Skip to main content

On-line gun sales report
Recorded conversation between investigator pretending to want to buy a gun via the internet and a would-be seller in the City of New York's report: "Point. Click. Fire. An Investigation of Illegal Online Gun Sales."
The New York Times finally got around this week to doing a story that Mother Jones pointed the way forward on more than two months ago. It took a look into a world well-known to many gun owners: the world of Internet firearms.

The story appeared in print Wednesday just in time to land on the desk of every U.S. senator who opposes a bill to require a background check of everyone seeking to buy a gun on the internet. There are at least 41 of these senators, according to various sources. Enough, as we know all too well, to stop an up-or-down vote on the background-check bill. In a sane world, a few of these men and women might get wise from reading what the Times has to say. But the National Rifle Association has done its work well.

Consequently, as the Senate prepares to vote on as many as nine Democratic and Republican amendments to the gun bill, it is all but certain that the compromise background check bill crafted by Sens. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia doesn't have the 60 votes it needs to defeat a Republican filibuster.  

You can help us try to swing those undecided votes and maybe some decided ones by contacting your senator.

Some internet gun sales constitute legitimate business between sellers who ship their guns to federally licensed dealers for transfer to someone not prohibited from owning firearms. But some internet sales are outside the law. Buyers barred from legally purchasing firearms have little trouble finding sellers who will happily put a gun in their hands for cash. How much of this outlawry is going on can't be determined with any certainty. But Times investigators found plenty to make your head spin if you weren't already aware of these transactions:

Over the past three months, The Times identified more than 170,000 gun ads on Armslist. Some were for the same guns, making it difficult to calculate just how many guns were actually for sale. Even so, with more than 20,000 ads posted every week, the number is probably in the tens of thousands.

Notably, 94 percent of the ads were posted by “private parties,” who, unlike licensed dealers, are not required to conduct background checks.

The Times found many of those private parties seemed to be acting instead as gun dealers without licenses, selling significant numbers of firearms. They do so without running background checks on any of the people they sell do. Nor do they keep records of their sales. As the newspaper points out, where the line is drawn about what makes a dealer and what makes a private seller is blurry. How many guns can someone sell before becoming what the law calls a “person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit.”

An undercover City of New York investigation published 16 months ago concluded that Armslist provides the communication medium needed for sellers and buyers to conduct illegal gun business. After making contact via internet ads, they meet somewhere face to face. No background checks required, no records kept, no identification need. Some of the ads, the Times noted, include lines like “no questions asked” and “no paperwork.” The intent is clear, the seller doesn't care whether the buyer just got paroled for pistol whipping his wife or has a clean record. If he's got the money, he gets the gun.

Please continue reading below the fold to learn what the investigation learned.

Of 125 people advertising guns for sale in 14 states on Craigslist and five on-line gun sites:

• 62 percent of private gun sellers agreed to sell a firearm to a buyer who said he probably couldn’t pass a background check [That is a felony.]

• City investigators posing as illegal purchasers asked five of these sellers to meet in person and exchange the guns for cash. All five agreed. The investigators bought four handguns and a semi-automatic assault rifle while recording the transaction with hidden cameras.

• Private sellers on Craigslist had the highest failure rate — roughly 82 percent — even though the site has a policy prohibiting firearms listings. The City also investigated
unlicensed sellers on Armslist (54% failure rate), Gunlistings (77% failure rate), (67% failure rate) and Glocktalk (78% failure rate).

Guns advertised on those websites have been sold to minors and murderers.

Even if background checks were required for internet sales, some people bent on no good would acquire firearms. Buyers would find sellers willing to risk prison time. But requiring background checks and strictly enforcing the law, with stings and persistent monitoring of gun-sales websites, would reduce the number of people who get firearms they aren't legally allowed to have.

However, at least 41 senators think keeping guns out the hands of criminals is not as important as getting that top NRA grade for adherence to the organization's twisted view of the 2nd Amendment. That view and the twisted campaign the gun lobby has used to back it up finally provoked Manchin to blast the organization Wednesday morning:

“I’m a lifetime member of the NRA, I think you all know that, and I’ve been a proud card-carrier,” Manchin said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “I used to get their magazines and their bulletins and I said ‘My goodness, I’m glad they are fighting that. I’m against that too.’ But when when they are basically so disingenuous and telling members that our legislation would, I quote, ‘criminalize the private transfer of firearms by private citizens.’ This bill does not even touch” private sales.

“That’s just a lie, Joe,” host Joe Scarborough told Manchin.

“It is a lie, Joe,” Manchin said in response.

As a life-long member of the NRA, the senator certainly took his sweet time coming to the conclusion many Americans long ago figured out. Unfortunately, it's not just the background-check bill that will wind up dead because of the organization's lies.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:20 AM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA, Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), and Daily Kos.

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

  •  The crazy continues (25+ / 0-)

    in Arizona, as they have voted to force individual cities and counties resell guns turned in @ community buyback programs.... totally negating the point of buyback programs.

    Arizona cities and counties would have to sell guns turned in at community buyback events instead of destroying them under a law passed by the Legislature.

    The bill doesn't have any effect on guns seized by law enforcement, which already have to be sold to a federally licensed dealer under a law passed last year. But that didn't stop a lengthy debate that veered into the possibility that the gun used to shoot U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords might end up back on the street.

    The bill is designed to eliminate a loophole in last year's law that requires police agencies to sell seized guns. Cities, including Tucson, have continued to hold buyback events and destroy the weapons, arguing that because they were voluntarily surrendered, they aren't covered by the law

  •  Many Americans have seen the (19+ / 0-)

    "news" magazine shows' sting operations......reporter in parking lot acting as gun buy who can't pass background check and the laughter that ensues before he walks away with a fucking gun.  This is not news.

    And it is why 90% of Americans KNOW we need the checks.  And more people to police the kind of shit that goes down all over the country in the exact same way as your quote above.

    Get on the phones people:  202-224-3121

    Make your voice heard.

    Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

    by PsychoSavannah on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:33:04 AM PDT

    •  Kill enforcement (0+ / 0-)

      NPR finally got around to be problem with Gun Control that the Daily Show highlighted weeks ago.  The fact that we have laws, but generally the NRA pays congresscritters to insure that those laws are never enforced.  While the Daily Show did a full take down, NPR, the liberal news source, had a guy sympathetic to lack of ability to enforce.

      For the most part the I don't think that guy buying from the local gun hawker is not going to be the one who kills dozens of people.  However I can image terrorists sending their kids to the colleges in Vermont, for instance, and the kids buying guns that are used in the incidents of mass destruction we see along the texas border.   Enforcement of current rules, before they were nullified by the NRA, would go a great way to prevent these type of things from happening.

      However the current law is just going to make things worse by stamping down on states right and requiring universal acceptance of gun rights.  If a gun is bought in one state legally, it is legal in another.  At the very least under the new rules, I can buy a gun in Vermont, which would not legal now for out of state people, drive through Mass, get caught, but now carrying a gun through Mass would legal, and then use that gun Connecticut to murder people.

  •  The "He Looked Ok" rule... (14+ / 0-)

    Joins the ranks of "I felt Threatened" as to our guiding principles with regards to guns.


    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:33:28 AM PDT

  •  Rick Warren's son got his gun via an (11+ / 0-)

    internet purchase that skirted a background check:

    Pastor Rick Warren said Thursday that his son, Matthew, purchased an unregistered gun over the Internet. It was that weapon that he used to take his own life last week after years of battling mental illness.
    “Someone on the internet sold Matthew an unregistered gun.  I pray he seeks God’s forgiveness. I forgive him. #MATTHEW 6:15,” Warren tweeted Thursday.
    The Orange County Sheriff’s Department told the Associated Press it is trying to identify the seller, but the gun’s serial number was unreadable, making it difficult to trace the firearm.
    •  Rick Warren on Aurora (9+ / 0-)

      "When students are taught they are no different than animals, they act like it."  

      I don't want to pile on the guy, but he could have been doing something about this for a long time.  He could have done something.  

      Instead of blaming all of the bad things that happen with guns on the lack of God in everything we do, he could have attempted to solve the problem.  He has a lot of clout, and his listeners might have responded to his appeals to put a stop on some of these gun sales.  


      by otto on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:06:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Politicians who fail to move the ball forward , (3+ / 0-)

    who stand in the way ,
    have a hand in the problem .
    A rico type deal , iykwim .

    Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

    by indycam on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:38:15 AM PDT

  •  Some of those guns are hot . (7+ / 0-)
    500,000 guns stolen each year from private citizens ,
    27,000 from licensed dealers .
    Those guns show up in the market for sale possibly
    from these unlicensed internet dealers .
    The background check should include the seller and the gun .
    Who is buying , who is selling and what is being sold .

    Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

    by indycam on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:49:58 AM PDT

    •  And record keeping should be mandated. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim, pengiep, DSPS owl, Eric Nelson, Debby

      Not that that will happen, because the gun fans "freedoms" are more important than the right to life for all citizens.

      I won't believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. Leo Gerard.

      by tgrshark13 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:13:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd go for a group of upstanding guns owners (0+ / 0-)

        overseeing / running the whole shooting match .
        If they took up the ball and ran with it , we would all be better off .
        They could keep all the records , they could approve / disapprove every gun and bullet sale , trade , give away , gift .  
        I would be for 100% federal funding for a group outside the federal government to do all the oversight and work .

        Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

        by indycam on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:33:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't get this "freedoms" issue either. I'm a (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        indycam, rhonan, Debby

        gun owner and enthusiast. It doesn't bother me in the least that I had to pass a check to get my permit. And I don't see why it should bother anyone else. In fact, I would prefer the checking be more extensive and include all purchases too. Keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't have a right to have them is part of the 2nd amendment too. I just don't get why someone would object to a background check. Or licensing & registration for that matter.

        The only thing I can think of is that the people who oppose this sensible action are people who know they are crooks or crazy or both and who know that they wouldn't be allowed to have guns.

        "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens," -Friedrich Schiller "Against Stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain"

        by pengiep on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:39:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A good upstanding gun owner (0+ / 0-)

          should be happy to be armed against an unarmed bad guy .
          The shift in power goes in the right direction when guns are kept out of the wrong hands .

          Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

          by indycam on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:57:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Really? (0+ / 0-)
          The only thing I can think of is that the people who oppose this sensible action are people who know they are crooks or crazy or both and who know that they wouldn't be allowed to have guns.
          How about including the gun manufacturers and sellers?  I'll allow they fit "crazy".
      •  somebody selling a stolen gun (0+ / 0-)

        is not going to keep records or run a background check.

        There are things a law can do, and there are things a law can't do.

        "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

        by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:59:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What about selling a legally purchased gun? (0+ / 0-)

          To people who shouldn't have one due to age or criminal status? When I worked in Boston years back, one of the ways kids on the street got guns was that college kids in school in the south would legally buy a load of guns and sell them to the wannabees in Boston (the hard core gang kids had other sources).

          These kids probably wouldn't have gone through with this plan if they knew there were records being kept. And if they had, this method would have been traced much sooner than it was.

          The fact that a law can't solve every problem completely is not a compelling argument against it. If there's one thing I learned doing youth work it was that every little bit helps.

          I won't believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. Leo Gerard.

          by tgrshark13 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 06:10:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I think is time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    to go after the source and crucify with taxes the gun industry

  •  Dumb Question Time: (8+ / 0-)

    Why not start setting up massive sting operations?  State "I would probably not pass a background test", buy the gun, arrest the seller?  Sounds like shooting fish in a barrel.....

    To any wingnut: If you pay my taxes I'll give you a job.

    by ban48 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 07:58:12 AM PDT

    •  because it's not illegal to sell guns that way (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      IANAL, but I think you'd have a hard time getting a conviction.  First, private sellers explicitly do not need to do background checks.  Second, there are a lot of reasons that someone might not pass a background check.  (Maybe you have a name similar to someone on the terrorist watch list, or something like that.)  So saying you might not pass the background check doesn't mean you can't possess a gun.

      Third, the NRA would eat the DA alive.  And for what?

    •  Why do you think the NRA excoriates NYC's mayor ? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      denig, FogCityJohn, Laurel in CA

      Recently, Mr. Bloomberg spent and indecent amount of money to place anti-gun  (pro Gun Safety) advertisements in Red State media ...

      BUT BEFORE THAT: Mayor Bloomberg organized, at his own expense,  a massive sting operation in lax-law states to the south of New York.

      Essentially, private detectives were employed to go into legitimate, licensed Virgina arms emporiums putting on a little "straw buyer"  2-man drama where one man bought the gun and signed the paperwork while the other man chose the gun and handed over the money.

      Half the time the clerk ... or more often the Owner ... went into "get the hell out of my store before I call a cop" mode ... but the other half the time -- he didn't.

      Hizzoner released his findings to the media.

      NRA Spokespersons HATED that all to pieces.

      And said so.



      They felt the (jewboy) Mayor from New York ought to have just minded his own business.

      Which, when you think of it, was exactly what he was doing.

      •  but the question is (0+ / 0-)

        since straw purchases are illegal, why aren't Bloomberg's goons still in prison?

        "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

        by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:03:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Goons"? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eric Nelson, Debby

          Private investigators who conducted a sting operation into unquestionably illegal gun sales are "goons" to you?

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:37:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  private security dudes (0+ / 0-)

            doing illegal things in the service of a billionaire?   Short of busting heads, it doesn't get an more goon than that.

            "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

            by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 11:03:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Riiiight (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Yeah, I forgot that your ultimate objective was to ensure that no one learns just how easy it is to circumvent the rules on gun sales.  So yes, I can see why this kind of sting would upset you.

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 02:06:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Because the Seller turned a blind eye (0+ / 0-)

          and let the "goons" get away with it -- as is the usual practice.   A sale is a sale is a sale and a commission is a commission is a commission.

          Since sellers are not required to keep records of sales and serial numbers or show them  to ATF agents more than once in any 12 months, if they do,  HOW would anyone know who bought what gun when?

          So ... practically speaking, how and where  ARE "straw sales" really "illegal" under today's laws?

          My understanding is that "illegal" is when qualified buyer transfers the weapon to someone he/she KNOWS to be a disbarred buyer.

          In the NY/VA sting operation, The guy who (supposedly) wasn't able to buy the gun (and who in reality was a concealed carry permit holder) "didn't exist." as far as the sales clerks were concerned. He was just the well dressed guy anonymous guy,  holding the wallet of the shabby scruffy guy whose background check had just come back A-OK.

          Now, had a law officer WITNESSED the straw buyer passing the pistol to the disbarred buyer ... maybe Virginia law punishes that -- maybe not.  Do YOU know, for sure"  Can you provide a link?

          Of course, as NY concealed carry permit holders,  either of the private investigators could have simply holstered the new purchase and brought it into NY.  As it happens they secured the guns in Virgina and filed their report.

          And HOW the NRA hated that !

          •  They still falsified (0+ / 0-)

            Form 4473s.

            "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

            by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 11:01:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're sure of that, are you ? (0+ / 0-)
              The Form 4473 contains name, address, date of birth, government-issued photo ID, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check transaction number, make/model/serial number of the firearm, and a short federal affidavit stating that the purchaser is eligible to purchase firearms under federal law. Lying on this form is a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison in addition to fines, even if the transaction is simply denied by the NICS, although prosecutions are rare in the absence of another felony committed with the gun purchased.
              Now, it happens there was a little bit of street theatre in which the buyer took money from a third party (in sight of the clerk) and then handed the boxed pistol over to the third party -- also in sight of the clerk and drove off in a car with NY State license plates

              But, the buyer was "eligible".  His ID documents were legitimate and his own.  The seller recorded the sale.

              How was the Federal law NOT satisfied?

              If, as you suggest there was a law in effect in Virginia banning straw sales, the clerk MIGHT have jotted down the couple's automobile license plate number  (one difference between guns and cars) and called the police.

              In that case, would the criminal have been the Buyer, his "acquaintance" ... both?   neither ?

              The point here is:  not "always" -- but over and over again Virginia gun store clerks, witnessing an obvious straw purchase in progress,  did nothing;  and the weapon left the store in a vehicle with NY State license plates?

              And YOU think the "goons" are the ones who ought to have been locked up?

              And the Mayor of New York ought to have just minded his own business?

              •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
                Are you the actual buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring
                the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to
                you. (See Important Notice 1 for actual buyer definition and examples.)

                "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

                by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 04:19:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  THAT wouldn't work. (0+ / 0-)

      Jack booted thugs! ....or something.

      Joking aside, and contrary to their exhortations to “enforce the laws already on the books,” this is exactly the type of thing that would make the NRA go apeshit.

      Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

      by Joe Bob on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:14:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Make them filibuster it every day (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles, foresterbob, sethtriggs

    Bring the bill up as often as possible and make them vote, over and over, not to have an up or down vote.  Should make for entertaining and enlightened theater.  

    The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones! - John Maynard Keynes

    by Do Something on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:00:01 AM PDT

  •  Both of my Senators say they'll vote "yes" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Including the Republican Mark Kirk.

    Kirk may have to find a new party at this rate:
    Not only does he plan to vote yes on this, he's come out in support of same-sex marriage.

    Might not be too dangerous in Illinois, but there's an awful lot of farmers in the state -- and an awful lot of gun owners.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:04:38 AM PDT

  •  Law shouldn't define "a dealer". (7+ / 0-)
    How many guns can someone sell before becoming what the law calls “person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit.”
    In reality, the law requiring background checks should apply to anyone who sells a gun.  That would exclude inherited weapons and gifts, and include everyone who wants to quibble with "regular" and "principle".

    That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

    by Inland on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:04:42 AM PDT

    •  For some reason (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sethtriggs, Eric Nelson

      There is something very important about being able to transfer the guns to friends and so on.

      It is very important to gun enthusiasts that they be able to give a gun to someone else.  

      So all this business about dealers has to be included so that others can continue to give guns to other people who are their "friends."


      by otto on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:09:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "giving" versus "selling" (5+ / 0-)

        I think it needs to be clear that Grandpa can give his 12 gauge to you without involving the government.

        “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

        by jeff in nyc on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:16:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why? We have to involve the government to transfer (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          denig, DSPS owl, FogCityJohn

          ownership of our old car to a nephew or grandchild.

          "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens," -Friedrich Schiller "Against Stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain"

          by pengiep on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:41:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No you don't. (0+ / 0-)

            only vehicles driven on public roads need to be registered, and driving motor vehicles on a public road is not a constitutional right.

            "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

            by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:11:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, yeah, I forgot about . . . (0+ / 0-)

              that huge class of cars that people acquire but don't ever drive.  Because after all, pretty much everyone has tens of thousands of dollars to spend on a vehicle that will never be used for its intended purpose.

              There's really no argument too ridiculous for you folks, is there?

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:40:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  what people do isn't the issue (0+ / 0-)

                what government has been given the constitutional authority to do is the issue.

                "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

                by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:48:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, that's not the issue. Not for anybody. (0+ / 0-)

                  If anyone says that background checks or registration are unconstitutional, they are either idiots or intentionally feeding bullshit to idiots.

                  That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                  by Inland on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 12:37:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  there's no difference between (0+ / 0-)

                    forbidding the transfer of heirlooms between generations, and kicking down doors for them today.  They are both confiscation.

                    "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

                    by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 02:19:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Anyone who thinks a background check (0+ / 0-)

                      is confiscation is either an idiot or intentionally feeding bullshit to idiots.   Or registration, for that matter.

                      Well, the pro gun people used to pretend that they really wanted to keep guns out of the hands of the dangerously insane or criminals.  Now the truth is out, and we see that keeping guns out of the hands of the dangerously insane and criminals is the same as kicking down doors and confiscating guns.

                      I'm always glad to see people dropping their pretenses.

                      That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                      by Inland on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 02:44:18 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Now you've finally dropped your pretenses (0+ / 0-)

                        you want to have every single firearm, even family heirlooms, registered with the government.  That's even more extreme than Canada, ferfucksake, they abandoned the rifle registry last year.

                        See?  I can twist your words just as well as you can twist mine.

                        "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

                        by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 03:11:54 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

      •  plausible deniability (6+ / 0-)

        is the reason.

        What?  My gun was used in a homicide?  Honestly, I have no idea how that could be.  I gave that gun to my cousin last year, you could ask him about it.
        Of course, these are all responsible gun owners.
      •  It's to create as large a loophole as possible. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        otto, RadGal70, ColoTim

        The current legislation excludes "face to face" sales.  Not gifts.  Sales.  And not just to relatives and neighbors, but anyone who can take the time to contact you on the internet and travel to your house.

        That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

        by Inland on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:22:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  well, currently (0+ / 0-)

      a person who isn't a dealer can't run a background check, since they don't have access to the FBI database.

      And you can't become a dealer unless you have retail floor space and regular business hours.

      "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

      by happymisanthropy on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:07:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Golly, what to do, what to do. (0+ / 0-)

        That's a real stumper.  I can't imagine how someone who isn't a dealer could have access to the FBI data base.  I guess we just have to let everyone who doesn't bother to rent space and keep regular hours sell guns to just anyone with cash.  

        No problem, because guys selling guns out of trunks in the middle of the night are probably all responsible gun owners anyway.

        That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

        by Inland on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 12:40:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the info MB (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSPS owl, Eric Nelson
  •  Does someone have a list of names of the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sethtriggs, Eric Nelson

    Dems who are "undecided" and those who already have expressed clear opposition?

    The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain, is floating in mid-air, until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life. Jane Addams

    by Alice Olson on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:06:28 AM PDT

  •  They're popping the Champagne (or probably the (9+ / 0-)

    ... Cold Duck) in certain quarters of the gun fancier crowd.

    What the concealed and open carry folks want is to be able to carry their strap-ons with them wherever they go in the United States because that makes them feel safer.

    Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

    by Bob Johnson on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:08:21 AM PDT

    •  State's rights? (0+ / 0-)

      That part seems Constitutionally dubious.  How can Congress declare a right to concealed carry that countermands state law?  How can the Republicans demand that in exchange for online background checks?  The mind boggles at how terrible this compromise legislation is.

    •  Hey Bob, maybe you should take a break. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I am a staunch supporter of stricter gun control. Way before Newton or Aurora, I had it out with the gun "activists" here. When they used to show up and swarm people in diaries to intimidate them and prevent any support for gun control on this site.

      The dialogue can become maddening, because you are dealing with people who have the same relationship with guns that meth addicts and crack addicts have with their drugs. They even think that once they take someone to the range, they'll get hooked as well.

      In any case, it is not helpful to the discussion to talk about "strap ons" and such. That kind of talk only turns people like Meteor Blades, who is actually a responsible and sensible gun owner, against you.

      Just something to think about. I have had to take several breaks from this site, and the gun control argument, because I get so pissed off at their irrational addiction and refusal to accept even background checks. Not to mention some of the self-appointed guardians of our "freedom" i.e. militia members.

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:45:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Correct, Robert (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      to carry their strap-ons with them wherever they go in the United States because that makes them feel safer.
      That is the main reason people buy them.

      ARE these people REALLY "safer"? Unsure. I really don't think so.

      Guns CAN provide deterrence to people, but they do not protect you from bullets.

      Probably luck of the draw, so to speak.

  •  This cake was baked (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mndan, RadGal70, ColoTim, pengiep, Eric Nelson

    when Harry decided not to push meaningful filibuster reform. Because "maintaining decorum" in the world's most elite club is more important than saving lives of ordinary Americans.

    Barack Obama for President

    by looty on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:13:28 AM PDT

  •  Would they support background checks to buy ricin? (0+ / 0-)
  •  Where do these guns come from? (0+ / 0-)

    That factoid seems to be missing in this.

    Where are private sellers getting tens of thousands of guns to sell?  The NYT article states some are advertised "new in box".

    Are manufacturers allowed to sell to private individuals directly?

    Don't get me wrong.. I think we need universal background checks to curb some of this shit. (It's one of the few proposals I agree with)  But tens of thousands of guns have to come from somewhere.

  •  About that time lag (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    on the publication: at least there aren't any typos in the NYT story.


    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:23:28 AM PDT

  •  Question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hulibow, Eric Nelson

    I have already contacted my own senators to say I support their votes for gun control legislation ( they would each vote for it).
    Does contacting Senators who are wobbling help if they're not in my own district?

    •  Welcome to my world (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim, Eric Nelson

      no conversation allowed with my Senators Risch & Crapo - the door was slammed long ago. I do try to contact other Senators when able, it can't hurt to try.

      Organizing is what you do before you do something, so that when you do it, it is not all mixed up. A. A. Milne

      by hulibow on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:26:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm afraid to say it... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xxdr zombiexx, RadGal70, ColoTim

    And I AM NOT advocating it - but nothing is going to happen until something happens to one of the Senators or their families.  Even then - something did happen to a House member and nothing is happening.  

    'Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost' - Ronald Reagan, Communist

    by RichM on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:24:29 AM PDT

  •  Here is actual video (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    From the City of New York investigation quoted at the top.

    Some people have short memories

    by lenzy1000 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 08:25:20 AM PDT

  •  NRA's game is so obvious (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ColoTim, RadGal70, Eric Nelson

    I'm amazed it's working so well.  The NRA, via their looney VP, has staked out a position so absolutely bonkers that everyone in the world can claim to be for "gun control".

    Every time you see someone say they used to support the NRA, but now they've grown disenchanted, understand that they are unintentionally doing exactly what the NRA wants them to do.  They are discovering that they have been supporters of gun control all along.

    But that's because "gun control" now means anything stricter than the NRA standard of mandatory universal gun ownership.

    So now we have this POS law.  It attempts to establish (once again) the bare minimum regulation and laws strictly about gun sales that everyone thought we already had and combines it with necessary-to-pass "compromises" that provide new rights to these very same gun nuts.

    So we'll see a lot of hemming and hawing and brokering to get this bill passed.  And the end result will likely be that we still wont have the bare minimum regulation and laws that everyone thinks we already have.

  •  Your leaders are FAR more concenred (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lenzy1000, Eric Nelson

    about people buying MARIJUANA than guns.

    Same folks protect both status quos.

  •  The part I don't get: If the NRA represents (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    manufacturers, licensed retail sellers, ranges and shooters ...  where is their profit motive to defend the casual and unregistered private sale of arms.

    It would seem to me, the system in which a casual seller must either consign their weapon to a licensed seller or process the sale through a licensed seller (at a lower commission rate) would work to the advantage of the profit-seeking wing of the NRA.

    Of course it would raise the price of used arms ... AND it would deprive  the hand-to-hand-in-the-dark-of-night trade in handguns of inventory -- probably driving up the cost of criminals' tools-of-trade, too.

    Why does the NRA object to that so violently? (sic).

    I guess it's a little like the Right To Life political movement.  At first, it probably WAS just a hard core of baby selling doctors and lawyers deprived of inventory by Roe v. Wade ... but with time and effort their movement raised a generation of wholly persuaded volunteer zealots who in turn created a market for fundraisers and organizers producing more altruistically motivated supporters -- the original money-grubbers having become almost  irrelevant.

    Or when the Boy Scouts of America INC left Edison NJ for Irving Texas, it went from being a recreation and educational program for boys with certain paramilitary characteristics to being a de-facto Youth Ministry for churches with agendas.

    Perhaps it's something like that with the NRA.  With the fading of their original  White Landowner  (and the urban renters  who want to be them) base, the organization developed connections to extreme right wing politics (racialized or not) and angry single-issue anti-government "populists".  And so the Grandsons of the Kluxers became more important to the NRA leadership than the hunters, shooters and collectors, as such.

    •  simple (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      basket, BettytheBoop

      it is a scorched earth strategy, entirely consistent with the mindset of their most adamant and vocal supporters. any restrictions "eventually lead to" all restrictions.

      it isn't true, but truth was a casualty in this debate a long time ago.

      as for the NRA profit motive, I'd encourage you to google the NRA, take a look at their executive salaries, and look at where there support comes from.

      this guys are no different than CEO's who try to get away with poisoning the environment in the pursuit of profits, until they are caught at it.

      then they blame someone lower down the food chain.

      "When you're skating on thin ice, you might as well dance." Jesse Winchester

      by The Poet Deploreate on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:24:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah ... but the question still remains (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        If all those high dollar arms manufacturers and retailers are the source of the big bucks for the big salaries ...

        Why does the NRA let their  $25/year members set the tone and call the shots ?

        It would seem the interests of the $1000/life members would lie with the kind of safe and sane regulation that would promote public trust, making more non-owners willing to co exist peacefully with registered responsible owners.Casual cash sales in the dead of night take money out of the pockets of the established gunsmiths and sporting goods retailers.

        Nor do I see why arms manufacturers and their stockholders should be any more inclined toward crypto-racism and right wing politics than ... let's say ... sports car manufacturers.

        Yet, today's NRA makes yesterday's American Legion look like a "center-center"  organization.

        •  The members (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          basket, The Poet Deploreate

          don't set the tone.  The members lap up the propaganda they've been fed for 30 years and then spew it back into the public sphere.

          Anyway, it doesn't matter what over 60% of the American population wants. It only matters that the NRA controls the political futures of many spineless Congressmen and Senators, and these weenies will vote against the public's interests every time as a result.  And the SCOTUS has a lot of blood on its hands at this point in time.

          •  The that begs the question (0+ / 0-)

            Why the manufacturers and professional retailers who stand to profit by a closer control of gun sales, and stand to lose by the person-to-person casual sale of weapons advocate so strongly for an alienable right for any unindicted citizen to compete with them for sales.

            I mean, it's a tough question.

            Common sense suggests that a well regulated trade in firearms would result in more, not fewer sales of both new and used hardware.   Think in terms of automobiles ... strictly regulated, enormously profitable.  

            Putting NRA sanctions enterprises at the center of such a trade  (as they already are, for the most part) would increase the value and the influence of the organization.

            Yet, the NRA party line is what it is


            Myself, I'm starting to lean  towards the "in league with The Devil" theory.

  •  Have to keep trying, tho (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Faito, Eric Nelson

    Portland is trying to have some restrictions - the gun lovers will show up in droves, but this in Portland, so it actually stands a chance.  Local law enforcement is behind this.

  •  no pass for reid. none. (0+ / 0-)

    sorry. as someone who is sitting here today at my desk in Boston; as someone who has had a loaded gun pointed at them and the trigger pulled by someone who would not have been able to get that gun, even under the diluted standards proposed by Toomey Manchin, I will not give reid a pass on this.

    No bigger issue faces this nation right now than the proliferation of weapons. More than a gun for every person living in this country- and laughable restrictions on purchase and sales of guns that are vigorously opposed in every survey since Newtown by a vast majority of Americans. Change needs to happen.

    I believe this is the big one, this is the one that reid should have been"keeping his powder dry" for. If reid refuses to pull the trigger on the nuclear option on this issue, please explain to me how he is any different than mcconnell on this. if I understand it, your approval of his failure to do so is because he is at risk for losing his job. I find that all the more appalling. His job is not worth another child being shot to death for the crime of being in the wrong place at the wrong time by someone who could be screened out of gun ownership

    He needs to evoke the nuclear option, and pass this legislation. Failure to do so will have powerfully bad consequences for the United States, for innocent people, and frankly, for the Democratic party.

    Only Reid, as majority leader, has the power to do that. If he chooses not to- for whatever reason- he owns this failure of will for all of history; he cannot differentiate himself from the worst republican senator i can imagine on this issue. In the end, I don't give a damn how he votes- he has the power to change the rules. That is the metric I am using to judge him by.

    And he will likely lose his damned seat anyway; i will personally drop a donation on anyone - anyone- running against him. Voting for this legislation, and refusing to use the power you have to make this law a reality is politically disingenuous  and patently ridiculous. It does nothing but embolden his potential opposition, and won't bring apostate dems back into the fold. It is a stupid strategy. Gutless, stupid, and unacceptable.

    If your kid had been in that Newtown classroom, would you have written a post suggesting that not going nuclear to bring about changes in gun laws is worth Reid holding onto his job?

    Sorry for the rant. Getting shot at will do that to you. This isn't abstract for me. Seeing cops with assault weapons, and the national guard patrolling downtown Boston has an impact on how one thinks about safety.

    I am sick of these spineless senatorial bastards- these rich, spineless bastards- dancing to the tune of those irresponsible f*cks who live only to pimp for the gun companies. Reid can lead the promenade, or he can take a stand for his constituents.

    Money talks, and bullshit becomes law.
    Enough. Enough.
    No more.

    "When you're skating on thin ice, you might as well dance." Jesse Winchester

    by The Poet Deploreate on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 09:21:03 AM PDT

  •  Which senators and is there a credible, organized (0+ / 0-)

    effort to primary these people?  Same for the House.

  •  During the "Fast and Furious" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    fiasco, it was revealed that the regional head of the ATF has personally sold a firearm on-line that ended up in the hands of the Mexican Cartels.

    He declined, in his Senate testimony, to say whom he sold it to.

    Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

    by 6412093 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 10:40:59 AM PDT

    •  It was the only documented case that Darryl Issa (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ..witness could testify to during hearings. Issa'a own man. John Dodsen
      It was a joke. Issa on his witch hunt told so many lies it was incredible how he spun that story.

      Apparently, there has been only one agent, John Dodson, who purposely, and against orders, let guns go across. Turns out Dodson is the sole witness who saw gun walking, and he reported it to Representative Darrell Issa’s House Republican Oversight Committee.
      His own witness. The only case of gun walking - and he lost the gun -  lol (ruefully)
      •  Yeh, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eric Nelson

        I wondered why those hearings dried up so fast. The agent  I referred to was George Gillett, former #2 at ATF in Phoenix.

        Gillett sold an $1100 "cop killer" hand gun, the FN Herstal, on-line to a man he refused to identify.  That gun was later recovered at the murder scene of a Mexican beauty queen.

        Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

        by 6412093 on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 11:45:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  So political backlash is 'conventional wisdom' (0+ / 0-)

    ..and still holds sway.

    So trying to advocate gun safety measures is politically deadly - This is what the NRA has achieved. A lock down on gun legislation by defining the truth as they see it.
    Media Matters - January 20, 2013 12:16 PM EST ››› MATT GERTZ

    Media outlets are reviving the myth that passage of the assault weapons ban was the crucial factor in Democratic defeats during the 1994 elections as President Obama moves to institute a new ban on assault weapons
    ..Indeed, as US News reported in a January 17 article, political scientists who have analyzed the 1994 election say it is "mythology" that gun violence prevention laws were the primary reason the Democrats were defeated. - emphasis added
    In Arizona
    Brooks, who died Dec. 4, lost his House seat in the 1994 election as part of a backlash to the assault-weapons ban that is believed to have contributed to that year’s “Republican Revolution.”

    From McClatchy - January 17, 2013

    Even Democrats have shied away from gun control since the 1990s – particularly after losing so many seats in the 1994 elections – when they realized it was working against them in marginal states.
    Politico - January 19, 2013 04:55 PM EDT
    ..Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban “devastated” more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms
    Detroit Free Press
    Never far from such Democrats' minds is what happened in 1994, when the party suffered widespread election losses after backing President Bill Clinton's crime bill featuring a ban on assault weapons.

    A belief/fear that contradicts what 90% people want -  tighter regulations on guns - advocating  firearm safety measures - is politically deadly and considered 'conventional wisdom'.

    Of course there will be areas where this plays more of a role but this is way out of wack

     Conventional Wisdom.  This fits the "fear of fear itself"  meme only it seems to be self perpetuating. And the NRA has only to add fuel to the myth every once in a while to keep it alive.

     This is a huge problem that needs solving imo. I don't know how, but it needs doing.

    Let's end the myth and replace it with real wisdom  


    Information & links from a Diary by Kossack tytalus

  •  Propaganda (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson

    Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” the deep and dramatic-sounding voice intoned. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?”

    This lead-in copy about President Obama’s children was crafted by the NRA’s Oklahoma City-based Ackerman McQueen, an advertising and public relations agency which has been married to the NRA for over 30 years.

    It has produced what is a master propagandist in Wayne LaPierre the NRA CEO. Together both Mr. LaPierre and this agency have made a lot of money creating the NRA’s liturgy.

    David Keene, the new NRA President since 2011, was formerly chairman of the American Conservative Union from 1984 to 2011 where he directed the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. Explore Mr. Keane’s fascinating lifetime-jacket on Wikipedia.

    Put it all together. Behind the scenes three master-propagandists pull all of the gun-debate strings. These are Wayne LaPierre, David Keene and Angus McQueen, the CEO of Ackerman McQueen. This trio is a GOP attack-dog masterpiece.

    America has to ask itself: Have Mitch McConnell and other Republican leaders willfully aided the NRA in setting up a legislator blackmail-system across America?

    America has to answer: Does it want these power brokers and the GOP-NRA collaboration influencing so many legislators and the safety of 315 million people?

    Reid said he'd support an assault weapons ban.  I'm frankly shocked.

  •  So what you're saying..... (0+ / 0-) that criminals can be caught without any further civilian disarmament.  Good point, I'll take a note of it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site