If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
17 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AS
11 years ago
So according to my read on this, it looks like you can transfer to family members but /cannot/ give guns as gifts to friends? Am I reading this wrong?
Devtun
11 years ago
This is crap responsible gun owners have to deal with:
Dumbshits like Joe Scarborough poisoning the waters with assinine commentary…what the f*ck is this guy talking about? Also quoting Al Qaeda propaganda about how easy guns are to obtain?
@1, it does not appear to allow you to sell or give your gun to a friend. It only allows for it to be a direct relative.
I am opposed to any law that requires registration, and registration would mean a lasting paper trail of transfers. However at the same time, something does need to be done about the guns going to gangs and other criminals through what start out as legal sales. Are the laws on the books right now strong enough to deal with that? Can they simply enforce the ones already on the books, perhaps stiffen the penalties for using guns in a criminal act, making mandatory sentences just that… mandatory.
I do not see the need for new laws. At least in this one they clear up some of the idiocy regarding financial incompetence and give veterans a means to appeal further being placed on the mentally defective list at NICS.
I know the 2 Senators involved in this have caught hell, but I think they were trying to head off the more severe gun grabbing that will be coming with the likes of Feinstein and their obsession with taking away the 2A rights of the American people.
Did this even get through though? Or are they going with the more restrictive legislation offered up by the real gun grabbers?
Veritas Omnia Vincit
11 years ago
@3 Enforcing the law as written requires someone to actually start doing the heavy lifting on these crimes. But we don’t always enforce the tough crimes with the same fervor as simple acts of random stupidity….guys smoking weed don’t tend to shoot at you too much which makes it easy to round them up put them in prison and show everyone what a great job your are doing by filling the prisons with guys who have not actually committed a crime against anyone just against themselves by engaging in self destructive drug behavior…However, gang bangers tend to shoot back and they make threats to the families of those who would imprison them, much more uncomfortable to fill the prisons with gang bangers…at some point we need to address that gang activity is not just a different sort of organized crime, but a cancer that will continue to bring nothing but misery every where they are allowed to exist.
We need to snuff out gangs, if a gang has more than 2 people committing a crime start locking up people for being members. Start executing them, you don’t try to rehabilitate cancer you destroy it and remove it from the host. Gangs need to be treated the same way or the inner cities will remain death zones for minority teens for generations…
Ex-PH2
11 years ago
My take on gangs and guns is this: you round up all known gangbangers. Put them in a stadiuim with piles of weapons of all sorts. PUt up a prize of $152,354.63. They’ll think that’s a lot of money. Then let them start shooting at each other. Whoever the sole survivor is wins the pot.
No audience, but maybe a video for later analysis.
I believe that will take care of the gang problem in most cities.
Twist
11 years ago
@5, A gang banger version of “The Hunger Games”.
rb325th
11 years ago
@4, completely with you on what you stated. Most of what I said about crime and punishment is tongue in cheek.
When it gomes to the hardcore gangs running amok in our urban areas (and beyond), it is a matter of anational security in my eyes that we eliminate them like the cancer they are.
All this pussy footing by our “elected officials” on so called gun violence is window dressing for the lemmings to believe they are “doing something”. If they meant business about reducing crime and vioolence, they would go all in against gangs.
That bill does nothing to prevent someone like Adam Lanza from killing his mother and breaking into her safe to steal her guns. No matter what people in WDC do, everything is, and will always be, a Band-aid and nothing else.
Veritas Omnia Vincit
11 years ago
@7 indeed you are correct…
I like using this current gun control diatribe (there is no way it’s a discussion) by the left against them to prove just how racist the left has become over the last 40 years.
With the warehousing of the minority population and a daily death toll of 28-34 it took 20 white kids with affluent parents to rouse the left out of their stupor….it puts the truth to their lies about if it saves one life….that’s a bullsh1t term and they all know…if saving one life mattered they would have been discussing this for years on the national stage…the reality is that adding all the dead and wounded from all the mass/spree killings over the last 22 years together doesn’t equal what happens every 18 days across the nation with respect to death tolls….
The left has done a great job with propaganda explaining how they care about the minorities and how conservatives don’t. They care about the minority vote they don’t give two sh1ts about them as people because they’ve done nothing to address education, opportunity, abortion, or murder among minorities in 40 years….they’ve just made minorities ever more dependent and less self sufficient, making it harder for those in that dependent socio-economic class to get out of it so they will be forced to vote for Dems….
It’s an amazing job of deception and ranks among the most effect propaganda campaigns in the history of mankind, convincing an entire segment of the population that having less and less opportunity to succeed while suffering more abortions, murders, crime, and poverty level living conditions than the majority means their oppressors care for them and are the only option they have in the voting booth. Liberals are truly a dangerous segment of the electorate, they are quite capable of destroying the nation as we know it.
NHSparky
11 years ago
PH2–but that’s exactly what they want. Do nothing to address the real root issues, but make it incrementally more difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy, sell, or keep guns (AND AMMO) each time some lunatic and/or criminal shoots up another of the libtards vaunted “gun-free zones.”
Eventually, as our rock-climbing douchetool wants, in a couple of generations, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Thank God I’ll have (hopefully) passed before I see that day.
Flagwaver
11 years ago
They want to stop the transfer of weapons between family members unless it is sibling or parent/child? How would that have stopped any of the shootings? It wouldn’t have.
They are instituting all these laws to prevent crimes, but do not seem to realize that criminals do not follow the laws anyway. Look at Chicago. Toughest gun laws in the U.S. and highest firearms homicide rate. They seem to think that new laws will make everyone safer, but they are only playing into the fears of the public and making us less safe.
Ex-PH2
11 years ago
@12 – They are playing into their own fears, not ours. If we the people don’t have guns, then we can’t chase them out of town, can we?
USMCE8Ret
11 years ago
@9 – Sadly, I predict another mass shooting (or maybe even a couple of them) before the end of the year, in spite of any ban that is in place.
Maybe mandatory sentencing guidelines need to be put in place for those who use firearms in the commission of a violent crime (those who aren’t self defense)?
(Oh wait – nevermind. We already have those… they’re just not being enforced.)
PintoNag
11 years ago
I predict that it will take two more incidents for outright confiscation to begin. The next one will ramp up the laws, so that when the confiscation begins after the second incident, it will be “legal.”
David
11 years ago
$100,000,000 annually to support this? Did I read that right?
Twist
11 years ago
On the bright side Sen. Mark Begich (D) from Alaska voted against advancing the bill. Seems like somebody wants to keep their job and understands that we don’t take our 2A lightly.
So according to my read on this, it looks like you can transfer to family members but /cannot/ give guns as gifts to friends? Am I reading this wrong?
This is crap responsible gun owners have to deal with:
Dumbshits like Joe Scarborough poisoning the waters with assinine commentary…what the f*ck is this guy talking about? Also quoting Al Qaeda propaganda about how easy guns are to obtain?
Joe Scarborough uses false al Qaeda talking point to push gun control
http://washingtonexaminer.com/joe-scarborough-uses-false-al-qaeda-talking-point-to-push-gun-control/article/2526903
‘Even’ al-Qaeda Wants Background Checks!
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345298/even-al-qaeda-wants-background-checks-charles-c-w-cooke
@1, it does not appear to allow you to sell or give your gun to a friend. It only allows for it to be a direct relative.
I am opposed to any law that requires registration, and registration would mean a lasting paper trail of transfers. However at the same time, something does need to be done about the guns going to gangs and other criminals through what start out as legal sales. Are the laws on the books right now strong enough to deal with that? Can they simply enforce the ones already on the books, perhaps stiffen the penalties for using guns in a criminal act, making mandatory sentences just that… mandatory.
I do not see the need for new laws. At least in this one they clear up some of the idiocy regarding financial incompetence and give veterans a means to appeal further being placed on the mentally defective list at NICS.
I know the 2 Senators involved in this have caught hell, but I think they were trying to head off the more severe gun grabbing that will be coming with the likes of Feinstein and their obsession with taking away the 2A rights of the American people.
Did this even get through though? Or are they going with the more restrictive legislation offered up by the real gun grabbers?
@3 Enforcing the law as written requires someone to actually start doing the heavy lifting on these crimes. But we don’t always enforce the tough crimes with the same fervor as simple acts of random stupidity….guys smoking weed don’t tend to shoot at you too much which makes it easy to round them up put them in prison and show everyone what a great job your are doing by filling the prisons with guys who have not actually committed a crime against anyone just against themselves by engaging in self destructive drug behavior…However, gang bangers tend to shoot back and they make threats to the families of those who would imprison them, much more uncomfortable to fill the prisons with gang bangers…at some point we need to address that gang activity is not just a different sort of organized crime, but a cancer that will continue to bring nothing but misery every where they are allowed to exist.
We need to snuff out gangs, if a gang has more than 2 people committing a crime start locking up people for being members. Start executing them, you don’t try to rehabilitate cancer you destroy it and remove it from the host. Gangs need to be treated the same way or the inner cities will remain death zones for minority teens for generations…
My take on gangs and guns is this: you round up all known gangbangers. Put them in a stadiuim with piles of weapons of all sorts. PUt up a prize of $152,354.63. They’ll think that’s a lot of money. Then let them start shooting at each other. Whoever the sole survivor is wins the pot.
No audience, but maybe a video for later analysis.
I believe that will take care of the gang problem in most cities.
@5, A gang banger version of “The Hunger Games”.
@4, completely with you on what you stated. Most of what I said about crime and punishment is tongue in cheek.
When it gomes to the hardcore gangs running amok in our urban areas (and beyond), it is a matter of anational security in my eyes that we eliminate them like the cancer they are.
All this pussy footing by our “elected officials” on so called gun violence is window dressing for the lemmings to believe they are “doing something”. If they meant business about reducing crime and vioolence, they would go all in against gangs.
Here’s the actual Manchin/Toomey ammendment to S649: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SP00715:
That bill does nothing to prevent someone like Adam Lanza from killing his mother and breaking into her safe to steal her guns. No matter what people in WDC do, everything is, and will always be, a Band-aid and nothing else.
@7 indeed you are correct…
I like using this current gun control diatribe (there is no way it’s a discussion) by the left against them to prove just how racist the left has become over the last 40 years.
With the warehousing of the minority population and a daily death toll of 28-34 it took 20 white kids with affluent parents to rouse the left out of their stupor….it puts the truth to their lies about if it saves one life….that’s a bullsh1t term and they all know…if saving one life mattered they would have been discussing this for years on the national stage…the reality is that adding all the dead and wounded from all the mass/spree killings over the last 22 years together doesn’t equal what happens every 18 days across the nation with respect to death tolls….
The left has done a great job with propaganda explaining how they care about the minorities and how conservatives don’t. They care about the minority vote they don’t give two sh1ts about them as people because they’ve done nothing to address education, opportunity, abortion, or murder among minorities in 40 years….they’ve just made minorities ever more dependent and less self sufficient, making it harder for those in that dependent socio-economic class to get out of it so they will be forced to vote for Dems….
It’s an amazing job of deception and ranks among the most effect propaganda campaigns in the history of mankind, convincing an entire segment of the population that having less and less opportunity to succeed while suffering more abortions, murders, crime, and poverty level living conditions than the majority means their oppressors care for them and are the only option they have in the voting booth. Liberals are truly a dangerous segment of the electorate, they are quite capable of destroying the nation as we know it.
PH2–but that’s exactly what they want. Do nothing to address the real root issues, but make it incrementally more difficult for law-abiding citizens to buy, sell, or keep guns (AND AMMO) each time some lunatic and/or criminal shoots up another of the libtards vaunted “gun-free zones.”
Eventually, as our rock-climbing douchetool wants, in a couple of generations, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Thank God I’ll have (hopefully) passed before I see that day.
They want to stop the transfer of weapons between family members unless it is sibling or parent/child? How would that have stopped any of the shootings? It wouldn’t have.
They are instituting all these laws to prevent crimes, but do not seem to realize that criminals do not follow the laws anyway. Look at Chicago. Toughest gun laws in the U.S. and highest firearms homicide rate. They seem to think that new laws will make everyone safer, but they are only playing into the fears of the public and making us less safe.
@12 – They are playing into their own fears, not ours. If we the people don’t have guns, then we can’t chase them out of town, can we?
@9 – Sadly, I predict another mass shooting (or maybe even a couple of them) before the end of the year, in spite of any ban that is in place.
Maybe mandatory sentencing guidelines need to be put in place for those who use firearms in the commission of a violent crime (those who aren’t self defense)?
(Oh wait – nevermind. We already have those… they’re just not being enforced.)
I predict that it will take two more incidents for outright confiscation to begin. The next one will ramp up the laws, so that when the confiscation begins after the second incident, it will be “legal.”
$100,000,000 annually to support this? Did I read that right?
On the bright side Sen. Mark Begich (D) from Alaska voted against advancing the bill. Seems like somebody wants to keep their job and understands that we don’t take our 2A lightly.