Skip to main content

Starting with the ridiculous, New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg has shown the gun freaks once again that he means business.  Some time back he demonstrated how some low-lifes in Arizona and elsewhere in the country were willing and anxious to sell guns to people they had reason to believe did not have the right to own them.  You can read more on this in an earlier Nasty Jack post.  

In my post, Bloomberg and Thomas Menino, Mayor of Boston and co-founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, were asking for an overhaul of the background-check system for gun purchases which allowed such massacres as the one at Virginia Tech which killed 32 people, injuring 17 others, and the most recent in Tucson, Arizona killing 6 and injuring 13, including U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords from Arizona.

But the latest that Bloomberg/Menino have come up with exposes the gun industry once again as being irresponsibly relentless in its pursuit to make firearms available to anyone, no matter what their past, or whether they are fit to own a weapon.  The mayors’ sting operation centered on the online marketplace, particularly Craigslist and Web sites selling firearms.

These reprehensible gun nuts were willing to sell to NYC investigators that clearly admitted they were probably unable to pass a background check.  Some even said they were too young to buy a gun legally.  These private sellers are not required to make a background check, but knowingly selling to someone who admits to not being able to pass one is a felony.  Just more of the NRA’s best.  In all fairness, there were other instances where the seller refused to make the deal.

And then there was the person who could lose their 2nd Amendment rights over having a medical marijuana card, which borders on ridiculous.  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) now says you will lose a “key constitutional right” if you let your state know you take pot medicinally.  Arizona’s make-believe governor, Jan Brewer, and Michigan’s attorney general are already interfering with medical marijuana laws legally passed by their constituents.

In a Nevada case, a woman is challenging this BATFE ruling after trying to buy a gun and being turned down.  If her intent is to have the weapon in her home for protection, it is absurd that the government would deny her this 2nd Amendment right just because she uses the medical marijuana for pain.  However, in terms of issuing her a concealed carry permit to walk the streets with her weapon, I would be absolutely against this and another court case in Oregon is pending on this issue.  It all comes down to what’s reasonable and both sides must give.

Where’s the NRA when you need them?  Just let a situation like this get a little touchy, in this case involving medical marijuana, and they tuck their tail between their legs and hide.  Other larger gun organizations have done the same.  But it could all come down to an order from President Obama that directs BATFE to make an interpretation of the policy, which is in their discretion, to determine that these users are not unlawful due to their regulation under state law.  It’s all about bureaucracy and in this case the gun industry should win.

Read more on my blog Nasty Jack

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Why "overhaul" if the issue at Tech and AZ was (13+ / 0-)

    specifically mental health?

    Justified anger does not grant you unrestricted license.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 07:04:47 AM PST

  •  As long as you deal in adhominems (16+ / 0-)

    like, "freaks" and "nuts", you mark yourself as one with nothing relevant to say on this issue. Delete this diary would be my sugesstion, and try again, writing from an adult perspective.

    Also, Bloomberg is a criminal. He sent non-LEOs across state lines to commit criminal acts as part of an investigation he had no jurisdioction to extend across state lines.

    But to those such as you, the ends justify the means, que no?

    However, this:

    And then there was the person who could lose their 2nd Amendment rights over having a medical marijuana card, which borders on ridiculous.

    I agree with. But this:

    If her intent is to have the weapon in her home for protection, it is absurd that the government would deny her this 2nd Amendment right just because she uses the medical marijuana for pain.  However, in terms of issuing her a concealed carry permit to walk the streets with her weapon, I would be absolutely against this

    makes no sense. Unless you also want to deny CCW permits to all but documented teetotalers, of course.

    However, if you are true to form, diarist, i won't receive a response to this comment.

    I do note the obligatory blog-spam link is there, however.

    "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

    by kestrel9000 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 07:09:11 AM PST

  •  A gun control ad I'd like to see (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    43north

    Show footage of the recent Mythbusters incident where they errantly shot a cannonball through a residential neighborhood.

    Then cut to their tag line:

    "We're what you call experts."

  •  GunsAmerica blog: (14+ / 0-)

    Bloomberg Internet Gun Sting a Scam as Usual

    We don’t do a lot of opinion pieces in the GunsAmerica Blog. This is the first one in fact. New York City’s mayor Bloomberg announced the results of a new sting conducted by his office today, focusing on internet gun sales. He is using the same tactics he has employed to go after legal gun sales at gun shows, implying that American gun owners are by nature dishonest and willing to break the law to sell their firearms. Would you break a federal law for $450, or even ten times that? Probably not.....Bloomberg’s city has rampant gun violence because the law abiding people are not allowed to own guns, not because America’s law abiding gun owners are willing to break federal law for a few hundred bucks. In almost 15 years I have seen that this is not the case. We get emails from sellers nearly every day reporting buyers that request transfers with “no paperwork” and those buyers are immediately banned and their IP addresses recorded. How many of them were Bloomberg’s team?

    (Emphasis mine. See my previous comment in this thread. - kestrel9000)

    As we all know, in-state gun sales do not require a background check between private sellers. This is the core of Bloomberg’s gun show slander. Now he is using it against the internet and against you, individual gun owners, buyers and sellers....You should be ashamed of yourself Mayor Bloomberg. Get your own house in order. Law abiding American gun owners take care of our house just fine without you.

    "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

    by kestrel9000 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 07:20:21 AM PST

  •  You hinted at your own (11+ / 0-)

    views by saying:  "....Bloomberg has shown the gun freaks once again that he means business...."

    I just wanted to thank you for the early insult which will help keep me humble all day.  (It won't keep me from thinking that you are an unmitigated jerk, but we can't have everything!)  

  •  I strongly agree that mentally ill individuals... (13+ / 0-)

    ...should not be allowed to buy (or possess) firearms. And every time I see a diary on this issue I ask the author (in this case NastyJack) to spell out some specific legislation to deal with the issue. To date none have responded. It is an extremely difficult issue that demands the balancing of civil rights, medical privacy, and the responsibilities of health professionals, and I for one do not have the answer. Please NastyJack, rather than name calling, make some concrete suggestions for dealing with this issue. As to the issue of dealers selling weapons to unqualified individuals the answer is easy - enforcement of current law.

    Texas, home to Rick Perry and big oil will be the first state to become uninhabitable due to climate change. Ironic and proof there is a just God.

    by wishbone on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 07:36:04 AM PST

  •  How is this the "gun industry" at fault? (10+ / 0-)
    But the latest that Bloomberg/Menino have come up with exposes the gun industry once again as being irresponsibly relentless in its pursuit to make firearms available to anyone, no matter what their past, or whether they are fit to own a weapon.  The mayors’ sting operation centered on the online marketplace, particularly Craigslist and Web sites selling firearms.

    It sounds from the text of the diary that the people making these dubious sales are neither the gun manufacturers nor licensed gun dealers. Rather, they are private citizens who have decided to either remain ignorant of the law or break it.

    Should we expect to see in your next diary something about how the parmaceutical industry is at fault for the fact that Rush Limbaugh found a connection to sell him Oxycontin?

    I'm all for enforcing the laws we have regarding the legal transfer of guns between private parties, but the sting in this case seems to involve law enforcement getting citizens to break the law, not a demonstration that the laws are insufficient to protect the populace.

    •  Bloomberg (9+ / 0-)

      has a history of doing this. He sent private citizens (not sworn officers of any kind) from New York into Virginia, where he has no jurisdiction, to make illegal straw purchases of firearms as part of one of his ill-conceived and illegal "stings." Michael Bloomberg is a criminal.

      "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

      by kestrel9000 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 07:50:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  RICO n/t (6+ / 0-)

        A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

        by 43north on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:06:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  We'll deal with Bloomberg's "criminality"... (0+ / 0-)

        ...right after we flog those lawless Virginia gun dealers.

        I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

        by labradog on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 10:13:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  How do you know (6+ / 0-)

          that the one, single gun shop involved that was caught doing anything would have had they not been illegally
          entrapped by criminals working for another criminal?

          And your assertion speaks volumes about your"ends justify the means mentality."

          "We'll deal with Bush's illegal wiretaps once we catch those lawless terrorists."

          Sickening then, and sickening now. I'm glad I don't think like a right winger the way you do.

          "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

          by kestrel9000 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 10:27:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dismissive title here. (0+ / 0-)

            Virginia has been a haven for crooked gun sellers for years. This isn't the first time a bent dealer has been exposed  in VA. Virginia guns, sold illicitly, have been linked to many DC area violent crimes.

            People who would sell a firearm to those who should not have one are the "nuts", not conscientious owners and dealers in firearms. People who'd sell a gun to someone who lets them know they wouldn't pass a background check - criminal? insane? -  are the grossly irresponsible "freaks", not responsible sellers who report attempted illicit purchases.

            What, pray tell, did Bloomberg's investigators do that was so criminal? I don't think researching bent sellers is quite the same as systematically trashing the rights of the people against being spied on by the government without probable cause. I just can't find equivalent outrage.

            Your reflexive defense, against adhominem attack, of those who would sell a gun to a deranged buyer speaks volumes, I suppose, about your mentality.

            I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

            by labradog on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 02:54:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Cite for these "crooked gun sellers", please? n/t (4+ / 0-)
              •  Sorry, I didn't Tivo the news for you. (0+ / 0-)

                But many DC crime guns were found to come from a small number of dealers in Virginia - a small number because most dealers are honest bussinesspeople. But it only takes a small number of bad guys to screw it up for the rest of us. IIRC, some of the bent dealers were near Norfolk.

                This get covered on the news in DC, not infrequently.

                I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

                by labradog on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:51:09 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So, you have no evidence if these were.... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon

                  actual criminal actions on the part of the seller, or of the buyer?

                  But you are trying to blame the sellers?  Present your evidence and I'll probably agree with you.  But I don't recall much in the way of charges and/or convictions.

            •  What did Bloomberg do that was criminal? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpunk, KVoimakas, kestrel9000

              How about running investigations and stings outside of their jurisdiction.  Bloomberg was not elected to be the Attorney General -- even though he often seems to believe there are no borders which limit his "authority."

              That being the case, his "investigators" attempted to purchase firearms under false pretenses -- something that you would seem to be against, considering your other comments here.  I guess it's okay to break the law, though, if he's doing something you approve of.

              Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

              by theatre goon on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 07:07:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  What makes the investigation illegal? (0+ / 0-)

                Why can't NYC investigate how illegal sales in Virginia bring guns to criminals in NYC?
                Every undercover operation involves false pretenses. That doesn't make them illegal.
                Are any of the jurisdictions making charges against the investigating parties?

                Is there anybody making a valid official complaint against these investigators, or are we just hearing reflexive griping over anything that shows any gun owner to be other than an angel in human form?

                I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

                by labradog on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 09:47:25 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  First, I'll dispense with your strawman. (0+ / 0-)
                  ...are we just hearing reflexive griping over anything that shows any gun owner to be other than an angel in human form?

                  No one has made any such statement.  That being the case, I can only surmise that you are trying to deflect attention away from an argument that you cannot support.

                  Bloomberg has no jurisdiction in many of the places he is running "investigations."  No one in Virginia, for instance, has elected him to any public office -- that being the case, he is breaking the law by conducting his "investigations" there.

                  And, I'm sure you've noticed that I've put "investigation" into quotation marks.  This is because, as has been pointed out in other comments here, his "conclusions" are so far-fetched so as to be nothing more than fiction.

                  But, once again, I can only assume you already knew that -- that would be the only real reason to try to deflect attention with your strawman arguments.

                  Hope that puts it all into some perspective for you.

                  Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                  by theatre goon on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 10:16:05 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You ignore the question. (0+ / 0-)

                    Who says a NYC investigation can't go into another state?
                    They aren't arresting people and dragging them back to NYC. Since when is an investigation illegal? Even one by a New Yorker in Virginia? Do you have the expertise to tell me definitively that this investigation broke a law? And if so, what law?
                    Please reference the law that prohibits this investigation. Unless, of course, "There oughta be a law" is as good as "there is a law".

                    I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

                    by labradog on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 03:34:24 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm ignoring nothing. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas

                      Well, I will ignore the latest strawman you've created, once I've shown it to be exactly that.  No one but you has mentioned anything about "there oughtta be a law" is as good as "there is a law."

                      Once again, you are trying to argue against statements no one has made.  I guess that's easier than addressing the arguments that have been put forth.

                      Now, what I am actually trying to do is explain to you that it is outside their jurisdiction.  The fact that you don't like that has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of the matter.

                      We are discussing federal law -- therefore, the mayor of New York City has no standing to enforce it.  He was not elected to be the Attorney General of the United States -- no matter how many times you insist that he may operate outside of his own jurisdiction.  Apparently, little things like obeying the law are of no interest to you.  Additionally, in carrying out his "investigations," his "investigators" have broken laws -- such as providing false information while purportedly trying to buy a firearm.  You know, one of those things you seem to be against -- except when you support it.

                      Or, perhaps you'd like Sheriff Joe Arpaio doing "sting" investigations in New York, then falsely reporting the results and breaking the law in the process.  That is the exact equivalent of what has happened here -- so, either you would support such activity to be consistent, or be revealed as a hypocrite.

                      It is just that simple.

                      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                      by theatre goon on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 05:52:20 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  They aren't enforcing. (0+ / 1-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Hidden by:
                        happy camper

                        They are investigating how contraband gets TO New York. How is that investigation illegal? They didn't try to make any arrests. You have not even shown that they BOUGHT any weapons. They apparently sought only an agreement to sell. Did they actually transact? Or did they just want to learn how easy it would be to find someone willing to transact?

                        MY basic question is, if they didn't make the purchase,  What law did the investigators break? Can you tell us authoritatively? Are you maintaining that New York City cannot legally go beyond its borders to acquire information?

                        But, since you are more fascinated with snide asides, and because the boner you get from saying the phrase "strawman" is crowding us out of the room, I leave you to your own company, and your reflexively snotty reaction to being asked to substantiate your own claims. You get a C- in discourse, and a D- for shitty attitude.

                        I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

                        by labradog on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 06:27:44 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It doesn't matter if they bought any weapons. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          KVoimakas

                          Furnishing false information is enough for an arrest -- as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

                          Further, acting as though you are a federal agent is... wait for it... against the law.  That's what we actually have federal law enforcement officials for -- it is not the purview of a city mayor, no matter how much you like it when he breaks the law in a way you happen to enjoy.

                          And the fact that you can only support your arguments with strawmen -- then try to accuse others of some sexual satisfaction from pointing them out -- only shows that you are the one who would receive poor grades, were anyone grading the conversation.

                          Really, accusing others of getting a "boner" because they point out the failings in your own arguments is pretty pathetic.  You could consider actually supporting your arguments, rather than making irrelevant and false accusations against those who disagree with you and point out where you are factually incorrect.

                          Or maybe you don't actually know what a strawman argument is.  Maybe you should educate yourself -- both in that, and the reality of federal firearm laws.  You might look somewhat less ignorant if you do.

                          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                          by theatre goon on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 07:25:32 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  HR for ad hom attacks (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          theatre goon

                          and general dickishness. You get an F in reasoned debate.

                          "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                          by happy camper on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 07:27:31 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

    •  They demonstrated the need (0+ / 0-)

      For greater regulation of "gun shows" including mandatory background checks.

      •  Strawman. (8+ / 0-)

        The venue has nothing to do with anything. A private sale is a private sale regardless of where it occurs.

        "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

        by kestrel9000 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 08:01:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why is (8+ / 0-)

        "gun shows" in quotes?

        "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

        by kestrel9000 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 08:01:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because in reality (0+ / 0-)

          ...they are simply gun marketing operations and also exist online, per Mayor Bloomberg's investigation of sites such as Craigslist, Armslist, Gunlistings, KSL.com and Glocktalk. Online transactions account for 40% of gun sales.

          The full report can be found here:

          Point, Click and Fire: An Investigation of Illegal online Gun Sales

          I was glad to see that my state, Ohio, had one of the lowest "failure rates" (the gun was sold even when the "buyer" said he couldn't pass a background check), but even that was 37% failure. Overall, they found a 62% failure rate.

          The conversations went like this:

          I guess I can see why Bloomberg would make you nervous.

          •  OK (5+ / 0-)

            Video #1: The weapon in question is not an assault rifle.
            Credibility fail.

            And a private sale is a private sale. If the seller in question has violated  a law, that is not the site's fault. There are no background checks for private sales in state whether on or off the internet, an ad in the paper, or a sign on a lamp post.
            The internet is irrelevant.

            Video #2. Who are these "investigators"? If they concluded a transaction with a private seller after asserting that they couldn't pass a background check, then they are an accessory to that crime and are just as arrestable. Unless they're LEOs, which I doubt.

            Video #3.

            Same shit.

            AK on Craigslist? Last time I checked, Craigslist didn't allow firearm sales. How old is this misleading bullshit?

            And that video doesn't show a concluded transaction. For all we know, the so called "investigator" was turned away, and that video ended up in the recycle bin because it was inconvenient to the producer's agenda.

            -----------------

            And Bloomberg doesn't make me nervous. He is a criminal, as are your "investigators." So much for your veiled personal attack. I don't sell guns.

            Like most "gun control" advocates, it appears you rely on deceptive statements and lawbreakers using anectodal "evidence" of nothing to make your case.

            Unsurprising.

            "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

            by kestrel9000 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 08:48:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think these "private sales" (0+ / 0-)

              ...can feel the hot breath of the law on their backs, that's the issue here. The report recommends:

              Federal law should require a background check for every gun sale. Legislation now pending in both chambers of
              Congress – The Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 (S.436/
              H.R.1781 (112th Congress)) – would enact this reform.

              The stuff about the investigators breaking the law is just nutty.

              You are also confusing reality with fantasy by asserting that  Craigslist doesn't allow gun sales. The investigation notes that ebay has an effective policy to prevent such sales, but Craigslist does not:

              In several searches, New York City’s investigators were
              unable to find a single firearm for sale on eBay.

              By contrast, the City’s investigation uncovered thousands of guns for sale on Craigslist. The site relies on users to
              flag inappropriate ads for removal by site administrators
              by clicking a link that says “prohibited.” This self-policing
              strategy is evidently not effective. Of the 1,792 gun ads
              the investigators tracked on Craigslist over a period of 45 days, only 584 – or about 33 percent – were flagged for removal.

              In addition, the company provides a link to a third-party
              guide that advises users only to email the site directly
              if they see posts for “really dangerous” items, like
              prescription drugs, but not if they see “just run of the mill
              bad ads for guns.”

              Sorry boys, the party's over.

          •  Craigslist? (8+ / 0-)

            They don't allow firearms to be listed. A quick search for "guns" on Craigslist in my locale turned up a few gun safes, several roofing nailers, tattooing gear, and an airsoft rifle. No firearms.

            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

            by happy camper on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 08:53:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Another point: (6+ / 0-)

            We see three calls.
            For all I know, those are three calls that guy made out of 100. The other 97, on hearing "I probably couldn't pass a background check",  probably hung up on his sorry ass.

            But, of course, we don't get to see that.

            The majority of gun owners and sellers are law abiding people.

            "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

            by kestrel9000 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:04:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Here is the breakdown by state (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              labradog

              State/#called/#passed/#failed/%

              Louisiana 4 0 4 100%
              South Carolina 7 1 6 86%
              Kentucky 6 1 5 83%
              Arizona 10 2 8 80%
              New Mexico 5 1 4 80%
              Utah 13 4 9 69%
              Tennessee 13 4 9 69%
              Wisconsin 6 2 4 67%
              Virginia 8 3 5 63%
              Texas 7 3 4 57%
              Indiana 9 4 5 56%
              Kansas 4 2 2 50%
              Ohio 27 17 10 37%
              Colorado 6 4 2 33%
              TOTAL 125 48 77 62%

              Or, to look at it another way, the "law-abiding" portion, at least on this point, is 38%.

              Now, eat your peas--i.e., read the report.

          •  You left out something very important. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldpunk, KVoimakas, PavePusher

            This:

            ...they are simply gun marketing operations and also exist online, per Mayor Bloomberg's investigation of sites such as Craigslist, Armslist, Gunlistings, KSL.com and Glocktalk.

            ...to actually be accurate, should read:
            ...they are simply gun marketing operations and also exist online, per Mayor Bloomberg's illegal investigation of sites such as Craigslist, Armslist, Gunlistings, KSL.com and Glocktalk.

            Of course, I can see why you'd leave that out, as it speaks directly the credibility of the source you cite.

            That being the case, the rest of your point is not particularly compelling.

            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

            by theatre goon on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 12:47:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  But I don't read that from your description (7+ / 0-)

        It sounds like they went out of their way to indicate or outright tell the sellers that they wouldn't pass a background check.

        That's sort of like telling the officer who pulled you over that if he checks your license he's going to find warrants, and then having the officer let you off with a warning to slow down. That's not the fault of the system, nor frankly the person revealing the information, but the person who knows and ignores an inconvenient fact.

        In order to show that gun shows need better regulation you should have somebody who would not pass a background check buy a gun by saying "Oh, sure, I'm good for it. Get background checks on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday of every week. No worries!!!!!" That doesn't sound at all like what was done.

  •  Another hit and run (10+ / 0-)

    Nasty Jack, if you could find time in your busy schedule to answer one question, I'd like to know why you bother to drop bombs like this here if you have no intention of engaging the community.

    "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

    by kestrel9000 on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 07:46:38 AM PST

  •  Diary title is correct: (7+ / 0-)

    more nonsense.

    Why should holding a medical marijuana card preclude one from having a CCW permit? Do you believe that therapeutic amounts of marijuana so addle one's senses that they might indiscriminately begin shooting innocent bystanders?

    Shades of Reefer Madness!

    Courts have found that medical marijuana users are not forbidden to drive a car, an activity with great potential for harm to others. A CCW permit should be no different.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:00:29 AM PST

  •  Elect a President with the gonads to... (4+ / 0-)

    legalize marijuana.  That will end the "unlawfully addicted to..." clause in the GCA '68.

    Which three groups profit from marijuana laws?

    1) The cartels.

    2) The Humboldt County (and like) growers.

    3) The DEA and the criminal justice system.

    The first two are obvious.  If you make the domestic production of marijuana legal, then the price drops like a rock.  Quality and consistency would determine price, not scarcity.

    The third is a matter of record, carefully obfuscated.
    Marijuana is classed like an opiate, or other seriously addicting drug.  Therefore a weed bust goes on your resume as-if you hauled in someone from the Zetas.

    Hot-damn Billy-Bob... you got yourself a dangerous criminal.  That must be enough marijuana to get five or six of those high school kids baked.  Just think of the carnage you prevented from happening.  Why one of those girls could have ended up pregnant, just like we saw in that training movie.  (Reefer Madness)

    Everyone from your town cop, to the head of the DEA is on the take.  Not payoffs from the Cartels, but on the Federal dime.  Not to mention, how many of these privatized prisons would we need if-only the real criminals were incarcerated?  Yeah... and there goes some major sources of campaign contributions.  So neither (D) or (R) candidates have the gonads to say:  This is stupid.  This ends now.

    To those who say it's a drug, regardless of how it's produced or consumed:

    Yes... I'll admit marijuana is a gateway drug, just like bacon is a gateway meat.  Those who would never partake are powerless in it's grasp.  

    I used-to drive through Williamsburg Brooklyn and hand out crispy strips bacon to the Hasidim.  
    Thousands became addicted... consumed by the smoky bits of salty-porky goodness.  
    Enslaved to me, the Pharaoh of Pork.
    It was all going according to plan, until Izzy - a waiter at Grossinger's - spied me, and revoked my parking pass.

    Now we have to throw out all the pots and pans!  Get out, get out, and stay out!

    It was too late, not even a Mensch like Izzy could undo the damage.  Soon thereafter the Resorts in the Jewish Alps failed one-by-one.  All because of marijuana bacon.

    A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

    by 43north on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:34:08 AM PST

  •  Any excuse to vilify Arizona, eh? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, theatre goon

    Were it within site rules, I'd urge you to commit more self-fornication... but sadly, it's not.

    Quel dommage, I understand it's very relaxing.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site