| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Mitt Romney's Anglo-Saxon Connection | ||||
| ||||
The truth of the matter is this: Sales over the Internet between private parties are handled in the same way as if there was no Internet. If you buy a handgun from someone out of state, they have to take it to their local dealer, who ships it to your dealer. If you buy a rifle, they ship it to your local dealer.[1] Either way, you have to fill out the appropriate paperwork and pass the background check in every state of the nation.[2]
The line of the Brady Campaign that "you can buy guns over the Internet without background checks" is a massive lie, a piece of complete propaganda.
Maybe there should be a conversation on this subject. But if the "gunz я evil" crowd is going to open with lies (and lies that can be easily exposed), then there will not be any sort of meaningful discussion. Because I, for one, do not enjoy talking with liars. Nobody does.
______________________________
[1] I know this because in the last year, I have bought two handguns in sales arranged over the Internet, one from a private party and one from a dealer.
[2] If the seller is a private party and you are both residents of the same state, then you can meet somewhere and conduct your business in accordance with state law.
16 comments:
EB, I'm sorry to have ask this, but is there some upper death limit that must be reached before the NRA and there ilk might even consider, maybe, perhaps that there might be a teeny weeny corrolation between guns and deaths? Allan
There are a number of problems, Allan. Maybe I should do a post on them.
I actually would love to hear them. The trouble with rationalizng these situations is that the end result, (the deaths, the wounded, the surviving friends and families), gets glossed over like they are not as important as the "right" to own a couple of pounds of metal.
Toronto had a double killing at a street BBQ with well over a dozen wounded and not one of our leaders, with all their faults, said "What if more people in the crowd carried guns?".
And if a couple of people in the crowd did?
There would have been more deaths, and not nessesarily those of the original shooters.
I think the appropiate gun club explanations would be calling the extra deaths "friendly Fire" or "collateral Damage". There would words like "unfortunate" and "sad". But no words like "100 percent preventable".
EB, I normally remain silent of your whole right to bear arms debacle, but my wife and daughter were at some friggin' mall a month or so ago and two people were shot in the food court 24 hrs after they were there.
One day may seem like an eternity to you, our southern cousins, but up here in Kanada gun play is shocking, deplorable and preventable.
These new shooters up here want to be Americans so bad they think the answer is to shoot first, second and last, consequences be damned. There are way better American attributes to emulate like your ingenuity for one, but they chose the gangsta way.
There is a flood of American hand guns flowing North, but we have our own counter move....we send the smoothest, strongest product of our hydroponic operations South, keep you stoned and hooked on munchies and you won't shoot no more....:) Allan
Do you really think that law-abiding Canadiens are the ones buying those guns, Allan?
I, an ex greasy stoker, am going to step out on a limb here EB, I am going into an Officers Mess and a Lawyers Territory for a second and post this quote from one of the most perfect piece of writing ever...your own Constitution; "The Second Amendment reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Without distortion, and within the spirit it was written, it seems you have the right to bear arms to defend yourselves as an organization, not as gun happy movie critics.
Dammit EB your gunslinger tactic did it again...you deflected the topic with the law abiding statement....lol Remeber death mayhem loss of life versus a handgun!
The militia, in the 18th Century, was pretty much every adult male who could afford to buy a firearm (they were not cheap in those days; probably in today's money, in the several thousand dollar range). Powder stores were kept in communal magazines, because a stash of gunpowder in a home was an invitation to an explosion.
Militias were local organizations, as well. They were not under Federal control and some weren't under the control of the Colonial government. They were more akin to volunteer fire departments.
We could go back to that model, sure. And then everyone who joined would get to take their fully-automatic M-16, along with a battle-loadout of loaded magazines, home with them. Together with their body armor, and hand grenades.
But over the last 200 years, it has become settled that our Constitution guarantees individual rights, not collective rights.
You send us good weed, we send you good weapons. Works for me. :-)
I hear a lot of blame and "somebody has to do something". But devoid of practical solutions or acts of responsibility.
Eck!
I thought this was an interesting point, although the poster says it's boring.
http://www.samefacts.com/2012/07/watching-conservatives/why-have-progressives-abandoned-gun-control-a-really-boring-answer/
quote [sic] Remeber death mayhem loss of life versus a handgun!
Remember death mayhem loss of life versus a club!
Remember death mayhem loss of life versus a knife!
Remember death mayhem loss of life versus a intentionally set fire!
Remember death mayhem loss of life versus a bomb!
Remember death mayhem loss of life versus a fist!
What do they ALL have in common..
They were acts of a person resulting in mayhem and possibly death.
If you do not recognize that then there is no point continuing.
Eck!
Eck, from what I gather from your post that death is OK as long as there are no restrictions on the weapon, or the right to own one or a dozen. Aside from the arson, every other act is one on one. While a hand gun, or assault rifle can engage multiple target per magazine.
Keep in mind, a hand gun is designed, and well designed at that, to shoot/kill/and or maim humans. It will do crap as a back up hunting piece. You and your Desert Eagle will just annnoy the f**k out of that grizzly bearing down you as fast as a horse. But point and shoot at a human target like its designed for and you'll win every time....Allan
Nope, never said or implied. Murder is still murder, still illegal. When premeditated it is the capital crime. You keep implying and wishing things
not said. No further point addressing you as you bring nothing to the
conversation.
As to bears and desert Eagle, I don't own either. Though the former are cool
to watch from a respectable distances and the latter is too pretty to carry were
dirt and bears are found.
Eck!
Given that I have owned handguns for over 30 years, given that I have used them for target shooting, given that I have used them for hunting,given that a number of my friends own handguns and given that neither I nor they have ever used any of those handguns to "shoot/kill/and or maim humans", you will forgive me, Allan, for suggesting that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Post a Comment