Sadly, we can’t watch all those people all the time; The resources needed would be ridiculous. Not to mention all one of those people would have to do is cry foul when they found someone tailing them, and we’d probably back off for a little bit.
@bing
It’s hard to prove a negative…but you are right. It’s time to share resources.
@dagosa - I agree, but didn’t NY take a lot of heat for their program?
It’s easy to second guess when you’re not the one’s responsible. If you are the mayor of NY, still the biggest terrorist target, you do what you have to. Other then Iraq, I would never second guest Bush or Obama treatment of Al Qaeda members supporters or prisoners or any other terrorist for that matter.
Your first job is to keep people safe…then field the criticism.
Sorry, Dag, but just because you disagree with my statements does not make them untrue. More gun laws on the books will not solve anything.
I understand the weight of responsibility but seems to me if the Mayor would worry less about cola size, cigarettes, guns, and waist lines and more about emergency management, power grids, snow plowing and building in flood planes, everyone would be better off. Just being able to amass billions of dollars legitimately or illigitimately doesn’t make one a better decision maker than the general populace. We ended kingdoms in 1776.
@same
When you preface your original statement that more gun laws will not help with, there are plenty already, ( paraphrase) I feel that it’s fair to point out that there are NOT many Federal laws, and the few we have actually work !!
When anti gun law people keep repeating all the laws that exist, they are often mistaken by the state laws which are ineffective because THERE ARE NO FEDERAL LAWS TO SUPPORT THEM AND INTERSTATE SALES OF GUNS CANNOT BE STOPPED BY STATE LAWS ALONE.
It is reasonable on my part to keep pointing that out when falsehoods are used to keep rationalizing not having laws. IMHO, they do this to intentionally to confuse the issue when they know…that the few federal laws we have do work…No one I know really wants to arm criminals which is what we we are doing now. But, conservatives are frozen in time thinking that the Feds can’t do anything right with a computerized back ground check for every sale…
you know, the same guys who manage to insure and pay for millions on Medicare and Social Security…all done pretty efficiently and and mostly on time.
In a way, with more stringent gun laws, we ARE arming criminals. We arm them by making legal, responsible gun owners into criminals.
I’d like to know how, and where, they came up with the magic number of 10 for magazine limits. Standard capacity magazines for the AR-15 hold 30 rounds. My Glock has factory magazines that hold 17 rounds, and I can buy a 33, 50 and 100 round magazine/drums for it, too. Though, why anyone would want a 50 or 100 round drum for a pistol is beyond me, but I’m not gonna worry about what someone else is spending their money on.
Hell, I just spent almost $500 tonight ordering a Mosin Nagant M44 carbine and 880 rounds of surplus ammo for it(the ammo is most likely older than I am). I had to call a local FFL to have them send a copy of their license to the company I ordered from before they would even process my order to ship it out. When it ships out, they’ll send it to the FFL where they’ll run the background check on me before I can take the gun home.
They had a custom bolt and scope mount on back order, so they’ll notify me when they get that in stock.
@bscar2
What you are doing has less to do with the laws designed to keep guns from criminals and irresponsible gun owners. You choose to work through an FFL dealer. If a person had a criminal record, he would just choose to pay a lot more but could easily get all the stuff you can through a straw purchase. Also, what is being done by the private collector is putting more guns out there which will eventually fall into the hands of those who shouldn’t have them through private sales.
I’d love to be able to just have it shipped to me, that way i wouldn’t have to pay the transfer fee or have to deal with driving out to pick it up. But, IT’S THE LAW(and I’m not complaining about it, either) that they have to ship the firearm to an ffl to run a check on me before I can take possession of it. I could have scoured the gun shows for one, or hounding the local gun shops, but finding it online was much simpler.
When I get some more money saved back up, I’ll be getting an AR15; prices are coming back down as supplies are coming back in. Though, any talk of a gun bill will take the prices up again. I may just buy 2 of them while the prices are down. Keep one and have another for gun show/private sale should a gun bill come back into play. Take the money from that sale and buy me one of those semi-auto Tommy gun look-alikes. 
In a few years the pawn shops will be flooded with M-16 replicas and $50 gold plated nickels and the metal scrap yards will be overflowing with windmills.
Dag, my statement includes state laws. As a matter of fact, our 10th amendment puts gun regulation under state pervue by its statement “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In short, gun controls are by proper order the pervue of the states.
As a matter of fact, when discussing the “necessary militia” statement in the 2nd amendment, it’s a good idea to remember one of the long list of reasons stated in the declaration of Independence; "[the king] has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power. " The impetus behind the second amendment was in response to the statement, and to prevent the new federal government from being able to become a monarchy be preventing it from confiscating the weaponry of the citizens.
In short, gun controls are by proper order the pervue of the states.
I agree 100% that MORE gun control is NOT the answer…And the states SHOULD have a say in what laws are passed for their state.
On the nation side I am in favor of a national gun registration system. But that’s my limit on what I think the federal governments role is.
I agree with a national crime database for backround checks, but disagree with a national gun registry. I respect your perspective on this, but believe that having to register to own something takes it from being a right to being a privalege. The difference is that a “right” automatically exists without any prior approval, a privalege requires sanctioning. Granted, it’s a “fine line”.
I agree with a national crime database for backround checks, but disagree with a national gun registry.
Actually what I misquoted…I’m for a background check…Not too sure about the gun registry yet.
@Same
Of course your statement includes state laws. That is the big mistake. It’s federal laws that are needed to deal with interstate sale of guns by private individuals in ALL STATES WHICH IS , THE BIG PROBLEM IN PREVENTING CRIMINALS FROM GETTING GUNS. Until conservatives actually wrap their minds around that simple fact, this debate goes nowhere. State laws don’t do cow dung in preventing criminals from getting and using guns. The few federal laws do…but conservatives KNOW THAT already and just like pretending they don’t know the difference and keep stating misinformation. Btw, we do have amendments to the constitution as allowing states to interpret the constitution as they wish would still allow slavery,no women’s sufferage and a plethora of other state decided malfeasance. We had a war over it and the north won…federalism can be practiced here in this case.
Also, the right to bear arms is a ridiculous notion if you apply it to all armaments 200 years from now…how many sane people would do that ? How insane are those who still feel that right should not be revisited 200 years after the right is wrtten in the constitution which is a right of the people not persons to bear arms. There is No individual right but a collective right instead (read definition of person vs people). The framers were careful in the entire constitution to differentiate collective ( people) and individual (persons) rights. We need to read the wording they used to delineate all of our rights before we decide that it is a personal right to bear arms…IT IS NOT.
@MikeINNH
Any law abiding citizen who can pass a concealed weapons permit background check can own and shoot a machine gun anywhere that it is safe and legal to shoot another gun and nearly anyone on this forum can own a machine gun ; but they still aren’t used by criminals. Why…THEY ARE REGISTERED TO THE PERSON WHO LEGALLY OWNS THEM. So, in order for background checks to be effective, guns need to be registered, not just in states like they are now, but federally, in a national archive. There is a nationwide access by authourities to state archived registration for all your cars…It is not abused . Why aren’t we afraid the Feds will find you through your car and take it away ? They never have…it’s fear mongering and i feel guns should be register; EVERY SINGLE ONE, on a national level. Then I can keep mine, you can keep yours and those with unregistered guns without a check face many years in jail and thousands of dollars in fines as a federal crime if they are caught with one in their prossesion as well as anyone who knowing provided it to them. We would all be safer.
Um…Dag, if you already assumed my statement included state laws, why did you make your earlier comment “When you preface your original statement that more gun laws will not help with, there are plenty already, ( paraphrase) I feel that it’s fair to point out that there are NOT many Federal laws,” And why did you accuse me of “falsehoods are used to keep rationalizing not having laws. IMHO, they do this to intentionally to confuse the issue when they know…”
Dag, if you believe in more laws, just say so. It isn’t necessary to make false accusations or twist the words of others. I’ll disagree with you, but that’s okay. That’s part of being human. Two people with the same backgrounds and the same information can come to entirely different conclusions. The more their backgrounds vary is the more likely they are to do so.
@same , please I did not “assume anything”, I responded to your your statemenent " my statement includes state laws" Regardless, state laws are totally irrelevant as the federal govt. deals with federal laws and talking about state laws iby many who oppose has been a diversion. We probably live in different states and the only thing we will have in common to debate about, is federal laws.
When you say “if you believe in more laws” and even now I need to hear you differentiate between federal and state laws. If not, then I am still doing a poor job of making my point.
The diversion is the constant referral to laws as if they are all the same. They are not… I DONOT believe that more state laws in our state are necessary and I don’t have a clue nor do I need even need to consider the gun laws in your state… I do believe in more federal laws are absolutely necessary as they are the only ones that can have a meaningful impact on criminals getting guns. The NRA conflates the issue between federal vs state laws when saying…".there are too many laws."
The falsehoods that i have read stated by others include …guns are all ready registered, they are not, everyone needs a background check to buy guns across state lines , they do not. There are enough gun laws, there are not because opponents only talk about state gun laws…lwhich do not solve problems of interstate sales. The only laws that matter are the ones that apply to both @same and @dagosa. States are given a constitutional right to make laws within their own borders that DONOT infringe upon the rights of other states. Those laws are not part of the debate in congress and have nothing to do with gun laws that affect all Americans.
I only ask that if an opponent, including you or anyone else, refers to a law, they state whether it’s federal or state. Then and only then will there be less confusion. Btw, I have respected and admired your opinions and advice for a long time on all issues, and I respect your opinions here. I have tried to preface what I see as diversions with “conservatives” , they or we and not make it personal. I apologize if I slipped up…;=()
I have just one question…does everyone under stand that no state or city or county law can have any affect on the guns coming into their jurisdiction ?
In a few years the pawn shops will be flooded with M-16 replicas
I honestly doubt that. Right now the style is so popular that so many are making their own versions of them. Until they come out with something better, they’ll continue making the AR-15/M4 variants. Since they are so customizable, they appeal to a wide variety of people; women included. Just like how many variations of the 1911 pistol are available