• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun enthusiasts threaten woman for marketing 'safer gun'[W:196]

Re: Gun enthusiasts threaten woman for marketing 'safer gun'

You are splitting hairs via terminology. A the end of the day, I bet these sales are exempt a back ground check:

-Sales conduced by somebody who does not have an FFL- and
this person sells less than about twenty weapons per year.


Let me educate you as to gun laws

for most of our nation's history, people buying guns were presumed to be lawful citizens-and no background check was required. In 1993, after years of Sarah Brady's yapping (about a guy who would have passed the check and still shot her husband) the Brady Bill was passed. Congress ONLY applied this law to licensed gun dealers for TWO REASONS

1) federally licensed firearms dealers hold a FEDERAL license that makes them subject to numerous record keeping requirements. Since they can receive firearms within interstate commerce, they are subject to federal regulations based on the FDR expansion of the commerce clause

2) congress specifically DECLINED to make private sellers-who by federal law-CANNOT SELL GUNS INTER-STATE exempt from this new law.

a) because private sellers do not have to keep records
b) because private sellers may well be held not to be within the purview of the commerce clause as expanded by FDR

so its NOT A LOOPHOLE. the standard model for most of our country's history is NO BACKGROUND CHECKS

so you are incorrect when you call it a loophole.

IT IS THE FFL that created federal jurisdiction to demand the background check
 
Re: Gun enthusiasts threaten woman for marketing 'safer gun'

2) congress specifically DECLINED to make private sellers-who by federal law-CANNOT SELL GUNS INTER-STATE exempt from this new law.

a) because private sellers do not have to keep records
b) because private sellers may well be held not to be within the purview of the commerce clause as expanded by FDR

If such an expansion would be unconstitutional, then why does the NRA oppose it? Why not just let it pass and put the onus on the courts to over turn it?

My guess is that if Congress passed a law requiring back ground checks on all weapons sales, such a move would stand constitutionally. The NRA is just opposed anything that might inhibit even a few gun sales.
 
Re: Gun enthusiasts threaten woman for marketing 'safer gun'

If such an expansion would be unconstitutional, then why does the NRA oppose it? Why not just let it pass and put the onus on the courts to over turn it?
My guess is that if Congress passed a law requiring back ground checks on all weapons sales, such a move would stand constitutionally. The NRA is just opposed anything that might inhibit even a few gun sales.


Seriously? The NRA opposes crap that violates our rights on guns. I should not be covered by an affirmative duty to conduct a BGC of my brother or my former federal law enforcement colleague if I give them a gun

also-this call for a Universal background check won't work (the brady bill has not decreased crime) and when it won't, the anti gunners will claim we "need" registration in order to enforce this stupid law

are you aware of the fact that if a CRIMINAL has a gun he cannot be forced to do the background check?
 
Re: Gun enthusiasts threaten woman for marketing 'safer gun'

Seriously? The NRA opposes crap that violates our rights on guns.

No, the NRA opposes a lot of things that inhibit gun sales and profits. They then try to make "things that inhibit profits" and "things that are not constitutional" into synonyms. They are not automatically synonyms. People are starting to realize this.

If you don't want to do a background check on your brother or friend- don't give him the weapon, just let him borrow it. I imagine that some people would do just that. But dealers selling to strangers are not inclined to let them borrow things.

And yes, I am aware that criminals who currently have weapons are not going to do back ground checks. A universal check, however, would impact future sales to criminals.
 
Re: Gun enthusiasts threaten woman for marketing 'safer gun'

No, the NRA opposes a lot of things that inhibit gun sales and profits. They then try to make "things that inhibit profits" and "things that are not constitutional" into synonyms. They are not automatically synonyms. People are starting to realize this.

If you don't want to do a background check on your brother or friend- don't give him the weapon, just let him borrow it. I imagine that some people would do just that. But dealers selling to strangers are not inclined to let them borrow things.

And yes, I am aware that criminals who currently have weapons are not going to do back ground checks. A universal check, however, would impact future sales to criminals.

I am not going to waste much time on refuting the talking points left wing seminar posters are given to use against the NRA. You don't know much about the laws that your talking points champion. the Brady bill was not found-by any study-to impact crime rates at all. So why would a background requirement that is almost impossible to enforce have better luck

I sell one of my best friends a Beretta 92 (that is the commercial version of the US military handgun) I have owned for 15 years. How are the feds going to prove that I didn't comply with the background check. All they can prove is that I bought that gun from "Shooters Supply Shop" in Loveland Ohio (a turtle endorsed business BTW) in 1999. My friend isn't going to say and neither am I. If the law is effective January 1, 2015, the sale obviously happened BEFORE THAT and without registration HTF can they prove otherwise.

and criminals are exempted with complying with ANY LAW THAT WOULD FORCE THEM TO INCRIMINATE themselves

so tell me how is this law going to do anything positive?
 
Re: Gun enthusiasts threaten woman for marketing 'safer gun'

Every argument you've ever made in defense of any gun control scam proves that you oppose the Second Amendment.

Link to one, then. Shouldn't be hard, if the evidence is so abundant.
 
'Gun enthusiasts' threaten woman for selling a safer gun

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/us/politics/smart-firearm-draws-wrath-of-the-gun-lobby.html?_r=0

Posted a couple of links. How sad is it that the NRA opposes technology that would limit the usage of handguns?

In the words of the NRA, this might lead to "opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology."

Except that no one at this point is even suggesting this technology be government mandated. Given the millions of legal guns currently in circulation, I am not even certain that such a requirement could even be technically or logistically feasible, let alone desirable.

But... leaving that aside for a moment, how deluded are people if they think that this is the beginning of some kind of gun-armageddon? No one is suggesting you give up normal guns, no one is suggesting that we get rid of them. This is just one way of protecting people from gun-related accidents and tragedies. In the words of the Daily Kos article,

You don't get it, do you?

The 2nd Amendment was included in the constitution to protect our freedom

Like the freedom to threaten a businesswoman because wingnuts don't like the product she's selling
 
Re: Gun enthusiasts threaten woman for marketing 'safer gun'

So why would a background requirement that is almost impossible to enforce have better luck

For all gun retailers, you would perform a background check prior to completing the transaction. No background check = no weapon sold. How is that impossible to enforce?

I sell one of my best friends a Beretta 92 (that is the commercial version of the US military handgun) I have owned for 15 years. How are the feds going to prove that I didn't comply with the background check.

It's harmless, until your friend (or someone else's friend) becomes the next Adam Lanza. Then, when they track the handgun and find, oh ****, it's registered to you, the cops are gonna come after you, wanting to know how and why your friend got your gun. Since the registration can't change hands without the background check, the gun would still be registered to you, and you can be held liable for anything he does with it. It's a responsibility measure - when law-abiding gun owners find that they can be busted for failing to secure their weapons, they will take more care with them (including who they loan them out to). Thus, less guns in the hands of bad guys, because it becomes harder for them to acquire them. If you can't buy a gun commercially, and you can't buy a gun at a gunshow, and you don't know anyone willing to loan out their weapons, how exactly do bad guys get guns? It's possible, sure, but it becomes a lot harder and a lot more expensive.
 
Re: Gun enthusiasts threaten woman for marketing 'safer gun'

For all gun retailers, you would perform a background check prior to completing the transaction. No background check = no weapon sold. How is that impossible to enforce?



It's harmless, until your friend (or someone else's friend) becomes the next Adam Lanza. Then, when they track the handgun and find, oh ****, it's registered to you, the cops are gonna come after you, wanting to know how and why your friend got your gun. Since the registration can't change hands without the background check, the gun would still be registered to you, and you can be held liable for anything he does with it. It's a responsibility measure - when law-abiding gun owners find that they can be busted for failing to secure their weapons, they will take more care with them (including who they loan them out to). Thus, less guns in the hands of bad guys, because it becomes harder for them to acquire them. If you can't buy a gun commercially, and you can't buy a gun at a gunshow, and you don't know anyone willing to loan out their weapons, how exactly do bad guys get guns? It's possible, sure, but it becomes a lot harder and a lot more expensive.

or here is a thought, criminals sometimes purchase their guns leagally.
 
Re: Gun enthusiasts threaten woman for marketing 'safer gun'

or here is a thought, criminals sometimes purchase their guns leagally.

Currently, yes, because of the gun show loophole (among others). What is being proposed is to further narrow the ability of would-be criminals to purchase guns. Have a violent felony on record? No gun. History of mental illness? No gun. Domestic violence conviction? No gun. Currently, not all weapons sold in the US are subject to a background check. The proposed law would require a background check before the successful completion of a firearms purchase, thus minimizing the likelihood of a criminal getting a gun legally. Then it becomes much harder for a would-be criminal to obtain a firearm, which does impact crime rate. States with broader background check laws also enjoy lower gun violence rates, on average. Guns with minimal gun safety laws enjoy higher gun violence rates. It's simple statistics.
 
Re: Gun enthusiasts threaten woman for marketing 'safer gun'

It's harmless, until your friend (or someone else's friend) becomes the next Adam Lanza.
Lanza stol that rifle after killing it's owner, who did pass a backround check when she bought it, he didn't buy it privately.
 
Re: Gun enthusiasts threaten woman for marketing 'safer gun'

Currently, yes, because of the gun show loophole (among others).
That's not a loophole.
Loophole
: a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded

The original intent of Gun Control Act and FOPA did not include a desire to run a backround check on every single gun sale ever. The rule only applied to FFL holders. No FFL mean no expectation to perform a background check. Likewise you don't need to use a licensed auto dealer to sell your car.

Gun control only makes crime worse.
 
Re: Gun enthusiasts threaten woman for marketing 'safer gun'

You are completely missing the point... This is not a government inspired or mandated technology... This was manufactured by someone in the private market, for use on the private market. If a government agency were to purchase these guns, they would be supporting private enterprise and doing so in a way that would control the use of state weapons.
I believe the concern is that some in the government might try to mandate it. Personally...I think they are far more likely to continue with bans than this.

As a defensive weapon it makes no sense. You have to load in a 5 digit code into the watch before you can use it. You cant switch hands if need be. You cant shoot weak hand with this weapon. All presuming of course everything works. More than worried about the weapon itself I would be worried about the announced DoJ finanical incentives to develop more of these types of weapons.
 
Re: Gun enthusiasts threaten woman for marketing 'safer gun'

For all gun retailers, you would perform a background check prior to completing the transaction. No background check = no weapon sold. How is that impossible to enforce?



It's harmless, until your friend (or someone else's friend) becomes the next Adam Lanza. Then, when they track the handgun and find, oh ****, it's registered to you, the cops are gonna come after you, wanting to know how and why your friend got your gun. Since the registration can't change hands without the background check, the gun would still be registered to you, and you can be held liable for anything he does with it. It's a responsibility measure - when law-abiding gun owners find that they can be busted for failing to secure their weapons, they will take more care with them (including who they loan them out to). Thus, less guns in the hands of bad guys, because it becomes harder for them to acquire them. If you can't buy a gun commercially, and you can't buy a gun at a gunshow, and you don't know anyone willing to loan out their weapons, how exactly do bad guys get guns? It's possible, sure, but it becomes a lot harder and a lot more expensive.

how do you enforce it when two people don't want to be bothered with going to a gun shop and having the dealer (at a fee) run the background check


how are all those thugs in Chicago able to get guns? YOu seem to think the black market won't increase


Adam Lanza killed to get a gun-stupid analogy by you
 
You don't get it, do you?

The 2nd Amendment was included in the constitution to protect our freedom

Like the freedom to threaten a businesswoman because wingnuts don't like the product she's selling

more like the freedom of leftwing nuts to make such unsupported claims that she was threatened on leftwing disinformation sites like the NYT
 
Re: Gun enthusiasts threaten woman for marketing 'safer gun'

or here is a thought, criminals sometimes purchase their guns leagally.

actually that is correct if they are not a criminal at the time they buy the gun. If they buy a gun and they already have a felony, no they did not. If you have a clean record and buy a gun with the intent of using it for a crime-guess what-that is a felony
 
Re: Gun enthusiasts threaten woman for marketing 'safer gun'

It's harmless, until your friend (or someone else's friend) becomes the next Adam Lanza.

Then lets not allow each other to buy and sell cars, may sell one to a serial DUI convict.
 
Re: Gun enthusiasts threaten woman for marketing 'safer gun'

How is it not? If only one accident is ever prevented because a gun refused to fire because the owner was not handling it, is it not worth it?


If we mandate safety equipment on cars that will be so expensive half of America can't afford a car, but it saves one life, will that be worth it?


After all, cars kill more people than guns.


(the answer is no)
 
Re: Gun enthusiasts threaten woman for marketing 'safer gun'

or here is a thought, criminals sometimes purchase their guns leagally.
Felons never purchase a gun legally. It is against federal law(not to get into the constitutionality of it at this point, just the law) for a felon to even handle a firearm. Whether a felon has a person straw buy for them(separate felony for the straw buyer, multiple felonies from "in possession" to "conspiracy" to federal perjury for both the felon and straw buyer), a black market sale is illegal, purchasing is a felony. Knowingly selling to a felon is a felony, there is nothing illegal about selling unknowingly to a prohibited person unless you are an FFL.
 
‘Smart’ Firearm Draws Wrath of the Gun Lobby

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — Belinda Padilla does not pick up unknown calls anymore, not since someone posted her cellphone number on an online forum for gun enthusiasts. A few fuming-mad voice mail messages and heavy breathers were all it took.

Then someone snapped pictures of the address where she has a P.O. box and put those online, too. In a crude, cartoonish scrawl, this person drew an arrow to the blurred image of a woman passing through the photo frame. “Belinda?” the person wrote. “Is that you?”

Her offense? Trying to market and sell a new .22-caliber handgun that uses a radio frequency-enabled stopwatch to identify the authorized user so no one else can fire it. Ms. Padilla and the manufacturer she works for, Armatix, intended to make the weapon the first “smart gun” for sale in the United States.

Some of the very same people who tout the free market, and hate government control, are against someone buying a gun that will only fire for them and nobody else, and who are threatening her for making a gun like this? This is insane. I think smart guns are in our future.

Look, I am all for the Second Amendment, and I support it strongly. I believe that a person should have as many guns as they want. For those who want a gun that cannot be fired if stolen, this is a good choice. For those others, who are afraid that the technology might allow the government to know who owns a gun, and what kind of gun, I have a very simple solution for you. Don't buy one. You have just as much of a right to a gun without the technology as she has to manufacture and sell one that does have the technology. It's the free market, dumbasses!!

Article is here.
 
Re: ‘Smart’ Firearm Draws Wrath of the Gun Lobby

The very same people who tout the free market are against someone buying a gun that will only fire for them and nobody else?

Nonsense. The gun will fire for anyone with the watch or a freq hack.
 
Re: ‘Smart’ Firearm Draws Wrath of the Gun Lobby

Nonsense. The gun will fire for anyone with the watch or a freq hack.

From the article...

Armatix said it had an agreement with the Oak Tree Gun Club, a large gun range and retailer about 20 minutes north of Los Angeles, to sell its iP1 pistol, which can be fired only after the owner enters a five-digit PIN into a watch that transmits a signal to the gun. The gun, which retails for about $1,800, disables itself if it is more than 10 inches from the watch.

Hacking it, while not impossible, would be quite difficult, and for the average gun thief, impossible. The gun does provide a pretty hefty level of security. And, like I said before, if someone does not like that feature, they don't have to buy the gun.
 
Re: ‘Smart’ Firearm Draws Wrath of the Gun Lobby

From the article...
Armatix said it had an agreement with the Oak Tree Gun Club, a large gun range and retailer about 20 minutes north of Los Angeles, to sell its iP1 pistol, which can be fired only after the owner enters a five-digit PIN into a watch that transmits a signal to the gun. The gun, which retails for about $1,800, disables itself if it is more than 10 inches from the watch.
Wow. Someone has seconds to act and can't remember their damn pin. :doh
Yeah, not really good Idea.

Hacking it, while not impossible, would be quite difficult, and for the average gun thief, impossible. The gun does provide a pretty hefty level of security. And, like I said before, if someone does not like that feature, they don't have to buy the gun.
Just thinking of possibilities.

Hackers who choose this path can access pretty much anything wireless.
Vehicles, baby monitors, CC information, rfid.
I can't see that being any different for a micro-chipped gun.
They sweep the neighborhood to see who has one, to avoid or to steal.
Making it a requirement may not be such a great idea.
 
Re: ‘Smart’ Firearm Draws Wrath of the Gun Lobby

Wow. Someone has seconds to act and can't remember their damn pin. :doh
Yeah, not really good Idea.

Just thinking of possibilities.

Hackers who choose this path can access pretty much anything wireless.
Vehicles, baby monitors, CC information, rfid.
I can't see that being any different for a micro-chipped gun.
They sweep the neighborhood to see who has one, to avoid or to steal.
Making it a requirement may not be such a great idea.

That is the choice of the buyer, and not yours to make.
 
Back
Top Bottom