Armed Man Arrested on School Grounds claims to be Sovereign Citizen

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And as I've pointed out Colorado also passed magazine limits...you do NOT have your facts straight as that is the primary fight in Colorado (or your being dishonest). Many sheriffs and a magazine manufacturer are fighting that law with the NRA's help.

There, from the horse's mouth. The NRA does NOT support universal background checks.

An article appearing today on NBCNews.com is falsely reporting that NRA will not oppose legislation being negotiated in the U.S. Senate that would mandate background checks for all gun purchasers.

The story posted on NBCNews.com alleges that NRA will not oppose expanding the background check system to include all private firearm sales, "provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks". This statement is completely untrue.

And here - again, same source:

An article appearing on TheHill.com today asserted that Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is working on a bill with the NRA that would implement universal background checks.

NRA does NOT support universal background checks and is not working with Manchin to implement this type of legislation. NRA opposes, and will continue to oppose, universal background checks and registration schemes.

I'm sure you're gonna tell me next that the NRA-ILA's executive director knows not what he talks about.

I'll point out that I do support Universal Background Checks and I think the NRA should return to its 1999 position. However I'm never going to argue something so stupid as to say they want criminals to have firearms.

The NRA opposes what you support. And the result of that opposition is that criminals have easy and ready access to firearms. Thanks to the NRA, we have well armed criminals and sickos. That's what that organization has accomplished. And you sit there defending them for it. Bravo!

[Ban Hammer 12,836]

The NRA opposes what you support. And the result of that opposition is that criminals have easy and ready access to firearms. Thanks to the NRA, we have well armed criminals and sickos. That's what that organization has accomplished. And you sit there defending them for it. Bravo!

that's got to be the biggest leap in logic i've ever seen you do.

the reason they don't support expansion of background checks can be found several pages ago by "the patriot" at post #31. the source is http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-nra-used-support-expanded-backgr/

LaPierre responded: "I think the National Instant Check System, the way it's working now, is a failure. Because this administration is not prosecuting the people that they catch. Twenty-three states are not even putting the mental records of those adjudicated mentally incompetent into the system. Now, assume that if you don't prosecute, and they try to buy a gun, even if you catch them, and you let them walk away, to assume they're not going to get a gun -- they're criminals, they're homicidal maniacs, and they're mentally ill. I mean, we all know that homicidal maniacs, criminals and the insane ... don't abide by the law."

The NRA’s website on March 12, 2013, posted its firm stance against expanding background checks.

more feel good laws that don't work and have no teeth to them aren't the answer. here's a novel idea - how about require those 23 states participate and also prosecute those individuals who are prohibitied from purchase when they do try to buy a gun?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

that's got to be the biggest leap in logic i've ever seen you do.

the reason they don't support expansion of background checks can be found several pages ago by "the patriot" at post #31. the source is http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-nra-used-support-expanded-backgr/

more feel good laws that don't work and have no teeth to them aren't the answer. here's a novel idea - how about require those 23 states participate and also prosecute those individuals who are prohibitied from purchase when they do try to buy a gun?

Nice selective quoting from that piece. Fact is LaPierre used to support universal background checks and the closure of the existing loopholes. The NRA is also on record as having changed that position thus conceding that they are now in support of maintaining the very loopholes they once wanted to see closed.

You and your buddy LaPierre in your arguments now conveniently omit the fact that background checks are not at all required for a significant amount of gun purchases. You can have the best background check system in the world and it won't do jack if there are gun acquisition avenues available that totally bypass that background check system. As long as you can purchase a firearm without a required background check, the background check system will necesarily be a failure. It is a failure by design and the NRA is the very architect.

The only way to get a handle on this is by making background checks universal. The NRA opposes that. Thus the NRA supports the abundant avenues for gun acquisitions for criminals and the mentally incapacitated. They're responsible for a well armed criminal and mentally ill population and the death and suffering that comes from it. Truth hurts, I know, but it's still the truth.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Nice selective quoting from that piece. Fact is LaPierre used to support universal background checks and the closure of the existing loopholes. The NRA is also on record as having changed that position thus conceding that they are now in support of maintaining the very loopholes they once wanted to see closed.

You and your buddy LaPierre in your arguments now conveniently omit the fact that background checks are not at all required for a significant amount of gun purchases. You can have the best background check system in the world and it won't do jack if there are gun acquisition avenues available that totally bypass that background check system. As long as you can purchase a firearm without a required background check, the background check system will necesarily be a failure. It is a failure by design and the NRA is the very architect.

The only way to get a handle on this is by making background checks universal. The NRA opposes that. Thus the NRA supports the abundant avenues for gun acquisitions for criminals and the mentally incapacitated. They're responsible for a well armed criminal and mentally ill population and the death and suffering that comes from it. Truth hurts, I know, but it's still the truth.

I do believe Charles just got pwnd.

[Ban Hammer 12,836]

Nice selective quoting from that piece. Fact is LaPierre used to support universal background checks and the closure of the existing loopholes. The NRA is also on record as having changed that position thus conceding that they are now in support of maintaining the very loopholes they once wanted to see closed.

You and your buddy LaPierre in your arguments now conveniently omit the fact that background checks are not at all required for a significant amount of gun purchases. You can have the best background check system in the world and it won't do jack if there are gun acquisition avenues available that totally bypass that background check system. As long as you can purchase a firearm without a required background check, the background check system will necesarily be a failure. It is a failure by design and the NRA is the very architect.

The only way to get a handle on this is by making background checks universal. The NRA opposes that. Thus the NRA supports the abundant avenues for gun acquisitions for criminals and the mentally incapacitated. They're responsible for a well armed criminal and mentally ill population and the death and suffering that comes from it. Truth hurts, I know, but it's still the truth.

why support more feel good laws when the ones in place aren't enforced and don't have all states participating?

[Karee 4,189]

You can institute all the background checks and firearm buy-backs you want. Neither of them are going to reduce the amount of gun violence in this country by any substantial amount. That's the bottom line.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You can institute all the background checks and firearm buy-backs you want. Neither of them are going to reduce the amount of gun violence in this country by any substantial amount. That's the bottom line.

Of course. That is why you have to actively disarm people that shouldn't have guns, as several states are doing. California is leading that charge.

[mota bhai 2,675]

You can institute all the background checks and firearm buy-backs you want. Neither of them are going to reduce the amount of gun violence in this country by any substantial amount. That's the bottom line.

For the life of me, I don't understand why you right-wingers buy into this liberal talking point that we have a gun violence problem. 11,000 gun homicides a a year in a country this large is not a huge problem. It just isn't.

[Karee 4,189]

Of course. That is why you have to actively disarm people that shouldn't have guns, as several states are doing. California is leading that charge.

How do you disarm people that shouldn't have guns?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How do you disarm people that shouldn't have guns?

There are about 19,700 names on California's APP list. The gun owners typically bought the firearms legally, before being convicted of a felony or being diagnosed with a mental illness. Once convicted of a crime, their names are put on the state's database, which tracks people who bought handguns or assault weapons legally but fell into a prohibited category.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/05/california-faces-backlog-40000-weapons-in-hands-felons-mentally-ill/#ixzz2TwEBPQOT

[Karee 4,189]

There are about 19,700 names on California's APP list. The gun owners typically bought the firearms legally, before being convicted of a felony or being diagnosed with a mental illness. Once convicted of a crime, their names are put on the state's database, which tracks people who bought handguns or assault weapons legally but fell into a prohibited category.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/05/california-faces-backlog-40000-weapons-in-hands-felons-mentally-ill/#ixzz2TwEBPQOT

Interesting. That program makes sense. I'd be curious to see if it actually has an impact on gun violence. It brings up the question of what to do about firearms that are obtained illegally though. Theft, straw purchases, etc.

Seems like whenever these folks get convicted of a crime, they should tell them right then to turn over their firearms. I know here in Texas when you take a plea agreement or are found guilty of a crime, there's a form they give you prior to your plea that you must sign stating you understand that you are about to lose or you have just lost your right to possess a firearm.

[DaveE 178]

Of course. That is why you have to actively disarm people that shouldn't have guns, as several states are doing. California is leading that charge.

Actually California is selectively disarming people who they believe shouldn't have guns. BATFE has (in writing), declared that anyone who possesses a medical marijuana card is prohibited from owning firearms or ammuntion by Federal law.

California has an estimated 500,000 medical marijuana card holders. If only one of five has a firearm that is 100,000 illegal drug users that should have their firearms confiscated. Supremecy clause and all that.

BATFE in an open letter to all Federal Firearms Licensees directed that no dealer can sell a firearm to anyone with a MMC. If they open their wallet and the gun shop sees the card, or they use it as an ID, the sale must be denied.

Why? per the letter: "Therefore, any person who uses, or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of, or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition."

"Further, if you are aware that a potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under state law, then you have reasonable cause to believe that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance."

Letter from Sept 2011 here: http://www.atf.gov/files/press/releases/2011/09/092611-atf-open-letter-to-all-ffls-marijuana-for-medicinal-purposes.pdf

Why do I believe that California will ignore this.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Interesting. That program makes sense. I'd be curious to see if it actually has an impact on gun violence. It brings up the question of what to do about firearms that are obtained illegally though. Theft, straw purchases, etc.

Seems like whenever these folks get convicted of a crime, they should tell them right then to turn over their firearms. I know here in Texas when you take a plea agreement or are found guilty of a crime, there's a form they give you prior to your plea that you must sign stating you understand that you are about to lose or you have just lost your right to possess a firearm.

A common tactic for law enforcement is to run the serial numbers on any firearms they discover in your possession during an encounter, even to confiscate them if you cannot produce a bill of sale and you are not the registered owner. For lawyers, this is a growing field - retrieving legally owned firearms from law enforcement.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

why support more feel good laws when the ones in place aren't enforced and don't have all states participating?

Why participate in a sham that applies only to a portion of the firearm purchases anyways? It's like installing red light cameras while making license plates optional. You're free not to put a license plate on your car and you can hence run all the red lights you want without ever being subect to the enforcement the red light camera is alledegly providing. And then you're going to compalin that some cities don't put up the cameras in the first place? Grand piece of logict there.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

For the life of me, I don't understand why you right-wingers buy into this liberal talking point that we have a gun violence problem. 11,000 gun homicides a a year in a country this large is not a huge problem. It just isn't.

We have a quarter of the population of India but more than 3 times the gun homicides (9,960 vs 3,093). Germany is about a quarter of the population of the US yet has only 1.5% of the gun homicides (158 vs. 9,960). It's a big problem. It really is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/