Understanding The NRA Skittishness Over The Gun Show Loophole

Of all the gun control issues, head of the NRA Wayne LaPierre has the least power over non-dealer gun show background checks, which is precisely why Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy began the Senate hearing there.

  • Share
  • Read Later
BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP / Getty Images

Committee chairman Senator Patrick Leahy, speaks during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill Jan. 30, 2013 in Washington, D.C.

The most telling part of Wednesday’s Senate hearing about guns came at the start, in an exchange between Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy and Wayne LaPierre, the head of the National Rifle Association. Leahy wanted to know whether LaPierre would agree to an expansion of the current federal background check system to include gun purchases at gun shows from non-licensed dealers. LaPierre did appear to not want to answer the question. Here is the transcript:

LEAHY: Do you still, as you did in 1999, still support mandatory background checks at gun shows? Yes or no?

LAPIERRE: We supported the National Instant Check System on dealers. I — we were here when Senator Birch Bayh, one of your colleagues, held the hearings in terms of who would be a dealer and who would be required to have a license. If you did it for livelihood and profit, yes. If you were a hobbyist, then no.

LEAHY: Let’s make — let’s make it easier, though. I’m talking about gun shows. Should we have mandatory background checks at gun shows for sales of weapons?

LAPIERRE: If you’re a dealer, that’s already the law. If you’re talking…

LEAHY: That’s not my question. Please, Mr. LaPierre, I’m not trying to play games here. But, if you could, just answer my question.

LAPIERRE: Senator, I do not believe the way the law is working now, unfortunately, that it does any good to extend the law to private sales between hobbyists and collectors.

LEAHY: OK, so you do not support mandatory background checks in all instances at gun shows?

LAPIERRE: We do not, because the fact is, the law right now is a failure the way it’s working. The fact is, you have 76,000-some people that have been denied under the present law. Only 44 were prosecuted. You’re letting them go. They’re walking the streets.

Read the exchange again. When LaPierre eventually gets to the point of answering the question, after three attempts by Leahy, the head of the NRA has changed the subject. Instead of talking about non-dealer gun show sales, he starts talking about the failure of the federal government to prosecute criminals after they have been denied an opportunity to purchase a gun. Because of this, he says, the background system of dealers, which he still supports, failing, and therefore should not be extended. The argument is not entirely logical. (He admits the dealer checks are effective in preventing gun sales, even if criminals are not prosecuted for their attempts.) But it is textbook LaPierre.

And there is a good reason. As it now stands, the most likely new gun control legislation to pass Congress in the coming years would be an extension of the background check system to include gun show purchases from non-dealers, a relatively small category of gun sales. Many moderate Democrats support it, significant percentages of his own membership support it, and members of the NRA’s board of directors are willing to entertain the idea. “That at least is conceptually possible,” NRA President David Keene, who sat behind LaPierre at the hearing, told me just a few weeks ago, after mentioning one way of facilitating those checks by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. “The ATF could have a booth there,” Keene told me about gun shows, explaining that non-dealers would just approach the booth to run a check on purchasers before a sale was completed.

David Keene NRA President

Michael Bonfigli/The Christian Science Monitor

National Rifle Association President David Keene sits down with reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, DC on January, 31 2013.

More recently, Keene has backed away from that position. At a breakfast with reporters on Thursday, Keene also sidestepped questions about closing the loophole, whatever the true size, by arguing that the system was flawed—so there’s no point in expanding its jurisdiction. Keene said that the NRA does support expansion of the background check system in one area: to include those people who have been deemed dangerous due to mental health problems. He said that firearms aren’t “the root cause” of the gun violence problem: America’s flawed mental health system is. That pivot toward the discussion of mental health issues was a move pundits expected in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown, Conn., shooting that left 26 dead.

Before Congress Wednesday, LaPierre was not willing to give ground. His response is part of two-part larger strategy that the NRA has employed for nearly a decade: Cast all increased regulation of guns as a step on the slippery slope to the Second Amendment Armageddon, and attempt as much as possible to elevate the cultural and emotional issues at the heart of the gun control debate.

It has mostly been working, even as public concern over guns has been growing. As political sport, the debate over guns in recent months has been wonderful to watch. The NRA has poked and prodded at all the emotional buttons in this debate, outraging liberals, encouraging talk radio hosts, swelling its own membership and refocusing the debate on the terrain where they have the most power: The cultural division between those parts of the country where gun ownership is routine and those parts of the country where guns are a scourge.

By contrast, LaPierre has the least power on the issue of non-dealer gun show background checks. And that is why Leahy began his questioning there. And why LaPierre had so much trouble answering the question.

Additional reporting by Katy Steinmetz.

846 comments
drudown
drudown

The NRA's obstinate refusal to even entertain reasonable revisions to gun laws underscores how special interests can be as obstructionist as the party beholden to them. 

goo
goo

Hmmmmmmmm seems like I read an old story back when I was younger about two brothers. One of them had become so hungry that he sold his birth rights to the other brother....lol Boy did that cause some family problems. 

  So now I have my fellow American brother's that are calling themselves "We the people" that's trying to get me to give up my birth rights (Bill of Rights). lol people sure haven't changed have they.

Garzhad
Garzhad

I would only accept universal background checks if there were protections in place to prevent it from being a gun 'registry'; make it a simple check, followed by a yea or nay,  nothing more, no registering names, serial numbers, any of that.

goo
goo

Republic is  a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power.

The Republic of the USA has the people not their elected representatives possessing that power. Other republics are the opposite, like China's communism that does use democracy to vote in their leaders but that democracy is only practiced within the Chinese Communists Party. They vote in their leaders through the Communist party and the people have no say. 

goo
goo

Innocent until proven guilty!

Gun Owners>>>> guilty until proven innocent.

goo
goo

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.         Why don't you law lover's understand the words "shall not be infringed" We the People of the Bill of Rights do not here the whims and lies being perpetrated by the likes of domestic and international War Criminals. Clean up your government, Supreme Court, Congress and the Presidency and understand that the separation of powers means that the Bill of Rights are to be separate from those powers. Do the people serve those democracy institutes or do those institutes serve the peoples Republic of the USA. I pledged allegiance to a flag that represents the REPUBLIC not a DEMON-A-CRACY that thinks it can vote in any law altering the 2nd Amendment and Bill of rights. Want to change the 2nd Amendment then introduce an Amendment to eliminate it.

I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

Not much Liberty or Justice for all going on in this country or with the groups that loves to make new laws that protect war criminals and then turns around and accuses gun owners of murder.

BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

Mental and moral illness can not be addressed by laws on guns. Regardless of how easy or hard you make it for the law abiding gun owner, any criminal who wants one will have one, it's too late to do anything about access to guns. Pretending that a new law will turn back the clock is delusional and will not do a thing to help the situation. The logical conclusion is to do something about the PERSONS who misuse guns. Drunk drivers are the perfect example, we don't outlaw cars just because a few misuse them to create mayhem. We deal with the drunk driver not the drunk drivers car.

romerjt
romerjt

Your right, the fault is not with the 2nd Amd, the fault is with the laws that apply the amendment and with people like you who support the laws that allow this to happen , ,  and since this is free country I get to decide that for myself and you, lover of freedom and all that should respect it and not resort to childish name calling, being able to disagree without being disagreeable is essential in a free society . .  can you handle that?

DebMoschkin
DebMoschkin

Maybe we're approaching the issue from the wrong side. Why not issue "license to use," such as a license to drive, to those over a certain age? They'll take a written test and a shooting test and receive a license with their picture on it that expires every few years. Then when they go to a gun shop or gun show to purchase their firearm, they  have their license run through the licensing system. 

Use the same one we have for drivers. All the states already have the administrative end of it in place, and most, if not all, states have reciprocity with each other in their background check systems.

aztecian
aztecian

@goo having a bunch of inbred rednecks who bible thump and prep for some sort of doomsday is very scarey.  limiting their access to guns seems more than reasonable.  rethug-rednecks are just plain crazy and racist.  all we need are drunk rednecks running around in their monster trucks looking for targets.  time to finally stomp it out.

DebMoschkin
DebMoschkin

@Garzhad - How did you feel about that when the NRA agreed with universal background checks and why haven't I read anything about their membership rising up in protest?

electriczipper
electriczipper

@Garzhad How about some kind of tag on drivers licenses or state ID with the info of whether you're eligible to purchase firearms or not and maybe info concerning liquor problems so that bar tenders could monitor the sale of drinks and maybe tie it into some kind of breathalyzer with a time stamp capability so they could cover themselves in the case of a sneaky drunk who drinks after leaving then drives, wrecks, and kills. I would be more in favor of that than the very dangerous gun registration scheme they want.

aztecian
aztecian

@goo GOP...Gun-Owner's-Party...guilty by association.

hmlong
hmlong

@BobSheepleherder It's true. Lots of people used to be killed by drunk drivers. 

But we enacted stricter blood alcohol limits, raised the drinking age, ramped up law enforcement and penalties, charged bartenders that served drunks and launched a huge public awareness campaign to stigmatize the dangerous behavior in question... and all of those things have reduced drunk driving deaths by over 2/3's in just two decades.

In short, we did something about the problem.

I don't think anyone is under the illusion that we're going to stop all deaths by firearms. But we can enact some common sense measures that might in fact reduce the number of deaths that occur each and every year. 

Reduce gun deaths by the same percentage we've reduced those from drunk driving, and that's 20,000 people a year. Alive.

PaulGray
PaulGray

@romerjt Could you put an actual sentence together there? All I get from it is that you're angry.

BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

@DebMoschkin I agree that a system similar to this is the only workable option, as long as there are extremely strong safeguards on who can access the database, for certain specific purposes and only with a warrant. Today, that is not the case with drivers licenses. As long as there are no restrictions on access, I for one, would oppose such a system.

gmaki53
gmaki53

That is a decent idea, but in my state that is basically in place already. I have to retake my handgun safety training every 5 years (takes a day of my time and $125 fee). I get a concealed carry card with my photo, plus I have voluntarily provided fingerprints to the FBI and had a background check (additional $100 fee and has to be renewed every 5 years). To buy a pistol or "assault style" weapon at my local Gander Mountain store, I have to provide this concealed carry permit, or a permit to purchase issues by my local Sheriff dept. Then, if I want to carry in a neighboring state (my homestate which doesn't recognize the permit from my current state), I have to also pay for training and permit (more money) from another state that is recognized in my home state. Sounds like fun. I'm sure a criminal will gladly follow these sames rules.

When was the last time you had to register and pay a fee for a permit to exercise any of your rights...choice of religion, free speech, etc.?

I'm all for the gun show background checks. Licensed FFL dealers already are required to do them at gun shows. Trouble is, how to keep people from doing "back alley" transactions.

Arkius
Arkius

@DebMoschkin 

Why not just wake up and realize that you're being manipulated. 

This issue grew out of the Newtown shootings, specifically, Obama's ensuing, and inappropriate, political speech. 

All of the weapons used during that shooting were legally purchased and registered; therefore adequte and sufficient gun control was already in effect. What actually caused the shooting, and what Obama avoided mentioning, was that the weapons were not properly secured in a household were a mentally ill young man was living. 

Gun shows, and magazine capacity has nothing to do with this debate. The weapons that Adam Lanza used were purchased by his mother at a licensed dealership, and magazine can be rapidly changed; it is a non-starter. 

If you want to talk about this tragedy, then talk about the facts in hand. No exaggerations; no distortions, no misrepresentations; no gun shows, and no magazine capacity arguments.

goo
goo

@aztecian@gooYeah i used to think like you until I saw monkeys like you committing war crimes against humanity. Here below is an example of some of the LAWS coming from dead in the head monkeys like you. Since you obviously don't care if your own President signed an act that would detain AMERICAN CITIZENS with out due process of law and label them as terrorists plus help per-meditate the murders of over 1 million Human beings in Iraq alone. Take your wars of terrorism (War on people and own citizens), drugs (War on people and own citizens), patriot act (Suppression of citizens rights) and love of money and shove them up your demon-a-cratic demon-a-cracy lies, murders and LAW.  Your the Monsters and with your support YOU helped murder over a million people and call someone like me a Red Neck. Fool's are those that have been blinded by lies. Bill of Rights are RIGHTS...........not privileges that can be eliminated by laws. We are a Republic not a Democracy.......period. So take you ANTI-AMERICAN laws and fall.

hmlong
hmlong

@electriczipper @Garzhad  Thing is, if I'm selling a gun via a classified ad, online ad, or even as a non-FFL seller at a gun show, how am I supposed to know if the buyer is a responsible law-abiding gun owner... or a criminal?

Personally, I'm against the AWB. But I do think that any sale or transfer of a weapon, ammunition, or magazine, commercial or private, should pass through an authorized, regulated gun store or dealer, through your local police department, or through a BATFE representative and the appropriate form 4473 filed. 

And we already have protections in place to cover the 4473 process. Handle it the same way we do new gun sales, and no "national gun registry" is needed.

In fact, California and Rhode Island already has universal checks in place for private sales. You just take it to a dealer, the dealer does the check and files the 4473, and you're done.

And as far as I'm concerned, it's to your advantage to take it to a dealer anyway. Neutral ground, and you're not inviting a stranger who saw your ad into your home. I mean, what do you do if you do invite the guy into your home, run an internet-only check as some have proposed... and then find out the guy's a felon?

All said and done, I think we can do just a little bit more to help keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, the disturbed, kids, and others that shouldn't have them.

And that, in my opinion, is being a responsible law-abiding gun owner...

Garzhad
Garzhad

Also i'm not as pissed about background checks for passing weapons down to your kids as most people. Parents tend to be very, very stupid when it comes to their kids, coddling them, pretending that they are fine when they arn't, protecting them no matter what they do and not doing what needs to be done, like this Lanza nut case. She knew he was dangerous, and still kept weapons in the house, still coddled him, didn't have him committed when he should have been.

The first and biggest failure was that of Adam's own mother. If she'd have done what was right in the first place, had him put in an institution, kicked him out, or sold off/secured her firearms somewhere outside the house so he couldn't get them, 26 people would still be alive today. But no, instead of placing the blame on his mother for neglecting to do what is right, and Adam himself for pulling the trigger, they take their anger out on the tool he used and everyone else that uses them responsibly.

Garzhad
Garzhad

@electriczipper @Garzhad 

Smart licenses. Hmm. That... actually might have some merit. I mean, they already put organ donor status and stuff on there. Perhaps an icon of some sort that indicates a violent criminal or mental illness(I stress Violent mental illness, and this distinction needs to be made. Almost every person on this green earth will develop some 'mental problem' at some time, but most of these people arn't dangerous, their problems benign; they shouldn't be banned from owning a firearm for life for a simple phase we go through in this crazy life of ours) so that a gun dealer knows from the get go, and can respond appropriately.

Especially if the gun dealer reports them to the FBI for trying to buy a weapon, prompting an investigation or surveillance(since anyone that knows they are banned from buying a gun, and tries to buy one anyway, is probably trying to get it in order to inflict harm on someone with it)

goo
goo

@aztecian @goo I'm not GOP or DEMONCRAT. you have been so programed with deceit of lies and truth mixed together that you think all gun owners are all GOP? you people want to label everything on a foundation of B.S. instead of standing on the foundation of the Republic. Both parties have used lies and truth to screw up this nation. So your pretty much guilty by association yourself.

Why don't your groups get together, get the President to do an executive order demanding all schools get with their local police or sheriffs department so that they can place a police officer, sheriffs deputy or swat officer in every school to prevent any COPY CAT attacks. WHAT IDIOTS WOULD NOT PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN IN SUCH A WAY KNOWING THAT THERE WILL BE COPY CAT attacks. WHOOOOOOOOOOOOO. oh thats right the VENGENGE groups won't because they are too busy with backroom grab as*ing with each other and the only thing they did agree on was what to have for lunch.

   


BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

@hmlong @BobSheepleherder I agree that we did something about the problem. Common sense things. We didn't declare convertibles with cup holders that might be used to hold a beer, to be more dangerous than a  Chevy Nova. I am all for "common sense" rules. I just disagree that calling a black gun with a pistol grip an "assault rifle" is one of them.

romerjt
romerjt

@PaulGray @romerjt  The comment you're replying to was supposed to appear as a follow-up to another comment not a individual post, and lacks that context, thus appearing as you describe.

DebMoschkin
DebMoschkin

@BobSheepleherder - Why oppose it? Do you really think the average thug would be able to access a database such as this? I don't think that's a realistic argument.

MrObvious
MrObvious

@gmaki53 

You're doing everything right and kudos to you. I feel safer having someone like you around. As for gun rights compared to free speech, I get what you're saying. It's is a simplistic argument but I get it. It's just not really the same thing. But sure; why do one right have such a heavy cost associated to it and another doesn't? Maybe because a crazy person on a soap box screaming in the middle of a square (free speech) cannot do as much harm as crazy guy with a gun.

DebMoschkin
DebMoschkin

@gmaki53 I think that's a great way to handle it. And, yes, it is a lot of paperwork, but IMO, that weeds out the serious gun owner from the "convenience store" purchaser.

As for my right to free speech, I wasn't raised to say everything that entered my brain. As  civilized Americans, we learn that we have filters. Or we don't learn and most of us end up suffering for that.

hmlong
hmlong

@MrObvious @DebMoschkin  Switzerland, as one Harvard paper indicates, has extremely high gun ownership and an extremely low death firearm death rate… however, Switzerland also has mandatory conscription into the militia of all men between 20 and 30.

The requirements for ownership of militia weapons mandates annual training and practice; laws for transportation and safe and secure storage of firearms are strict and permits to carry are difficult to obtain; citizens are limited to a maximum of three firearms apiece.

Switzerland’s gun policy requires all purchases of ammunition to be registered and recorded, and every gun legally sold to bear a serial number. Permits and background checks are required for purchase. Records must be kept and maintained.

In short, Switzerland has regulations that if proposed and implemented here would send the NRA leadership into a frothing apoplexy.

PaulGray
PaulGray

@MrObvious @DebMoschkin "a gun culture based on safety and responsibility"
Actually most of ours here is the United States is, and is currently being demonized by gun grabbers and the media.

hmlong
hmlong

@Arkius @DebMoschkin "If you want to talk about this tragedy, then talk about the facts in hand. No exaggerations; no distortions, no misrepresentations; no gun shows, and no magazine capacity arguments."

The article is discussing the "gun show loophole". Her comments we related to the "gun show loophole". Your comments, on the other hand, setup Sandy Hook as a Straw Man, saying that because Lanza's weapons were legal we already have "sufficient" gun control.

Of course, three of the weapons used at Columbine fell through the gun show loophole. The fourth was a non-background checked private sale. Another loophole.

And regardless of CT or CO, 30,000 deaths are attributed to firearms every year. 12,000 homicides. And many of the weapons used are traced back to private sales and gun show loopholes. In fact, ATF says that gun shows and private sales are the second leading source of crime guns. 

No exaggerations; no distortions, no misrepresentations. Just facts.

DebMoschkin
DebMoschkin

@Arkius Didn't I just make a post that didn't mention the specific Newtown shooting or the surrounding circumstances? Yes, I did. 

hmlong
hmlong

@goo @aztecianThe Constitution and the Bill of RIghts say what the Supreme Court says that they say, as they're the ultimate interpreters of the law. (Which I believe is written in the Constituation itself.)

As such, here's part of the Supreme Court ruling on DV vs. Heller...

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited ... nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Background checks? Waiting periods? Don't sell to felons?

All legal.

Garzhad
Garzhad

@hmlong

"Leaving a firearm unsecured in a nightstand or closet is no longer an option. If a unsecured weapon is misappropriated or stolen and later used in a felony act, the currently registered owner could face severe consequences."

That sounds all well and good, but tell how exactly how you intend to divine whether a stolen weapon was secured or not? Safes are not foolproof, after all, and particularly skilled people may be able to 'hack' or otherwise obtain the means to open one without leaving a trace. Simply reporting the weapon as stolen says nothing about the how or why of the theft.

If there is a way to absolve innocent victims of theft and actually determine whether the stolen weapon was secured or unsecured, i'd support such consequences, up to criminal negligence(criminally negligent homicide currently is a is a state jail felony punishable by six months to two years in jail and a $10,000 fine) yet no higher. Negligence may have resulted in a murderer getting the weapon, but the murderer is still the one that pulled the trigger, not the gun owner, and he should not be charged for the homicide itself.

hmlong
hmlong

@Garzhad @electriczipper We already register new sales with a dealer using the 4473 process. Private sales could be handled the same way, just take it to a dealer to be transferred, and the dealer keeps the paperwork on file and registers the SN just as they do with a new sale. In fact, they're already doing this in California and Rhode Island.

No new "national gun registry" required, and you have all of the protections already built into the existing process. 

We also need to beef up the criminal negligence statutes and increase civil and criminal liability for owners or purchasers of weapons used in criminal acts. Leaving a firearm unsecured in a nightstand or closet is no longer an option. If a unsecured weapon is misappropriated or stolen and later used in a felony act, the  currently registered owner could face severe consequences. Same for weapons sold to a "friend" without a background check.

This would act as incentive for owners to secure weaponry, incentive not to buy weapons for "friends" or for resale, and incentive to comply with the private sale transfer requirements.

hmlong
hmlong

@surfgeorge DebMoschkin hmlong BobSheepleherder Try again. According to that DOJ survey, Firearm Use by Offenders, it appears that 39% of all felons get their guns from "family or friends". (Who got them from where?) Another 39% of felons surveyed say they got them "off the street".

That is to say, weapons stolen or trafficked from private sales and gun shows.

Kelbold and Harris bought weapons through straw purchases because they couldn't get them legally. Robyn Anderson bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers, specifically so her name wouldn't be associated with the weapons.

The ATF says that gun shows are the second leading source of crime guns. In fact, a federal study traced half of the crime guns in Washington, D.C., to gun shows, "bad" dealers, and private sales in Virginia.

So yes, we want universal background checks to be done at gun shows and on private sales when transferring weapons between family members, as well as between friends and especially between acquaintances and strangers.

Do you actually know if your second cousin or a friend or that guy at work has a drug or drinking problem? Has a psychological issue? Is under a restraining order? Was previously convicted of a felony?

No. You don't. So why are you selling him a gun?

PaulGray
PaulGray

@DebMoschkin @surfgeorge Hello !!!
Holmes made legal purchases, with /NICS checks. His mental health care giver failed to report him into the system. Nothing to do with gun shows or the 99.8% of gun buyers that are your neighbors.

PaulGray
PaulGray

@DebMoschkin @surfgeorge @hmlong @BobSheepleherder 
"
Columbine.  The guns used were a straw purchase from a gun show."
Recheck your fact Deb. Your not acurate in the answer to the question. NICS check dear NICS check - NICS checks don't stop straw purchases

JasonC
JasonC

Murders in this country are down by half over the last 20 years.  And we can do something more about it, we can have ordinary security guards instead of trying to pretend-away 300 million existing guns.

surfgeorge
surfgeorge

@DebMoschkin

 Well, based on all credible available evidence, including past history of gun crimes, what you and the administration and Mrs. Feinstein are proposing will have no effect whatsoever. What's the point of living in fantasy land and pretending that doing something meaningless is actually doing something meaningful?Seriously. 

Look at the numbers. Look at the facts. Absolutely nothing happened regarding the rate of any kind of crime during the last 10 year "assault weapons" ban. Why would anyone believe that dividing guns into legal and illegal categories based upon superficial cosmetic differences could possibly effect anything at all, much less crime? Especially when those guns are used in possibly, at most, 2% of all gun crime. I really don't get it. It makes no sense at all. I can see why some people might tend to consider that there is perhaps some "other agenda" underlying such meaningless gestures under the guise of "saving even one life".

Isn't the very idea of "acting" to do something consequential regarding the problem one is attempting solve? Why pretend? Just to "feel good"? Especially when there IS credible evidence that some of the proposals will actually result in more people being injured or killed.

DebMoschkin
DebMoschkin

@surfgeorge @hmlong @BobSheepleherder Fine. Let's just do nothing whatsoever about it and let's see what types of massacres continue to happen. I surely hope it's none of your loved ones. Seriously. It's sad that that's what it takes for some people.

surfgeorge
surfgeorge

Over his years of practice how many other patients did that psychiatrist make a note of the patient "posing a threat to the general population"? How many of those patients engaged in public mass shootings? Private shootings? Murders?


You seem to know a lot about it, so I'm asking.

surfgeorge
surfgeorge

@DebMoschkin @surfgeorge  

And your statements have exactly what to do with any proposal by Congress? How would extending the NICS check to private sales at gun shows have any effect whatsoever on the patient/doctor relationship you write about?

And if enough such lawsuits happen, what exactly is going to change? What if all the lawsuits fail? Even if they are successful the most likely consequence is that malpractice insurance will get even more expensive and medical/psychological care will become even more expensive. Good job.

surfgeorge
surfgeorge

@DebMoschkin@surfgeorge@hmlong@BobSheepleherder 

 Straw purchases are already illegal. The purchaser successfully (obviously... that's what a straw purchase is) underwent the NICS check. Expanding the NICS checks to private parties would have, and will, made/make absolutely no difference regarding any straw purchases.

That's your best answer? One that is completely wrong?

Surveys of incarcerated criminals show that less than 1% obtained firearms from private sellers at gun shows or flea markets where they did not undergo an NICS check.

Firearm Use by Offenders - Bureau of Justice Statistics - Department ...bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

@DebMoschkin @surfgeorge @hmlong @BobSheepleherder How would a background check have stopped a straw purchase? There are THOUSANDS of such straw purchases done every year and not one instance of an additional crime prevented because of it. A straw purchase can ONLY be discovered after the fact. I am not against the BG check per se, like others, I question the value of expanding a faulty one.

DebMoschkin
DebMoschkin

@surfgeorge   Also, the doctor who treated James Holmes in Aurora is being sued by a the parents of a young man who died in that shooting. Holmes was under the care of a psychiatrist who had in his notes that Holmes posed a threat to the general population. If only the gun dealer known there was something wrong with him, he might not have been able to purchase the guns. 

And if enough of these law suits occur, you'd better be prepared to see things change.

BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

@hmlong @PaulGray @BobSheepleherder By the way, you seem to have caught that the "drunk driver" was an analogy yet you missed the "black gun" also being an analogy. That being the case, you got 1 out of 2, I'll grant that you are half the wit you think you are.

BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

@hmlong  @PaulGray In fact, this particular thread was in regard to "common sense". Those other topics were well discussed in threads further down. You may wish to peruse them if "gun shows" and "loopholes" are your topic of choice. It seems you may wish to take your own advise to "keep up" since you are not as quick witted as you seem to believe you are.

hmlong
hmlong

@PaulGray @hmlong @BobSheepleherder - You might, had you read his original post, have noticed that he ended his post with the drunk driving analogy, "We deal with the drunk driver not the drunk drivers car."

I responded to his analogy.

He then diverted into the AWB, "I just disagree that calling a black gun with a pistol grip an "assault rifle" is one of them."

Try to keep up.

PaulGray
PaulGray

@hmlong @BobSheepleherder "And this article is discussing gun show and private sale loopholes. Try to stay focused"

Really after veering off into car fatalities you tell someone who actually talks about firearms to stay focused?
Cars are analogous to guns - how about you try and stay on topic huh?

JasonC
JasonC

There is no gun show loophole. When I buy guns at a gun show, they run the check and I pass. But the left wants to register all guns, the better to prosecute all gun owners later when they pass their full bans.  They can pass a million pettifogging regulations, and then pretend anyone who misses one of them is a felon, and therefore can't be trusted to own a gun. Meanwhile, leftists can't be trusted to obey as simple a law as "pass a budget every year".  They are completely useless hypocrites.

DebMoschkin
DebMoschkin

@PaulGray @DebMoschkin @BobSheepleherder  And there are evidently many people that Paul Gray has encountered over the years that he must have given out what was, to him, valuable personal information, and that he is now running around like Chicken Little.

Thank God I don't have those problems. But then again, I have no money and I have a very unusual name. So you might have a point there. 

But I doubt that, of all the government entities that have your information (including the IRS), your gun ownership is what's important to them. Because if you don't have any money, and you've never committed a crime, but you do own a gun, who on earth is going to impersonate you?

PaulGray
PaulGray

@DebMoschkin @BobSheepleherder "Government knowing or caring about me? Shrug. "

Should everyone else feel the same way? No
There are more thing on earth that Deb Moschkin hasn't encountered that has.
If and when the day comes that you get your identity stolen you'll reconsider your casual attitude towards personal data security and your trust in encrypted systems.

DebMoschkin
DebMoschkin

@BobSheepleherder Unless you live off the grid, there is nothing the government doesn't want of you that it doesn't already have. Driver's license? Check. School records? Check. Hospital visits? Check. Arrested for anything? Check. You would be surprised at what they already know about you. And you would be surprised at how little they care.

I quit worrying about that stuff long ago. You see my full name here because my life is pretty much an open book. What do I have to hide? I'm as normal as apple pie. Members of my family have not always made me proud, but I do have a son in law school and another who's a whiz-bang programmer. (And an estranged husband who is a combat veteran from Vietnam.) 

As for me, I've never done anything that would prevent me from owning a gun.  Government knowing or caring about me? Shrug.

BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

@DebMoschkin @BobSheepleherder I understand that you did not mean the DMV database, that was just an example of government malfeasance, in my opinion. The database I am referring to had nothing to do with DMV information it was a GUN REGISTRATION database. Without considerably more safeguards than is presently practiced by the any government entities so far, I have zero faith that any other database would be better protected. In fact, "protected" isn't even the problem, DELIBERATE MISUSE would be my concern.

DebMoschkin
DebMoschkin

@BobSheepleherder @DebMoschkin That the DMV database. My suggestion was to use a licensed gun user database similar to the DMV. Of course it would have to have very strong encryption and other security methods. I've worked in that world and I can tell you it can be done.

DebMoschkin
DebMoschkin

@gmaki53 The typical profile of an "Anonymous"-type who hacks into databases worldwide is not the profile of a typical mass murderer.

BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

@DebMoschkin @BobSheepleherder Your pardon for pointing it out but, you seem to have forgotten recent events in the news where that database ended up on the front page of a newspaper! The DMV, in several jurisdictions, SELL the information to anyone who wants it! . It's unfortunate that the obvious should need to be pointed out.

PaulGray
PaulGray

@DebMoschkin @BobSheepleherder All it takes is a freedom of information request, doesn't it? Any database can be accessed given simple social engineering techniques and "thugs" as a pejorative does not dismiss the creative and unscrupulous that will copy data to a thumb drive and spread it far and wide. the AVERAGE THUG won't be the one to do the damage buy theft, just by use.

gmaki53
gmaki53

@DebMoschkin @BobSheepleherder 

Seems like every month or so we hear about Citibank, Bank of America, Sony, or some government office, etc, etc  getting their computer system hacked.  Just look at the stuff Wiki Leaks put out on the internet.  I'm with Bob on this.  A national database sounds like a simple thing, but security would  be a challenge.  Plus, if you consider the view that the 2nd Amendment is a checks and balance to prevent the government from becoming a dictator, have the government control the database seems a bit like having the fox guard the henhouse.

PaulGray
PaulGray

@hmlong @gmaki53 @DebMoschkin "I do think that any sale or transfer of a weapon, ammunition, or magazine, commercial or private, should pass through an authorized, regulated gun store or dealer, through your local police department, or through a BATFE representative and the appropriate form 4473 filed."

Effectively creating undue restriction and effectively a database of registration.
I'm of mixed feelings on registration of any type. I wasn't before guns were seized during Katrina, but since then I don't trust any government agency with a list of owners.

gmaki53
gmaki53

@hmlong @gmaki53 @DebMoschkin 

I agree with you on some of the back ground check stuff.  I personally would not sell a firearm to a stranger without the background check.  I might even do the check on some of my relatives or the in-laws :)

I wonder how you handle the situation where you meet a the buyer at your local gun store to do the transfer and he is denied?  He likely has your name, phone, address.  He knows you have the gun with you or in your car outside.  You say sorry buddy and go outside.  Does he or his friends just mug you outside?  If you hard up for money, what's to stop the sale from happening in the parking lot?

gmaki53
gmaki53

@DebMoschkin @gmaki53 My thought of "reasonable" laws for magazine capacity is that we treat the purchase of high capacity magazine like that of a gun.  One has to have the NICS check done during the purchase process.  You can still buy them if you really want to have one, but there would be an opportunity to stop the sale to folks who shouldn't have them.  It would prevent online sales and drive up costs though....once again the law abiding guy pays the price.

gmaki53
gmaki53

@hmlong @gmaki53 @DebMoschkin I scanned through some of them, but have not read the whole link.  Noticed some were suicides, one was from a gun in a play that was supposed to have blanks, one was at a track meet from the starter's pistol.  Many of them appear to be the case of one person having and issue with another person, not one person wanting to kill dozens of people.  But to your point, yes evil existed back then too.  They didn't have the semi-autos pistol and rifles of today, but the killings still happened.

I agree,  responsible people with self-control and a conscience can watch those movies and  games without turning into a mass killer.  Some unstable or impressionable youth might not be able to.  The Disney movie "Wally" taught my 4 yr old son the concept of "shooting" by pointing your arm towards someone like the "Eve" character does.  So, per one of your other posts, wouldn't the small inconvenience of not being able to watch those types of movies be worth it if it improved the safety of our society?

DebMoschkin
DebMoschkin

@gmaki53 @DebMoschkin No, actually, I would like to see a limit to the number of bullets in a magazine. Take care of that and you don't have to worry about the gun it's being used in. But this article was specific to background checks. And you're right. It seems that these discussions bring people's emotions to a peak level and all of the possible solutions get into the conversation. But if anyone is going to do something serious about these massacres, we have to calm down and address each possible realistic solution.

gmaki53
gmaki53

@DebMoschkin @gmaki53 I'm sorry, the main gun control points tend to be rolled together when the media or politicians talk about the.  In the same breath they are talking about magazine capacity limits, assault-style rifle bans, taxes, fees,  and universal registration/back ground checks,etc, etc..  If you are for background checks, but aren't pushing the other topics, that would be great.

DebMoschkin
DebMoschkin

@gmaki53 @DebMoschkin Wait. Who's talking about banning guns in this discussion? I think this article is about how the NRA doesn't like (for some unknown reason) universal background checks.

gmaki53
gmaki53

@DebMoschkin @gmaki53 I've already explained all the hoops I have to jump through to acquire a handgun legally.  It isn't "easy".  In fact it is enough work that most criminals won't bother.

I could argue the common denominator in alcohol related deaths is the alcohol, how the common denominator for obesity is fast food/junk food, lung cancer's is cigarettes, etc, etc.  To ban every product that can be misused resulting in death or harm to health would      require us to remove the phrase "land of the free" from our anthem.

BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

@DebMoschkin @gmaki53 Wrong! The common factor in multiple homicides is not a gun, or a knife or even a bomb. It is the PERSON with the mental or moral illness that is the ONE and ONLY "common" factor.

hmlong
hmlong

@gmaki53 @DebMoschkin BTW, you also mentioned "tighter gun restrictions on law abiding folks". An NRA spokeswoman on CNN also used the same language in regard to the subject of universal background checks.

Thing is, if I'm personally selling a gun via a classified ad, Craigslist, or even at a gun show, how am I supposed to know if the buyer is "law abiding" or not?

Personally, I'm against the AWB. But I do think that any sale or transfer of a weapon, ammunition, or magazine, commercial or private, should pass through an authorized, regulated gun store or dealer, through your local police department, or through a BATFE representative and the appropriate form 4473 filed.

Because I think we can do just a little bit more to help keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, the disturbed, kids, and others that shouldn't have them.

And isn't that worth just a little inconvenience now and then?

hmlong
hmlong

@gmaki53 @DebMoschkin If you're saying that today's violent movies or video game are CAUSING today's youth to act out, then allow me to direct you to the following list of school shootings.

You'll find dozens upon dozens upon dozens of school shootings from the 70s. 60s, 50s, 40s, 30s and earlier. And I'm pretty sure the majority of those were not caused by violent video games.

Further, there are millions upon millions of kids and adults playing, reading, and watching the same things... and like responsible gun owners, they too are not engaging in mass murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

PaulGray
PaulGray

@DebMoschkin @gmaki53 and when the next available tool becomes what the monsters choose to use?
Why ignore the cause and only focus on the tool?

DebMoschkin
DebMoschkin

@gmaki53 I agree with all the things you say. But why ignore the easy availability of firearms? That's the common denominator and the tool used in all of these crimes.

gmaki53
gmaki53

@DebMoschkin @gmaki53

I assume you aren't a gun owner with hands-on experience with the various types of firearms.  If I could post photos, I bet I could convince you that my semi-auto 22 gun with a  brown wooden stock is a "hunting style" rifle.  If I take off the brown wooden stock and replace it with a black plastic one having a pistol grip and telescopic rear buttsock you would be convinced it was a "military assault weapon".  Same mechanical action.

I suspect that if the Colorado movie shooter would have had 10  round magazines he would have killed more people.  His high capacity magazine jammed and when he went to his car to fix it, the cops got him.  If the school shooter would have used a short barrel shotgun with buckshot, he could have killed just as many if not more.  Guns can be reloaded quite quickly....google Jerry Miculek...one can reload a revolver quickly with practice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw

Ban all magazines over 10 round capacity and the criminals will still get them if they really want them.  If these mass shooters are willing to put the time and money into planning their attacks, do you think they won't bother to find a black market high capacity magazine, or just carry multiple guns?  The Columbine shooting was during the "assault weapon ban" period.  Their primary goal was to use bombs to take down the cafeteria at lunch time.  When that didn't work they went to plan B, guns. Ban assault style rifles....these mass shootings did not require the long range capability of a rifle, handguns or shotguns would have been just as effective.

Where there is a will, there is a way.  Sandy killer could have packed a car full of gas cans and rammed head-on into a loaded school bus and killed as many or more.  Many of these mental people are not "dumb".  They just need to watch Hollywood movies...the previews of Saw come to mind....to get ideas.  Never saw the movie, don't want to.

Let's target the culture of violence...movies, games.  Let's improve family culture...eat meals together, participate in raising your kids, discipline them.  Let's hold people accountable for their actions and enforce laws we have.  Let's prevent media organizations from posting the photos and name of mass killers and sensationalizing tragedy.  Let's give minority kids in urban areas better life goals than being a pro athlete, rap singer, or drug dealer.  If you dealt with the drug/gang issues, I suspect we'd see a larger drop in homicide that if we implement tighter gun restrictions on law abiding folks.

DebMoschkin
DebMoschkin

@gmaki53 I like your comment and your position. Except that the guns didn't change. They did. We now have guns that can kill 20 first-graders and eight teachers in the span of two minutes. No one can stop someone with that firepower. We at least have to try to quell the massacre-level power.

gmaki53
gmaki53

Not a dealer...just a guy who grew up with shooting sports as a hobby...didn't drink, smoke, chew tobacco, steal, do drugs, vandalize....just got straight A's, went to college and graduated with honors, had a job and paid taxes since I was 16.  Oh, and I am tired of feeling like a criminal because I believe in the 2nd amendment, hunt and target shoot.

Cultural...yes.  When I was in high school it was common to have a dozen pickup trucks in the parking lot with guns in the rear window gun rack.  Never had school shooting.  The tools (guns) didn't change.  What did?   

MrObvious
MrObvious

@DebMoschkin @MrObvious @gmaki53 

That's possible and that's all good. I'm all for someone making their livelihood by legally selling guns. Seems like he's doing everything right and he's even sensitive to the problems. A good business owner knows that any criminal act in their line of business makes it harder and more expensive for them to make money.

I have all the respect in the world for people who do the right thing and still want to fix the problems.

Heck - the whole thing about assault weapons or not hides the fact that there are countries then went the rout of restricting everything and is doing fine and countries that allows everything (with licensing and such) and they're doing fine. So what type of weapon is naturally not the entire story.

Maybe it's cultural.

DebMoschkin
DebMoschkin

@MrObvious From his posts, I think @gmaki53 is a gun store owner/dealer. So I would expect he (she?) would not only follow the law, but know it inside and out. 

PaulGray
PaulGray

@DebMoschkin @gmaki53 as for my rights to gun ownership I wasn't raised to shoot children. As a civilized American I too have filters and you choose to deny others their rights because of a very small few.
I'm not impressed with your lack of respect for individual rights Deb.

BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

@hmlong @BobSheepleherder @MrObvious @DebMoschkin In fact, the opposite is true. 80+ percent of the NRA budget is dedicated to exactly that, with just some of the remainder dedicated to 2nd Amendment lobbying. It is just the media and political propaganda that deflects from the truth. Demonizing of the NRA is a political dog and pony show that even a cursory investigation would demonstrate.

hmlong
hmlong

@BobSheepleherder @hmlong @PaulGray @MrObvious The sources I have indicate that the law applied to everyone. Including not just "visitors" but also to the farmers and ranchers who lived in the area.

In fact, the "OK Corral" incident is said to have been precipitated by an attempt to enforce the ordinance against the Clanton's and the McLaury's.

BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

@hmlong @PaulGray @MrObvious You fail to realize that those laws applied to visitors not the townspeople themselves. Those old townships didn't want drunken yahoo's running around with guns any more than we do now. The people who lived in those towns were armed!

hmlong
hmlong

@PaulGray @hmlong @MrObvious An armed society is a polite society?

A few nights ago I was reading Gunfight, on DC vs Heller. In it the author covers quite a bit of gun history, including the fact that nearly every western town in the late 1800’s ended up having strict gun control bans, including “notorious” towns like Dodge and Tombstone.

You checked your guns at the town limits, or often left them with your horse at the stable.

As such, and in it’s worst year, Tombstone had exactly 8 deaths due to firearms, and that included the OK Corral. Not exactly the picture of an independent and wild but polite society based on a well-armed populace that we’ve been fed by Hollywood.

John Wayne strutting around town with two-six-shooters in a double holster and carrying a rifle, Liberty Valance-style? Nope. Johnny would have been thrown in jail.

In short, we've long had regulations controlling exactly when, where, and what you could carry, and the everyone-was-polite-in-the-wild-west-because-they-had-a-gun myth is just that, a myth.

You're right though. Education is in fact a wonderful thing...

PaulGray
PaulGray

@hmlong @PaulGray @MrObvious armed society is a polite society is not a meme - you need to look into that one close, you might find yourself getting educated. 

hmlong
hmlong

@PaulGray @hmlong @MrObvious @DebMoschkin We are not Switzerland. True. But that doesn't seem to stop the "pro-gun" lobby from pointing to Switzerland's low-crime rates as a shinning example of the benefits of high gun ownership.

Sauce for the goose.

Culture, eh. Hmmm. I bet you even fall for the "armed society is a polite society" meme too.

BobSheepleherder
BobSheepleherder

@hmlong@MrObvious@DebMoschkinHow many criminals do you suppose, even in Switzerland, register their ammo? The other policies are already in effect in several areas of the US, I'll give you three guesses how effective they are in preventing criminals from doing crimes, you likely only need one.

PaulGray
PaulGray

@hmlong @MrObvious @DebMoschkin "Switzerland has regulations that if proposed and implemented here would send the NRA leadership into a frothing apoplexy"

As it should Switzerland is not the United States and does not share our history, culture or Constitution. In short Switzerland is Switzerland and the US is the US.

PaulGray
PaulGray

@hmlong @gmaki53 @Arkius @DebMoschkin Actually you want more money and man power for existing laws - not more laws.
If you want that all you have to do is PAY FOR IT. You can send earmarked funds for that purpose to the State and Federal Treasury aand if you're concerned about the children - that enforcement my friend is LOCAL, not something Congress has any business at all in.

gmaki53
gmaki53

@hmlong @gmaki53 @Arkius @DebMoschkin

Gun ownership rates are a tough one to nail down.  If I call you conducting a survey and asked how much alcohol do you have, how much porn is on your computer, how many guns do you own, do you beat your wife, etc, etc.....most people aren't going to be totally honest due to the negative stigma.

If you take ownership data from the 2001 survey in the link below and cross correlate to the FBI data for each state's firearm homicide numbers, you can create a "deaths per 1 % increase in ownership" and see those same states you listed have very low deaths in proportion to the percentage of people owning guns.  In other words, the states with higher ownership rates had few numbers of deaths.  

Even if I look at the FBI data in terms of per capita population, I don't get the 17.8 per 100k you mention.  HI is still quite low, but NJ and MA are higher than AK, MT, and WY

I wonder why the CDC data and the crime data numbers differ so much.  I also wonder how does one factor in other variables such as population density, urban vs rural, gang activity, drug related activity, etc.  Not an easy task to completely understand the interaction of several variables.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html

We are in agreement on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  While we are at it, we should figure out the cure for cancer, aids, global warming, racism, murder, war, drug addiction.  We need that "easy" button from those office supply commercials.

hmlong
hmlong

@gmaki53 @hmlong @Arkius @DebMoschkin CDC numbers for 2005, 2006, 2007,  2008, 2009, and 2010 are 12,352, 12,791, 12,632, 12,179, 11,493, and 11,078, respectively.

Of course, gun ownership has declined as well. The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. The number of gun owners has gone down almost 10% over the same period.

The decrease in deaths has gone down with the decrease in ownership.

To cross-correlate, you could also note that the three states with the highest rate of gun ownership (MT, AK, WY) have a gun death rate of 17.8 per 100,000, over 4 times that of the three lowest-ownership states (HI, NJ, MA; 4.0 gun deaths per 100,000).  The relationship is a near-perfect linear proportion: on average, as gun ownership goes up, the firearm death rate goes up.  

But that's changed. Recently I've been pointed towards the skyrocketing sales figures for guns. Record gun show attendance. People point to a recent Gallup poll, where 47% of those surveyed admitted to owning a gun. PEW shows less of an increase, but an increase nonetheless.

And they're right. Interest appears to be peaking. Ownership, which had been declining since 1973, seems to be rising once more. 

Which leads us here....

The number of children killed in accidental shootings increased  from 68 in 2009 to 84 in 2010, reversing a 20-year decline. 

There were 851 accidental gun deaths  of all ages in 2011, up from 606 the previous year.

More guns. More deaths.

I'm not interested in banning a gun because it has a pistol grip. I do, however, want to keep criminals and those who shouldn't have guns away from them. I want to cut trafficking and straw purchases. 

I also want to bump negligence charges so maybe, just maybe, the idiots who throw their gun into a closet or nightstand have some incentive to secure the d***ed things.

gmaki53
gmaki53

@hmlong @Arkius @DebMoschkin

If we want to talk facts, per the FBI Uniform Crime Report data from 2001 through 2011, the average number of homicides with a gun is about 9,400 per year, not 12,000.  Follow the link to expanded data, table 8....gives a decent summary.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

Digging deeper shows that homicide rates have been dropping even though in 2004, the sunset of the 1994 assault weapons ban expired and high capacity magazines and assault style guns sales increased. The media would have you believe there was a sharp increase in violent crime and homicide starting in 2004.  The data also shows the per capita homicide with knifes, blunt objects, and fist/feet each to be higher than with rifles. the rifle data does not break out the type of rifle, so assault style are smaller subset.

I wish I could post the graph showing the trends ploted over the past 10 years.  It would make some open minded folks wonder why we are so worried about magazine capacity and cosmetic features on black semi-auto rifles.





grape_crush
grape_crush

> Hold it  you condemn personal attacks and then name call second amendment constitutional defenders as "fetishists".

Yes, fetishists, as in persons who hold an excessive attachment to or regard for something. Its use in this context is accurate and should be considered non-insulting. I'm not implying that people sharing your views have a sexual attraction to firearms, although it's interesting that you would interpret it that manner.

And yes, taking imaginary offense from someone you disagree with is also not really 'putting your best foot forward.'


PaulGray
PaulGray

@grape_crush Hold it  you condemn personal attacks and then name call second amendment constitutional defenders as "fetishists".
Really who is not immune from putting his best foot forward here?

Arkius
Arkius

@grape_crush  

It's more like a personal observation, rather then an attack. She is a smug dim wit.

In any event, she doesn't have the intellectual facilities to address my arguments, so it was a wasted effort.

grape_crush
grape_crush

A personal attack is no substitute for a lack of an argument, Arkius.

The contingent of 2nd Amendment fetishists that are commenting here - most of them, anyway - aren't really putting their best foot forward.

DebMoschkin
DebMoschkin

@Arkius Thank you! I would very much like it if we have no more cyber interactions!

Arkius
Arkius

@DebMoschkin  

My apologies. I mistook you for an intelligent woman. I won't do that again.