,

Quote:Because of that, he went through a private seller, where background checks aren't required, and he was able to procure the gun.

The Midland shooting seems doesnt seem to fit that issue at all.

So your answer to the question on 'what law or laws would have prevented' Midland (or any mass shooting for that matter) still cannot include the removal of the private sale exemption as a "law [that] would have prevented the actual mass shootings that we have had', correct?

Disagree. The correct implementation of the background check law kept the gun out of the shooters hand originally.

He was reliant on an illegal seller, who did not conduct background checks as required, because he did illegally operated as an unlicensed seller, to get the gun.

There seems to be a good likelihood that this rampage would have happened sooner, had he been able to obtain a firearm in 2014.

So you are now an expert psychologist now as well. Interesting.

Truth be told, you have zero ability to back that last statement with any sort of objectivity. You know, that same objective stance you automatically take when the supposition runs against you.

Considering how, when it is you addressing the 'supposition' argument when it confronts you that you automatically go into the Joe Friday 'just the facts ma'am' mode, it is really interesting how fing fast you turn to the same supposition mode to bolster a position.

(09-10-2019 03:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 02:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Lad

Here is the problem with your (and the left's) argument in this regard. You're essentially admitting that you've based your opinions on things you've read... and when given the actual facts, you learn that what you were initially told was not factually correct so the solution you've proposed and think makes perfect common sense, and anyone that disagrees is (fill in the blank with some negative connotation of varying degrees).

But the REALITY is that given the facts and the laws, things that SOUND good when not given facts or laws do nothing. Even after being faced with this on numerous occasions, you STILL come back with the definition of a licensed seller. You don't have to be a licensed seller to be subject to background check requirements. This guy was not a licensed gun manufacturer either. It seems rather self-evident that criminals or people seeking to evade the law would not license themselves any more than drug dealers license themselves like pharmacies. Laws applicable to pharmacies don't apply to drug dealers... because it's illegal to do what they do without a distribution or manufacturing license.

The issue for most people is the ability to sell a gun that they own without having to jump through crazy hoops or pay crazy fees to do so. If you make a living from selling guns, and we can define that however you reasonably want... whether selling $5,000/yr or 5 in a month or 15 in a year... you choose... then I think you'd get lots of support... but you WON'T get a lot of support if you're talking about 3 a year or something. If the police want to get involved, then create a 'safe space' at police stations where people can conduct their transaction with some oversight, but not be SPECIFICALLY monitored... i.e a bit like at gun shows. We should be ENCOURAGING private gun shows, not discouraging them. Sellers are safer because they don't have to pay the bid/ask spread of a dealer or pawn shop but they're also not in an alley somewhere with a guy they don't know.

I dont think it matters Ham. lad has a serious hard on for expanded private checks. To the fing extent he is using some asshat who makes guns in his garage and sells those 'homemades' as the picture implementation of expanded checks.

Good fing grief.

It doesnt matter that the gun maker is facing 10 in the fing fed pen for selling those guns in that manner to people who *would* pass a background. Oh, and he would be facing the same 10 in the fing fed pen *even* if he did a background. The background is utterly superfluous there.

And lad, because there are no fing examples of the horrific 'private gun exemption' that actually pass the question posited by #s, has to stretch the fingernail hold here as an exemplar. Absolutely rich.

lad world motto -- more laws are always necessary. Why bother with enforcement of ones that would would actually be germane?

Huge boner for 'em.

Considering you think that who amounts to essentially an illegal gun manufacturer is going to be dissuaded by a background check pretty much speaks volumes there lad.

And yes, an outside chance exists that poor little off the shelf manufacterer didnt know that selling his ware was a whole utterly different ballgame than *just* a private sale problem.

On the other hand, I suggest you ask that same question to *anyone* that has bought an 80% lower and worked it. Or for matter to anyone who owns a metal working shop. There are reasons why literally every metal forming shop in creation prohibits *anyone* from using the shop facilities to work a lower.

Google the term 'build parties' and you will see what I mean. I know of one guy who literally loaned the *use* of his mini-CRC mill in his garage to a friend for a two builds in the same garage workshop; friend got crossways with the ATF over a sale -- lo and behold the ATF came after the guy who loaned the use of the CRC mill to him. Tried to charge him with being an unlicensed manufacturer because of the title of the equipment and the location of the mill for the build.

So anyone who builds out a lower, or has ever even thought of it knows the ins and outs of it to a huge degree with very good certainly. Midland is in no way any poster child for anything to do with a private sale issue.

(09-10-2019 05:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Huge boner for 'em.

Rather than the pithy response, I'd appreciate a real one.

Your solutions only sound good when applied to the facts you've read, which have demonstrably been found to be untrue. Apply your solutions to the facts and you all but admit that you accomplish nothing, but you still think it's the right thing to do.

Help me out with this.

How does a new law making it a crime to not do a background check stop someone who wouldn't pass a background check from buying a gun made by someone who is illegally manufacturing and selling them in the first place?

It's a really simple question with a simple (even if nuanced) answer.

How does this plan remotely have a chance of impacting the outcomes? Even if it's as insane as saying... if we can eliminate all private ownership of guns, we can then focus all our energies on criminals... we know that gun = criminal... if that's your belief then have the balls to admit it. We can agree to disagree and move on.

Otherwise you're here under the guise of really wanting to address the problem, while seemingly intentionally ignoring the actual problem in favor of things that simply sound good, but do nothing, almost by your own admission

(09-10-2019 05:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Huge boner

And they say Trump lies all the time.

(09-10-2019 07:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-10-2019 05:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Huge boner

And they say Trump lies all the time.

Har har har.

(09-10-2019 06:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Considering you think that who amounts to essentially an illegal gun manufacturer is going to be dissuaded by a background check pretty much speaks volumes there lad.

And yes, an outside chance exists that poor little off the shelf manufacterer didnt know that selling his ware was a whole utterly different ballgame than *just* a private sale problem.

On the other hand, I suggest you ask that same question to *anyone* that has bought an 80% lower and worked it. Or for matter to anyone who owns a metal working shop. There are reasons why literally every metal forming shop in creation prohibits *anyone* from using the shop facilities to work a lower.

Google the term 'build parties' and you will see what I mean. I know of one guy who literally loaned the *use* of his mini-CRC mill in his garage to a friend for a two builds in the same garage workshop; friend got crossways with the ATF over a sale -- lo and behold the ATF came after the guy who loaned the use of the CRC mill to him. Tried to charge him with being an unlicensed manufacturer because of the title of the equipment and the location of the mill for the build.

So anyone who builds out a lower, or has ever even thought of it knows the ins and outs of it to a huge degree with very good certainly. Midland is in no way any poster child for anything to do with a private sale issue.

Tanq, you misunderstood my point if you think I was suggesting someone willing to illegally manufacture and sell guns was going to be dissuaded by a background check. Once that fact about the seller was made clear, the point about background checks was moot for him.

My comment about background checks working was for the original seller, which did not sell to the guy (which is why I said those worked). Increased enforcement of existing law was the only way to keep the second sale from happening.

The reason I don’t think it is a bad idea to expand background checks to private sellers, is it reduces a potential loophole where someone can slip through the cracks, legally, even if the ATF had an increased force and directive to curb illegal sales (like Warren proposes).

I agree that Midland is not the poster child for private sales once the facts were cleared up, sorry if that wasn’t clear in my rebuttals to you.

(09-11-2019 07:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My comment about background checks working was for the original seller, which did not sell to the guy (which is why I said those worked). Increased enforcement of existing law was the only way to keep the second sale from happening.

True. Haven't seen one proposal from the right to allow felons to own guns. Have you? This is a red-herring saying 'it works'. More on this later

Quote:The reason I don’t think it is a bad idea to expand background checks to private sellers, is it reduces a potential loophole where someone can slip through the cracks, legally, even if the ATF had an increased force and directive to curb illegal sales (like Warren proposes).

You certainly have a 'huge boner' for Warren (not really, but just keeping with the meme). The entirety of the right and everyone I see in this conversation has proposed enforcing existing laws (like Warren proposes). You're preaching to the choir here.... it's the FORMER statement where your 'it works' is trying to help you jump the shark

Quote:I agree that Midland is not the poster child for private sales once the facts were cleared up.

So what shooting IS? That's actually the point. I'm not aware of any of them that are good examples... certainly not significant numbers.

On the contrary, almost every single one seems to be the poster child for enforcement of existing laws, yet 'your side' doesn't seem willing to agree with Republicans on doing this unless and until you get expansions of things you can't demonstrate. That's why the facts in these cases aren't clear initially, because they are solutions in search of a problem. The events were still taking place and we had some from the left claiming that the events supported expanded background checks. It also speaks to what you mean by expanding checks. If you mean that everyone should check to see if the buyer is a felon, that's actually pretty easy to do. Make an APP where you can type in a name and see public records on felony convictions. That's not what the left has proposed. They've proposed (at the very least) looking into financial dealings and healthcare and legally unsubstantiated claims, all of which are violations of basic tenants of privacy and the presumption of innocence. The irony here is that the left has always been the protector of such things, railing against things like the patriot act which greatly expanded law enforcement's scope... until now.

Sure, Republicans COULD move forward on these things without Democrats, but 'gun control' isn't a major issue for the right. There are certainly some Republicans who wouldn't want it used against them. We all know that votes are often about posturing. What I mean is that while perhaps 90% of Republicans would support stricter enforcement, there is a portion of them who like Democrats would prefer to move the needle... i.e. stricter enforcement of some in exchange for elimination/softening of others.

I think there are enough Democrats AND Republicans who would support stricter enforcement of existing laws with few or no modifications to pass a bill... but I think it's up to the side that sees this as a BIG problem to start it.

It's not that these shootings aren't bad... They're horrible....
but (and I'm only in the ballpark on the actual numbers)...

Out of 30,000 deaths, 15,000 were suicides. Another 10,000 or so were gang related... so in a country with 300mm people, the odds of being part of a mass/random shooting are lower than being struck by lightning.

It seems that working on suicides and gang activity is a much bigger problem when it comes to guns. Throw in drug abuse/domestic abuse/obesity/smoking/alcohol etc etc etc.... not to mention the economy etc etc etc, this just isn't something that the right feels needs to be front and center.

(09-11-2019 11:14 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 07:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My comment about background checks working was for the original seller, which did not sell to the guy (which is why I said those worked). Increased enforcement of existing law was the only way to keep the second sale from happening.

True. Haven't seen one proposal from the right to allow felons to own guns. Have you? This is a red-herring saying 'it works'. More on this later

Quote:The reason I don’t think it is a bad idea to expand background checks to private sellers, is it reduces a potential loophole where someone can slip through the cracks, legally, even if the ATF had an increased force and directive to curb illegal sales (like Warren proposes).

You certainly have a 'huge boner' for Warren (not really, but just keeping with the meme). The entirety of the right and everyone I see in this conversation has proposed enforcing existing laws (like Warren proposes). You're preaching to the choir here.... it's the FORMER statement where your 'it works' is trying to help you jump the shark

Quote:I agree that Midland is not the poster child for private sales once the facts were cleared up.

So what shooting IS? That's actually the point. I'm not aware of any of them that are good examples... certainly not significant numbers.

On the contrary, almost every single one seems to be the poster child for enforcement of existing laws, yet 'your side' doesn't seem willing to agree with Republicans on doing this unless and until you get expansions of things you can't demonstrate. That's why the facts in these cases aren't clear initially, because they are solutions in search of a problem.

Sure, Republicans COULD move forward on these things without Democrats, but 'gun control' isn't a major issue for the right. There are certainly some Republicans who wouldn't want it used against them. We all know that votes are often about posturing. What I mean is that while perhaps 90% of Republicans would support stricter enforcement, there is a portion of them who like Democrats would prefer to move the needle... i.e. stricter enforcement of some in exchange for elimination/softening of others.

I think there are enough Democrats AND Republicans who would support stricter enforcement of existing laws with few or no modifications to pass a bill... but I think it's up to the side that sees this as a BIG problem to start it.

It's not that these shootings aren't bad... They're horrible....
but (and I'm only in the ballpark on the actual numbers)...

Out of 30,000 deaths, 15,000 were suicides. Another 10,000 or so were gang related... so in a country with 300mm people, the odds of being part of a mass/random shooting are lower than being struck by lightning.

It seems that working on suicides and gang activity is a much bigger problem when it comes to guns. Throw in drug abuse/domestic abuse/obesity/smoking/alcohol etc etc etc.... not to mention the economy etc etc etc, this just isn't something that the right feels needs to be front and center.

In what world it it a red herring to say that the current law requiring background checks be completed by gun dealers worked, when, in fact, a gun dealer did not sell to the Midland shooter because he failed a background check???

Sorry, couldn't really get past that astonishing statement at the start.

And Ham, I bring up Warren because I actually looked up her policy positions as part of this debate, when I was being told that no Dem wants to propose any position but ones that would curb one's ability to own a gun.

(09-11-2019 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In what world it it a red herring to say that the current law requiring background checks be completed by gun dealers worked, when, in fact, a gun dealer did not sell to the Midland shooter because he failed a background check???

Sorry, couldn't really get past that astonishing statement at the start.

The guy still bought a gun, right? Would you not admit that MOST convicted felons wouldn't even TRY and buy a gun from someone requiring a background check? Yet they still get them

It's a red-herring for the very obvious and demonstrable FACT that as I said, it is a solution in search of a problem. You believe this will curtail illegal purchases, and you found a situation where it delayed one... and you then jumped to the conclusion that if we just did it more often, we would do even better... despite the FACT that the method for people like this ISN'T to keep trying until they pass, but to either KNOW they will fail and not go that route, or fail and then go another route.

I feel I pretty accurately described why I called it a red-herring. Perhaps you are merely unfamiliar with the reference. A red herring is something intended to distract, and that is what this is. It is intended to 'prove' something that it can't possibly prove... That background checks keep people from getting guns. They very clearly did NOT do so here... and only would (your distraction) if you could have somehow made an illegal manufacturer and illegal seller of illegal guns, decide to participate in background checks and decline to sell the gun.

Since you can't do that, the point, even if true, is meaningless to the discussion.

It's like saying the solution to illegal drug use is more restrictions on pharmacies and taxes on prescription medication. Yes, it COULD stop them from getting them from pharmacies, but it doesn't do a thing about the already significant and established illegal drug trade and it places a big financial burden on 100+mm legal purchasers of prescription medication.

(09-11-2019 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And Ham, I bring up Warren because I actually looked up her policy positions as part of this debate, when I was being told that no Dem wants to propose any position but ones that would curb one's ability to own a gun.

and yet you then went on to demonstrate that this is precisely what her position is.

Illegal purchasers of guns and their suppliers won't comply with her proposal. Legal gun purchasers already comply with them... and you'd be restricting their ability (or increasing their liability) for owning one, legally. I'd note that there is more to ownership of something than the ability to hold it. There is also the ability to sell it.

(09-11-2019 01:12 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-11-2019 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In what world it it a red herring to say that the current law requiring background checks be completed by gun dealers worked, when, in fact, a gun dealer did not sell to the Midland shooter because he failed a background check???

Sorry, couldn't really get past that astonishing statement at the start.

The guy still bought a gun, right? Would you not admit that MOST convicted felons wouldn't even TRY and buy a gun from someone requiring a background check? Yet they still get them

It's a red-herring for the very obvious and demonstrable FACT that as I said, it is a solution in search of a problem. You believe this will curtail illegal purchases, and you found a situation where it delayed one... and you then jumped to the conclusion that if we just did it more often, we would do even better... despite the FACT that the method for people like this ISN'T to keep trying until they pass, but to either KNOW they will fail and not go that route, or fail and then go another route.

I feel I pretty accurately described why I called it a red-herring. Perhaps you are merely unfamiliar with the reference. A red herring is something intended to distract, and that is what this is. It is intended to 'prove' something that it can't possibly prove... That background checks keep people from getting guns. They very clearly did NOT do so here... and only would (your distraction) if you could have somehow made an illegal manufacturer and illegal seller of illegal guns, decide to participate in background checks and decline to sell the gun.

Since you can't do that, the point, even if true, is meaningless to the discussion.

It's like saying the solution to illegal drug use is more restrictions on pharmacies and taxes on prescription medication. Yes, it COULD stop them from getting them from pharmacies, but it doesn't do a thing about the already significant and established illegal drug trade and it places a big financial burden on 100+mm legal purchasers of prescription medication.

(09-11-2019 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And Ham, I bring up Warren because I actually looked up her policy positions as part of this debate, when I was being told that no Dem wants to propose any position but ones that would curb one's ability to own a gun.

and yet you then went on to demonstrate that this is precisely what her position is.

Illegal purchasers of guns and their suppliers won't comply with her proposal. Legal gun purchasers already comply with them... and you'd be restricting their ability (or increasing their liability) for owning one, legally. I'd note that there is more to ownership of something than the ability to hold it. There is also the ability to sell it.

Ham, I can't tell if you're misinterpreting what I said, or you're really hankering for an argument.

Once Tanq clarified the issue surrounding how the Midland gun was procured, and that the seller was not a private seller, but an illegal manufacturer/seller, my assessment of the situation changed. That comment I made about the effectiveness of background checks was with respect to licensed gun dealers, not on the effect/effectiveness of expanding background checks to cover private sellers.

That comment is not meaningless to the discussion, as you suggest it is, because the discussion was about what current/proposed laws could have stopped this mass shooting, and the current law kept a gun out of the shooter's hands for years. So it seems completely germane to comment on whether the current background law does keep guns out of people who are flagged in the system...

And to your final comment about Warren, are you arguing that increasing the enforcement of current laws about illegal sellers/manufacturers is actually a position the equates to increasing gun control? I can't tell, because you say they won't comply with her proposal, but the whole point of that policy proposal is that authorities have more support to go after people breaking the law.

In a tangential line, simply due to the ongoing fundamental debate on the efficacy of 'thing control' or 'action control' (i.e. guns kill people so restrict guns or people kill people with guns so lets actually enforce the laws), I saw this news of a tweet from the NY Times.

The Grey Lady has since pulled the tweet, for obvious reasons, but I laud the NY Times for being consistent in their viewpoint on that meta subject, however much I disagree, and however much I am disgusted by the tweet. Or maybe the Grey Lady now believes the premise of Stephen King's novel Maximum Overdrive to be concrete fact.



In that vein, I have to give Ilhan Omar better marks for her characterization of the event, since at least she put people (however nameless) as the drivers of the event with her 'Some people did something' remark.