• 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!

Washington Post Falls for ISIS Propaganda on Guns

Bodhisattva said:
Wrong. Since the seller does not know the intent of the buyer... for all common sense and logical purposes the purchase of the guns was legal. The buyer could have intended to buy them for another to use legally... for another to use illegal... or to buy them for another but then turn around and not do so. In any case... the purchase was legal. This "straw purchase" is a technical loophole that gun owners use to say... "hey, it was a straw purchase so gee... that doesn't count"
Click to expand...

Yet it was illegal enough that he was charged with doing so.
 
Chillfolks said:
The car analogy is terrible, but personally would love to argue the points of that some day.

Do you have a solution to close the loophole without infringing on someone's rights?
Click to expand...

No. The loophole to make it illegal isn't even bad... it is good. The point is that the original purchase was legal.

This issue is almost worse than abortion. All the lying and twisting of facts to make some stupid point.

Abortion kills a baby. Guns legally purchased are legally purchased. Who cares? Just admit facts.
 
Bodhisattva said:
No. The loophole to make it illegal isn't even bad... it is good. The point is that the original purchase was legal.

This issue is almost worse than abortion. All the lying and twisting of facts to make some stupid point.

Abortion kills a baby. Guns legally purchased are legally purchased. Who cares? Just admit facts.
Click to expand...


No the original purchase was not legal.

You seem to be arguing criminals don't obey the laws. That I agree with.

In still interested in what if any ideas you have on closing what you see as a"loophole".
 
Bodhisattva said:
Then why did they sell him the guns?
Click to expand...

Because criminals lie about their intentions. Are you advocating needing to take a polygraph before exercising your rights?
 
Chillfolks said:
Because criminals lie about their intentions. Are you advocating needing to take a polygraph before exercising your rights?
Click to expand...

The point is that you can't say something is illegal after the fact. Buying the gun was legal. Giving it to a person who used it illegally was the illegal action.

Differentiation... not gun owners friend.
 
Bodhisattva said:
The point is that you can't say something is illegal after the fact. Buying the gun was legal. Giving it to a person who used it illegally was the illegal action.

Differentiation... not gun owners friend.
Click to expand...

Had the person purchasing the gun not committed a crime and lied you would be correct. But he did do that so that made the purchase illegal Then selling it or giving it away only added to the list of crimes committed.


If you think the relying on a persons honesty in gun purchaes sucks a d needs changing fine. Like I said I'm interested In your opinions.
Its just getting old you refusing to recognise the illegal purchase because you disagree with the current laws thereby misrepresenting it as legal.
 
Chillfolks said:
Had the person purchasing the gun not committed a crime and lied you would be correct. But he did do that so that made the purchase illegal Then selling it or giving it away only added to the list of crimes committed.


If you think the relying on a persons honesty in gun purchaes sucks a d needs changing fine. Like I said I'm interested In your opinions.
Its just getting old you refusing to recognise the illegal purchase because you disagree with the current laws thereby misrepresenting it as legal.
Click to expand...

It is illegal. Yes. It is only illegal because the gun lobby lobbied the issue in order to skew statistics. The gun was purchased. It should be legal. What should be illegal is giving the gun to somebody for illegal purposes. But that would show that legally purchased guns were used in illegal activities... it is a dishonest two-step of the NRA and I think that you know that. Will you admit this?
 
BretJ said:
A straw purchase is not a legal purchase. Pretty simple. The asshat has been charged and will hopefully see jail time. If it were a legal purchase, why was he charged with making a straw purchase? He lied when purchasing the firearms which makes it an illegal purchase. Sheesh...:roll: Once again, you show yourself unwilling or too proud to accept rebuttal or correction. Not an admirable trait.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the San Bernadino rifles being legally obtained. The two knew just what to do to get the weapons they needed for their terrorist attack.
 
JLee1977 said:
Getting your facts from the NYTimes is your first problem! They also reported that the shooter was a white male, in his late 20's! They got that wrong as well. Try again!
Click to expand...

I'm talking about a different scenario; you might try reading what I'm writing.
 
jet57 said:
I was talking about the San Bernadino rifles being legally obtained. The two knew just what to do to get the weapons they needed for their terrorist attack.
Click to expand...

Jet....are you able to graciously and humbly accept being corrected? The San Bernardino shooters obtained the rifles illegally through a straw purchase and then illegally modified them despite California law. The sale was illegal therefore he was arrested. Had they personally walked into the store and purchased them then you would be correct.
 
jet57 said:
I'm talking about a different scenario; you might try reading what I'm writing.
Click to expand...

If I walk into a gun shop with the intent of purchasing firearms for a person who can not legally purchase a firearm themselves, that is a straw sale which is 10 years in prison for me, and 10 years in prison for the recipient of those weapons. Nothing about those firearms used were legal!
 
Bodhisattva said:
The point is that you can't say something is illegal after the fact. Buying the gun was legal. Giving it to a person who used it illegally was the illegal action.

Differentiation... not gun owners friend.
Click to expand...

Use afterwards has nothing to do with the definition of a straw purchase. When the first guy bought the gun for the shooter, he committed a straw purchase. When he actually transferred it, that was an illegal transfer according to CA law. When the shooter killed people, he became an accomplice.

See Abramski v. United States. In this case, a policeman purchased a firearm from a blue label gun dealer at a police discount and sold it to his uncle, which was the entire purpose of the transaction. The policeman purchased the gun from the dealer, and sold it to his uncle who underwent a background check for transfer. It was legal for the nephew to sell guns to the uncle. The uncle was not a prohibitted person and could legally buy a gun. The transaction occurred at an FFL with a federal firearm licensee conducting the NICS background check. The only crime that occurred was when the cop actually purchased the firearm with the intent of selling it to his uncle, a lawful citizen. That crime occurred at the point of sale, not at the transfer.

Given your criteria, no crime occurred. However, SCOTUS disagrees with you. Again.
 
jet57 said:
I was talking about the San Bernadino rifles being legally obtained. The two knew just what to do to get the weapons they needed for their terrorist attack.
Click to expand...

They were not legally obtained. A straw purchased occurred at the moment of purchase. That's a felony.
 
Rucker61 said:
Use afterwards has nothing to do with the definition of a straw purchase. When the first guy bought the gun for the shooter, he committed a straw purchase. When he actually transferred it, that was an illegal transfer according to CA law. When the shooter killed people, he became an accomplice.

See Abramski v. United States. In this case, a policeman purchased a firearm from a blue label gun dealer at a police discount and sold it to his uncle, which was the entire purpose of the transaction. The policeman purchased the gun from the dealer, and sold it to his uncle who underwent a background check for transfer. It was legal for the nephew to sell guns to the uncle. The uncle was not a prohibitted person and could legally buy a gun. The transaction occurred at an FFL with a federal firearm licensee conducting the NICS background check. The only crime that occurred was when the cop actually purchased the firearm with the intent of selling it to his uncle, a lawful citizen. That crime occurred at the point of sale, not at the transfer.

Given your criteria, no crime occurred. However, SCOTUS disagrees with you. Again.
Click to expand...

I don't care what SCOTUS says... I care about logic and common sense.

Geez... SCOTUS said discrimination was LEGAL! :lol:

Rucker61 said:
They were not legally obtained. A straw purchased occurred at the moment of purchase. That's a felony.
Click to expand...

Just an NRA and gun lobby passed law to make it so legally purchased guns do not make the statistics... totally dishonest.
 
JLee1977 said:
If I walk into a gun shop with the intent of purchasing firearms for a person who can not legally purchase a firearm themselves, that is a straw sale which is 10 years in prison for me, and 10 years in prison for the recipient of those weapons. Nothing about those firearms used were legal!
Click to expand...

Just an NRA and gun lobby passed law to make it so legally purchased guns do not make the statistics... totally dishonest.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I don't care what SCOTUS says... I care about logic and common sense.

Geez... SCOTUS said discrimination was LEGAL! :lol:
Click to expand...

Then it is legal. The issue with Abramski is that prior to this case the law on straw purchases only made purchases to sell to prohibited persons illegal. This included legal gun purchasers in the definition.

Just an NRA and gun lobby passed law to make it so legally purchased guns do not make the statistics... totally dishonest.
Click to expand...

The NRA was on Abramski's side.

"The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund participated in the case before the Supreme Court by filing a friend of the court brief. The brief emphasized the lack of statutory authority for the “actual buyer” question at issue in the case. It also argued that the government’s position in the case ignored the fact that Congress’ intent in enacting the GCA was to prevent the transfer to and possession of firearms by persons Congress had statutorily classified as “potentially irresponsible and dangerous.” On the other hand, the brief noted, “Congress did not intend to per se prohibit the purchase of a firearm by an individual on behalf of another.” The brief additionally pointed out BATFE’s own inconsistent interpretations of whether the purchase of a firearm by one party on behalf of another constitutes an illegal straw purchase when neither is a prohibited person."

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...aw-purchase-rules-in-abramski-v-united-states
 
Rucker61 said:
Then it is legal. The issue with Abramski is that prior to this case the law on straw purchases only made purchases to sell to prohibited persons illegal. This included legal gun purchasers in the definition.



The NRA was on Abramski's side.

"The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund participated in the case before the Supreme Court by filing a friend of the court brief. The brief emphasized the lack of statutory authority for the “actual buyer” question at issue in the case. It also argued that the government’s position in the case ignored the fact that Congress’ intent in enacting the GCA was to prevent the transfer to and possession of firearms by persons Congress had statutorily classified as “potentially irresponsible and dangerous.” On the other hand, the brief noted, “Congress did not intend to per se prohibit the purchase of a firearm by an individual on behalf of another.” The brief additionally pointed out BATFE’s own inconsistent interpretations of whether the purchase of a firearm by one party on behalf of another constitutes an illegal straw purchase when neither is a prohibited person."

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...aw-purchase-rules-in-abramski-v-united-states
Click to expand...

I guess we should just be happy with whatever SCOTUS says... :roll:

:lol:
 
Bodhisattva said:
It is illegal. Yes. It is only illegal because the gun lobby lobbied the issue in order to skew statistics. The gun was purchased. It should be legal. What should be illegal is giving the gun to somebody for illegal purposes. But that would show that legally purchased guns were used in illegal activities... it is a dishonest two-step of the NRA and I think that you know that. Will you admit this?
Click to expand...


I think you are giving the evil NRA conspiracy too much credit. The law seems to be shielding gun shop owners from sue happy anti gun lawyers. I'm not a huge fan because it treats this and a nephew getting his uncle a good deal (Both could legally own ans purchase) virtually the same. I think it's past time to rethink the current laws.
 
TurtleDude said:
get an AR 15 since the parts and the ammo is in good supply. Then if the military goes to another weapon, get the closest civilian version. If Trump and his justices do their duty, we should be able to buy, freely, the same rifles our tax dollars supply the military with. I don't know how one can read MILLER v USA any other way
Click to expand...

I need to go and read that, thanks.

I also heard that suppressors will be easier to get soon. I hope so, I like quiet.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Did the person that buy them buy them legally... yes. He then handed them over to another... that is the illegal aspect, not the purchase. He legally purchased the guns.
Click to expand...

The person buying the weapons was not the shooter.

Bodhisattva said:
Not in the slightest...
Click to expand...

Nope....totally corrected and now you have been as well. Both you and jet57, are wrong.

Bodhisattva said:
Wrong. Since the seller does not know the intent of the buyer... for all common sense and logical purposes the purchase of the guns was legal. The buyer could have intended to buy them for another to use legally... for another to use illegal... or to buy them for another but then turn around and not do so. In any case... the purchase was legal. This "straw purchase" is a technical loophole that gun owners use to say... "hey, it was a straw purchase so gee... that doesn't count"
Click to expand...

I would say you don't know what you are talking about. The focus here is on the shooter, he did not buy them or receive them legally, so the weapons he used were illegal. They were also modified, making them more illegal. Had he lived, he would have been charged with many counts of illegal firearms. Since he didn't, justice was served even better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom