Bloomberg sticking his nose where it doesn't belong (AZ gun show) (military, parties)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There were no waiting periods when the Constitution was written.
And there was no military, no internet, no telephone, no automobile, no convenient handguns, no automatic weapons ... what's your point? The Constitution evolves even as the country evolves. It has to.
I'm at an absolute loss as to how you can take something claimed by Bloomberg's agents that were knowingly violating federal law in attempting to buy pistols outside their state as proof of anything other than the fact that the anti-gun crowd doesn't care which laws they violate as long as it furthers their agenda.
It seems clearly evident that in the eyes of anti-gun crowd laws are only something to be imposed upon those with whom they disagree.
Why in the world would any thinking person concerned with retaining their rights offer even an ounce of compromise to people like this?
No question Bloomberg did this to draw attention to the issue but I have seen very littel criticism of the issue at hand of the sale of guns to people that really shouldn't have them. I would have expected a good deal of criticism for the sellers but I guess I was being overly optimistic that the pro gun side would take issue. Instead the argument turns to the agents purchasing the guns.
What type of individual sells a gun to someone who can't pass a background check?
The previous poster indicated he didn't have a problem since they were cops. So you don't see an issue with private sellers giving away guns to individuals even though they are forbidden whatever that means but commercial stores need background checks. Sure seems like a weakness in the system and you should be questioning the sellers who would actually transfer guns to someone that can't pass a background check. That should be your first priority.
There was critcism regarding the sale to Lougher because he shouldn't been put in the system as a risk, why does it matter if you can just go to one of these shows and avoid any check?
"The investigators participating in the mayor’s videotaped episode bought three guns, two of them after telling the Arizona sellers that they probably could not pass a federal background check. Such checks are not required for private sales, but private sellers are forbidden from selling to people they reasonably suspect could not pass a federal background check.
In a third purchase, the undercover investigators bought a Glock pistol like the one used in the Jan. 8 Tucson shooting. That purchase was legal, the mayor’s aides said, but was intended to show how easy it was to acquire such a gun with no background check."
We have laws. In th experts opinion, no laws were broken.
I tend to believe an experts opinion about things that I have little knowledge, "Jim Cavanaugh, a retired agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, where he was in charge of the Nashville division, said he didn't believe the sales described by the mayor were, in fact, illegal.
[LEFT]"It's not a prosecutable offense" because the purchasers were not truly felons, minors or drug abusers and because they didn't tell the sellers definitively that they were, Cavanaugh said. As for Bloomberg, he said, "ATF has asked him not to do it and to please coordinate with ATF if he thinks a violation is occurring."
Read more: NYC mayor conducts gun-sale sting in Arizona - South Carolina & Regional - Wire - TheSunNews.com (http://www.thesunnews.com/2011/01/31/1954765/nyc-mayor-conducts-gun-sale-sting.html#ixzz1CqK42ulw - broken link)
[/LEFT]
Who are you saying were cops?
I have no problem with PRIVATE sales not going going through a background check.
No question Bloomberg did this to draw attention to the issue but I have seen very littel criticism of the issue at hand of the sale of guns to people that really shouldn't have them. I would have expected a good deal of criticism for the sellers but I guess I was being overly optimistic that the pro gun side would take issue. Instead the argument turns to the agents purchasing the guns.
What type of individual sells a gun to someone who can't pass a background check?
With regard to the bolded text only a foolish one. There are ample buyers that don't raise questions as to the legality of purchase that there is no reason to sell to a questionable buyer.
That said, given the methods used by Bloomberg's people I have a hard time giving any of their findings credibility. If they are willing to break the law for their purposes they are certainly willing to distort evidence to support their cause.
A thinking person would have to wonder how much tape there is of attempted transactions in which the seller declined to deal with them that is not being displayed.
I'll speculate lack of willingness to buy into an obvious dog and pony show has a great deal to do with the lack of criticism directed at the sellers.
If BATFE were actually doing it's job the agents would be facing prosecution and Bloomberg would be facing conspiracy charges. It's doubtful a prosecutor would file on the sellers given the circumstances.
The registry targets those who are purchasing guns legally and then selling them off on the black market. That is how most of the guns used in crimes are obtained.
If the .gov starts a national registry, the criminals will just remove the serial numbers so their already illegally obtained weapons won't be traced back to their source.
They can already trace these types of crimes without a registry. As each gun is confiscated after a crime, it's serial number is checked to see where the manufacturer shipped it. Chicago noticed that a lot of guns used in crimes (in a gun-free city I might add) were coming from rural Mississippi. A local store had already contacted the FBI about the same few guys coming in every month and buying the same type of gun over and over. A quick check of the paperwork at the store led to arrests of the straw buyers as well as the transporters between MS and Chicago. The store owner was later killed in a "robbery" where nothing was taken even though there were guns in glass display cases.
With regard to the bolded text only a foolish one. There are ample buyers that don't raise questions as to the legality of purchase that there is no reason to sell to a questionable buyer.
That said, given the methods used by Bloomberg's people I have a hard time giving any of their findings credibility. If they are willing to break the law for their purposes they are certainly willing to distort evidence to support their cause.
A thinking person would have to wonder how much tape there is of attempted transactions in which the seller declined to deal with them that is not being displayed.
I'll speculate lack of willingness to buy into an obvious dog and pony show has a great deal to do with the lack of criticism directed at the sellers.
If BATFE were actually doing it's job the agents would be facing prosecution and Bloomberg would be facing conspiracy charges. It's doubtful a prosecutor would file on the sellers given the circumstances.
I don't believe that arrest of the sellers was the purpose of the sting; it was to point out how easy it is for a felon or other restricted person to buy a firearm in a legal venue. I wanted to read a little more on the situation, so I found an article from the LA Times, which mentioned the 2009 sting thusly:
Quote:
New York City paid $100,000 to send eight private investigators to the Phoenix show. In 2009, the city sent investigators to gun shows in Nevada, Ohio and Tennessee; in connection with that sting, federal agents seized almost 800 illegal guns at the home of a regular seller at a Reno gun show.
Nearly eight hundred illegal guns - from ONE gun show seller.
By the way, I wanted to compliment the posters on this thread for keeping the discussion mostly respectful. Expressions of contempt for opposing viewpoints don't bolster your case, and I'm really glad to see that's not happening much here today.
I don't believe that arrest of the sellers was the purpose of the sting; it was to point out how easy it is for a felon or other restricted person to buy a firearm in a legal venue. I wanted to read a little more on the situation, so I found an article from the LA Times, which mentioned the 2009 sting thusly:
Nearly eight hundred illegal guns - from ONE gun show seller.
By the way, I wanted to compliment the posters on this thread for keeping the discussion mostly respectful. Expressions of contempt for opposing viewpoints don't bolster your case, and I'm really glad to see that's not happening much here today.
The arrest of the sellers was obviously not the intention of the sting. Compiling footage that could be used to further their cause was. Again, how much footage of those that refused to deal with them was not shown?
The article in the LA Times was interesting but it failed to note whether the 800 allegedly illegal guns were ultimately determined to be illegal. Mountains of evidence are seized daily. Until such time as it is actually determined to be illegal it means little of nothing. It's mention in a newspaper article can sway people into believing that the accused were in the wrong but until they are actually convicted that is not necessarily the case.
And there was no military, no internet, no telephone, no automobile, no convenient handguns, no automatic weapons ... what's your point? The Constitution evolves even as the country evolves. It has to.
You've never seen what a duckfoot could do then. Firing it once would kill as many as a machinegun can kill in a battle, depending on how many barrels it has. Not to mention all the artillery that was freely available, as were grenades and bombs.
People haven't changed, and as the government is better armed today, so do the people need to be better armed.
We have laws. In th experts opinion, no laws were broken.
I tend to believe an experts opinion about things that I have little knowledge, "Jim Cavanaugh, a retired agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, where he was in charge of the Nashville division, said he didn't believe the sales described by the mayor were, in fact, illegal.
[LEFT]"It's not a prosecutable offense" because the purchasers were not truly felons, minors or drug abusers and because they didn't tell the sellers definitively that they were, Cavanaugh said. As for Bloomberg, he said, "ATF has asked him not to do it and to please coordinate with ATF if he thinks a violation is occurring."
Read more: NYC mayor conducts gun-sale sting in Arizona - South Carolina & Regional - Wire - TheSunNews.com (http://www.thesunnews.com/2011/01/31/1954765/nyc-mayor-conducts-gun-sale-sting.html#ixzz1CqK42ulw - broken link)
[/LEFT]
Quote:
Who are you saying were cops?
I didn't it was the poster I responded to way back that indicated they were coops.
Quote:
I have no problem with PRIVATE sales not going going through a background check.
You disagree, That is your perogative.
I agree.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
