The Nuts Ruining America Strike Again!!!!

[CO Liberal]

Just another reason why I believe the Democratic Party should stay as far away from the NRA as possible - Wayne

* * * * * * * * * *

Eleventh-Hour NRA Amendment to Justice Department Appropriations Bill Would License Tens of Thousands of New "Kitchen-Table" Gun Dealers

Amendment Would Also Severely Weaken Gun Dealer Oversight By ATF

WASHINGTON, DC—A National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed amendment inserted by Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) at the last minute into fiscal year 2004 appropriations legislation for the Commerce, Justice and State Departments would dramatically increase the number of "kitchen-table" gun dealers across America, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) charged today. The surprise amendment, adopted last week by the House Appropriations Committee by a vote of 31 to 30, would require the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to issue Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs) to "kitchen-table" gun dealers, applicants who do not actually run stocking gun stores, but instead operate out of homes and offices.

<more>

http://www.vpc.org/press/0307ffl.htm

[JayS]

1. So instead of operating as an individual doing private sales...

...they will now be licensed and bound by the terms of their FFL. How is this a bad thing?

Not having read the text of the amendment, and the VPC does not provide a link, not surprisingly, I'm leaning toward being for this amendment.

[CO Liberal]

2. You May Like the Idea of a Gun Dealer In Every Block......

...but I don't!!!!

More Guns = More Death

[JayS]

6. You already have people selling guns around you. My...

...preference is for those sales to go through a NICS check. If I get a chance I'll pull the actual text of the amendment but from what I have heard so far it moves closer to this goal.

[leanings]

44. More Guns = More Death

Every bit as unsupported an argument as More Guns = Less Death.

[CO Liberal]

47. Not Unsupported

Therre are more guns per capita here in the US than any other so-called civilized country. Care to compare the death rates from gunshots????

[leanings]

48. Compare

area per capita gun ownership in the US with gunshot deaths. There's no correlation. And the different levels of gun ownership in Europe don't line up with the different death rates. It's not as simple as saying "the US has the most guns and the most gunshot deaths, so more guns must equal more gun deaths." The name of that particular logical fallacy escapes me at the moment but it's a perfect fit.

[CO Liberal]

54. And Area Has Nothing to Do With Anything

Since land doesn't fire guns - people do.

The US has more guns per capita, and more gun deaths per thousand. More Guns = More Death. 'Nuff said.

[leanings]

73. No, try again

Maybe I should have rephrased that as "Compare per capita gun ownership rates among different areas in the US."

[Emoto]

56. Here is a table

The table is fairly well documented as to the sources, so it's presenter doesn't really matter (just to nip that thought in the bud).

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

The real interesting thing is if you start to look at the column of % of households with guns and then look at the rates. To me, this indicates that other factors are very important and that the mere presence of guns, while necessary to the extent that you cannot have a gun death without a gun, is only one factor. I think it is societal attitudes toward violence that is the biggie, but I can't back that up.

[patdem]

3. If you sell real estate you have to be hooked up with a broker

this is like letting real estate sellers go without brokers and have less oversight? :shrug:

Guns dont kill people ... illegal sales of guns kill people!

[pw]

7. Anybody can be a wholesaler

and, at least according to the release:

"The amendment would also severely undermine the ability of ATF to ensure that gun dealers are obeying federal gun laws. ATF would be limited in its ability to obtain records of firearm acquisition and disposition from dealers. In addition, the agency would be barred from implementing regulations to monitor dealer inventory."

So you have a lot more people who are allowed to purchase guns in quantity, and a lot less tracking of what happens with those guns.
The new dealers will be nominally "bound by the terms of their FFL" but the feds would actually have the ability to determine whether they were obeying the law. It would be like, say, voluntary enforcement of clean-air rules.

[jody]

11. You say "Anybody can be a wholesaler". Sorry but that's not true.

Why don't you apply for an FFL and report back to us on your success.
:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

4. How unbelievably scummy!

What a disgrace in every frigging way.

[CO Liberal]

5. If This Idea Had Merit .....

...they would not have snuck it in at the last minute.

NRA + GOP - Partners in Crime

[MrBenchley]

9. Exactly so...

You'll notice the VPC and HCI and the rest put out press releases proudly pointing out what they're doing...the NRA and the gun lobby have to do all they can to HIDE what they are up to...

[JayS]

12. You mean like hiding what they are doing by putting out...

...press releases like these?

http://www.nraila.org/NewsCenter.asp?FormMode=IntheNews&ID=7

[CO Liberal]

14. I'm Sorry - I Think I Missed It

Could you point out to me which of those links leads to an NRA press release that tells how they got that last-minute change made to the budget????

Or is this something the Nuts Ruining America want to keep under wraps?

[JayS]

16. They ran the story in their NRA-ILA section. This link should...

...get you to their pointer. They also don't point to the actual text of the amendment either.

http://www.nraila.org/NewsCenter.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=2854

[MrBenchley]

30. What a pantload

Do you knnow what a press release is?

This is them acknowledging that the story ran in the Washington Post....and trying to spin it away.

[CO Liberal]

32. All That Is.....

...is a link to a story in the Washington Post. That's totally different from a press release, where an organization distributes information ot media outlets in a deliberate attempt to inform the public about their activities.

The NRA engaged in stealth activities, and they're ashamed to admit it.

[JayS]

35. I didn't mean to say press release. That is why I called it a...

...pointer to a story later in my post.

This will take you straight into their press release area:
http://www.nraila.org/NewsCenter.asp?FormMode=Releases&ID=1

[MrBenchley]

37. Like so many scummy things the right wing is up to

success depends totally upon keeping these things out of the light of day and away from the attention of ordinary Americans.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

41. Wise up

It was in the Washington Post BEFORE it was on their website for whackos.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

49. It's called a press release, Jay

You know, the thing you claimed this WAS.

[Set]

24. So, the MG ban in 1986...

was "scummy" too? After all, it was a last minute amendment that nobody really knew was in the bill before it was signed...

[Axman]

55. Can you explain your comments?

I'm curious, how did it pass yet no one knew it was in there? I'm a bit confused.

[MrBenchley]

33. Notrice that the link provided

is to the Washington Post story that ran.....

Some press release, eh?

[MrBenchley]

29. Gee, I don't see a press release on THIS

in among that pile of right wing crap.

[JayS]

34. The NRA puts out press releases, pointers to stories regarding...

...issues they support, speeches, fact sheets, etc. It is all in their news center and is not exactly hidden.

Go browse around http://www.nraila.org/NewsCenter.asp?FormMode=Releases&ID=1. There is years worth of info in there.

[MrBenchley]

38. I've seen the NRA's lies before

And they didn't put out any press release on this.

[JayS]

40. Perhaps because it only merits a pointer to a story. n/t

.

[MrBenchley]

42. Trying to evade public notice of this scummy action

altogether is more like it.

[Set]

8. this is pretty funny...

by letting "kitchen table dealers" operate with FFLs, wouldn't that go a long way towards "closing the gun show loopholes"?

By driving the small "dealers" out of business by denying them licenses, there's far less oversight of people who do it as a hobby. After all, once they're "private individuals" again, they don't need to do paperwork or background checks, right?

CO, I'm confused now. We want gun enthusiasts to be responsible, right? We want them to do background checks before selling guns, right? So doesn't that require them to be able to get a FFL?

Why would you complain about legislation that would mean more background checks being conducted, and more and better records being kept? Would you rather that they conducted fewer background checks?

[MrBenchley]

10. Say what?

"We want them to do background checks before selling guns, right? So doesn't that require them to be able to get a FFL?"
Why?

[JayS]

13. Dealers have to do NICS checks; private individuals don't. n/t

.

[MrBenchley]

17. So what's keeping them from doing background checks now?

Oh that's right...their customers couldn't pass them.

Of course the bill that wants to give these criminal accomplices FFL's also lets them run wild without supervision, so there'd bve no way to tell if they're conducting background checks or not....

[JayS]

19. Private individuals can't access NICS, dealers can. n/t

.

[Lefty48197]

20. Lemme guess...

...the NRA fought tooth and nail to have congress require that individuals be required to perform background checks before selling guns right? Just keep saying it. It will come true.

[MrBenchley]

26. There's certainly nothing keeping private individuals

from conducting a background check with their local police BEFORE selling the gun...they just can't do the NRA's bogus "instant check"...which was engineered to be ineffective.

Bring back the waiting period and beef up the databases.

[Set]

46. Sure there is...

It's a "courtesy discourteously rendered". Try going to your local police department, and having a background check done on somebody other than yourself. See how far you get.

[Set]

22. sure there would be....

Having a FFL means that you're more, not less, accountable to the government. If a private individual sells a gun and it's traced to them, they have a legal right to tell the agents questioning that they sold the gun, and that the agents should get lost. Private individuals are not required to keep records of who they sold the gun to, much less what the results of a background check were. If a FFL sells a gun, they're required to keep records, and make those records available to law enforcement for investigative purposes. Failure to do so is a criminal act. If a FFL sells a gun used in a crime and doesn't conduct the background check, they're in hot water as soon as the firearms trace is conducted.

[Set]

23. because it's illegal...

for a private individual to access the NICS system to conduct background checks....

[MrBenchley]

31. Now who made it illegal

do you suppose?

By the way, how come we NEVER hear of "law-abiding gun dealers" making a citizens arrest of those customers who FAIL a background check? After all, we hear gun nuts ululate constantly that Clinton and Reno failed to prosecute these folks.

[JayS]

36. Gun nuts like Rep. Dingell? And trust me, you don't want the...

...average Joe to have access to NICS data. I say that as an employer who has many times wished I could access it before hiring someone.


*****
August 1, 2000



The Honorable Janet Reno

Attorney General

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Reno:

I read with great interest Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder’s June 4, 2000, announcement regarding the release of two Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports on Federal Firearm Offenders and Background Checks for Firearm Transfers. As you are aware, effective and timely enforcement of our nation’s federal firearms laws is of tremendous importance to the Congress. As we continue to look for effective strategies to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands and reduce gun violence, reports such as these are useful in evaluating the progress of the Administration on this front.

As Mr. Holder notes in his statement, "the Brady Law has stopped 536,000 felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, and other persons not legally allowed to have a gun from getting a gun." This is indeed an impressive record. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is one of the most effective tools we have to crack down on gun criminals and prevent crime. However, stopping the sale of a firearm to a prohibited person is only one component of an effective strategy to reduce violent criminal behavior. Prosecuting those felons, fugitives and domestic abusers who attempt to purchase a firearm is the other half of the equation.

The BJS report on Firearm Offenders states that an average of 6,700 defendants were charged with a firearm offense in U.S. district courts between 1992 and 1999. On its face, that number of prosecutions seems incredibly low given the number of prohibited persons stopped by the instant check system. An analysis of the BJS reports confirms that the number of federal prosecutions is severely inadequate.

As you are aware, 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) makes the attempted purchase of a firearm by an individual who knowingly provides false information on a firearm transfer application (ATF Form 4473) a federal felony offense. In simple terms, it is a federal felony, punishable for up to ten years in prison, for felons, fugitives, domestic abusers or any other category of prohibited person to attempt to purchase a firearm if they knowingly falsify the purchase application.

Of the 204,000 attempted purchases stopped by NICS in 1999, the BJS report states that 71 percent of the rejections were for a felony conviction or indictment, 12 percent were for a disqualifying domestic violence conviction and three percent were rejected because the applicant was a fugitive from justice. Thus, 86 percent (approximately 175,440 persons) of those rejected by the instant check system had de facto committed another felony by falsifying ATF Form 4473. However, federal firearm prosecutions in aggregate totaled only 6,728. Although the report indicated the statistics for 1999 are preliminary data, that is a prosecution rate of only 3.29 percent. To put it another way, for every thirty rejected applications for a firearm transfer, there was only one prosecution.

If we are to concern ourselves with 1998, the latest year for which we have final data, the record is demonstrably worse. Of the rejected applications, totaling 90,000 in 1998, a mere 102 cases were federally prosecuted. That equates to a prosecution rate of less than one percent. Thus in 1998, for every 882 rejected applications for a firearm transfer there was only one federal prosecution. And while some have made the case that these cases are difficult to prosecute, I would note the statement of former federal prosecutor Andrew McBride of the Richmond office, now in private practice, that such cases are as easy to prosecute as "picking change up off the street."

Needless to say, these statistics are less than impressive. It is not hard to understand why this Administration has been criticized for being lax in enforcing existing federal firearm laws. In an effort to better understand why the Department of Justice is not doing more to prosecute violations of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6), I would appreciate your answers to the following questions:

Some of the reasons for this poor prosecutorial record are indicated in the BJS Federal Firearm Offenders report. Citing table 1,"Firearm suspects declined for prosecution by U.S. attorneys, by reason for declination, 1998," some of the reasons listed for not prosecuting known gun criminals include: minimal federal interest and DOJ/U.S. Attorney policy. I find this very curious. Please tell me:
What exactly is the policy for prosecuting violations of 18 U.S.C(a)(6)?

Why there would be a DOJ/U.S. Attorney policy not to prosecute those who violate federal firearms laws?

Why there would be "minimal federal interest" in prosecuting those who violate federal firearm laws?

Another reason that was cited in table 1 for declining to prosecute was "weak evidence." Without knowing the facts of each individual case, I would note the following: If an individual knowingly makes a false statement on ATF Form 4473, that is a felony. Form 4473 requires the prospective purchaser to state whether or not he/she is disqualified from purchasing a firearm. Furthermore, each disqualifying criterion is listed on Form 4473 and requires a yes or no answer. Form 4473 also requires a signature by the prospective purchaser and the seller. Form 4473 also requires many other identifiers to verify the identity of the transferee. Thus, if an individual is rejected because NICS system reports that a prospective purchaser is a convicted felon and falsified a document in an attempt to obtain a firearm, that is a violation of U.S.C. 922(a)(6). It seems to me that this should be a relatively open and shut case.
However, of the 204,000 individuals denied the purchase of firearm "nearly 3 out of 4 rejections for firearm transfer occurred because the applicant either had a felony conviction or was under felony indictment." Therefore, it follows that over 150,000 individuals committed a federal felony by falsifying ATF Form 4473. Yet, a February, 2000 General Accounting Office report on the Implementation of NICS showed that in FY 1999, U.S Attorneys filed only 278 cases involving alleged false statements of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) and 316 cases were pending at fiscal yearend. Please explain the lack of federal prosecutions for false statements on ATF Form 4473. Also explain towhat degree "weak evidence" contributes to the unwillingness of U.S. Attorneys to prosecute 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) violations.

Appendix III of the GAO audit describes federal enforcement policies regarding falsified firearm purchase applications. It states:
In November 1998, EOUSA provided Brady Act prosecutive guidance . . . The guidance stated that thousands of potential Brady false-form cases would likely reach ATF field offices annually, and that the system "would grind to a halt if ATF investigated all the denials."

The report goes on to say that the EOUSA guidance recommended that U.S. Attorneys should "make every effort to increase the number of Brady false-form prosecutions (from the current annual level of 50 cases)."

The GAO audit also states that in deciding which false form violations to forward to U.S. Attorneys, ATF’s policy is to refer those cases where the "denied purchaser’s criminal history has records of violent felonies, serious drug trafficking, or prior firearms convictions." Yet the GAO report indicates that over half of the referrals of violent criminals were closed without investigation or prosecution.

In light of these GAO findings, I would like answers to the following:

Why were half of the referrals of violent criminals closed without investigation or prosecution?
What efforts has the Department of Justice undertaken to increase the number of false form prosecutions? Has EOUSA issued any additional guidance regarding 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) violations?
Since November 1998, how many 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) violations have been referred to U.S. Attorneys by ATF field offices?
How many 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) false form prosecutions have U.S. Attorneys undertaken since the November 1998 EOUSA guidance?
I do not believe that violent felons, upon learning they are disqualified from firearm ownership, give up their search to obtain a firearm. Please explain why U.S. Attorneys are unwilling to enforce 18 U.S.C. (a)(6) even for violent felons who attempt to purchase firearms?
At a June 21, 2000, hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding improvements to NICS, Mr. David Loesch, Assistant Director in charge of the Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the FBI testified that the law prohibiting felonious misrepresentation of firearm eligibility "is essentially unenforceable." Would you please expand on this statement and explain why your representative characterized this law as such? Do you share the view that this law is unenforceable? Please comment on the enforceability of U.S.C. 18 (a)(6) in all its specifics and in general.
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. I look forward to your response. If you have any questions about this matter, please have your staff contact Michael Hacker of my office at [phone].

With every good wish,



Sincerely,





John D. Dingell

Member of Congress

[leanings]

45. lol

In Mr. B's world, any good comrade should be able to perform an instant background check on anyone else regardless of cause and, if necessary, immediately arrest them in the name of the State!

How would one limit NICS access to those private individuals selling guns? Are you OK with Joe Schmoe having the ability to instantaneously access YOUR criminal record by dialing an 800 number?

[MrBenchley]

50. Gee, in my world, most people aren't peddling guns to criminals

or considering doing the same.

[leanings]

51. Well,

I guess everybody's guilty of something. So you've no problem with making everyone's criminal record available for instantaneous public access? That's what you're suggesting here in complaining about the illegality of NICS checks being unavailable to private sellers.

Medical recs might be good, too; can't sell guns to mental patients.

[MrBenchley]

52. Gee

Why do private sellers need an INSTANT check system? Couldn't a private seller truly concerned with avoiding selling guns to criminals ask his local police for an in-depth check? After all, it's not like selling guns to criminals is their primary source of income (in a pigs' eye).

Answer: Of course a private seller could.

"can't sell guns to mental patients."
Yeah, armed lunatics seemws like a truly terrible idea...of the sort the gun nuts are always pimping FOR.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Emoto]

15. this is not exactly what VPC would make you believe

It came up in another thread.

"The Clinton Administration implemented policies to significantly reduce the number of illegitimate gun dealers,"

These were federally licensed dealers who did it legitimately and within strict legal guidelines. They passed the requirements for an FFL just the same as anyone else.

Don't forget that there were no NICS checks years ago, so even dealers had no way of knowing who they were selling to. VPC seems to believe that somehow a NICS check will be less effective if performed by the little guy instead of by a big shop. I don't follow their logic.

I bought my first handgun from a "kitchen table" dealer. He was a retired organic chemist who enjoyed the hobby, and I used to go shooting with him regularly. He wasn't trying to make a ton of money, but was as good and honest a man as there ever was. Why should people like that be denied the right to do business? Forcing those little guys out of business was yet another one of the shameful things that Clinton was behind.

[MrBenchley]

18. Mostly because it's not hooey

"Why should people like that be denied the right to do business? Forcing those little guys out of business was yet another one of the shameful things that Clinton was behind. "
Let him get a real job then. Getting rid of these public nuisances was one of the best things Clinton did...and it's no coincidence that crime dropped during the Clinton years to levels not seen since the 1970s....nor that it's rising again with these corrupt GOP fools in power.

[Lefty48197]

21. Maybe that good honest man should be able to sell pharmaceuticals too

Since drugs don't kill, people do.

[Emoto]

25. You object to good honest men?

That is the point. Why should someone who qualifies for any given license be denied?

[MrBenchley]

27. No, we object to scummy gun dealers

and rightly so.

[Emoto]

28. Good.

So a decent honest gun dealer is ok with you? You cannot possibly believe that ALL gun dealers are scummy, right?

[Hielo]

57. Guns are bad in all their forms...

They are an evil totem, they corrupt by their very being. Any right thinking human will see them for what they are, distilled violence. They intoxicate anyone who gets near them and who is not forewarned of their dangers.

Just as a virus can be distilled to be more and more potent, guns too, can be distilled into more and more virulent totem.

People come to beleive that the "way of the gun" is the way that is right, instead of peace. Instead of understanding. Instead of compromise.

Guns make right.

I say, see them for what they are. See them for the evil that has infected personkind. If a person is sick, they go to see their healer of choice, that healer may discuss with them how to excise the sickness in their soul/bodies. Any person woudl then try to remove that sickness.

With guns, we have the same problem. How can we allow distilled violence and pain to walk amongst our children? How can we let such corrupting totems to belittle the peace and love that is inherent in every single person on this planet?

It is with shame I think this. Shame that there are people from my own tribe overseas at this very moment, taken under the spell of guns, hurting and causing bad feelings towards the rest of us.

Imagine a world free of guns! Imagaine a world where we join hands with every tribe and become one.

I can see it.

[Set]

58. There was once a world free of guns...

it was called the "Dark Ages"...where "might makes right", and all that peaceful stuff. :eyes:

[Emoto]

59. Now let's all sing Kumbaya

and have a group hug.

[jhfenton]

63. "Guns = distilled violence"

Ouch. I didn't realize that I have distilled violence strapped around my ankle. No wonder my calves are sore today. I assumed it was from my workout.

Sorry, Hielo. I am about as peaceful a person as you can find. Except for the bully I once punched in elementary school, I've never physically hurt anyone in my life. The fact that you find my sports shooting hobby distasteful reflects on your mental hang ups, not mine.

I shoot regularly both for relaxation and in training for competitions. I run regularly both for relaxation and in training for races (from 5K to marathons). My shooting hobby doesn't make me a violent person any more than my running hobby makes me a coward.

[Yentatelaventa]

60. Sorry but the VPC (HCI) is no better than the NRA

They have an agenda and it is to rid America of all guns.

[CO Liberal]

61. BULLSHIT!!!!!!

There is a difference between "gun control" and "gun confiscation".

[MrBenchley]

62. Look at the racists and scumbags on the NRA board

and the underhanded and dishonest way they operate....

[Emoto]

65. Please elucidate

...and tell us the specifics about this "underhanded and dishonest way they operate". If you have specific examples, I am sure you will be only too happy to share them. Thanks.

[MrBenchley]

66. Been there, done that

and you know it, too.....

But on the chance that there are those who don't reading this...

http://www.vpc.org/studies/nrafamst.htm

As for underhanded and dishonest ways to operation, this very thread provides a excellent example...

[BoatsTwice]

64. No there isn't

It is the anti-gun activist two-step. One foot follows the other to the same shrill tune.

[CO Liberal]

67. The Only Shrill Tunes In This Debate ....

...are played by that no-talent hack, Ted Nugent.

[BullDozer]

68. Be honest

There is a difference between "gun control" and "gun confiscation".

VPC does want to ban handguns. Not control them, BAN them. They are the authors of Unsafe in Any Hands Why America Needs to Ban Handguns after all.

Most if not all of the other gun control groups can say all they want about not wanting to ban guns but when you look at the totality of everything they propose it is clear that they do want to ban them.

Big gun? That's too powerful for you to have!

Small gun? Easily conceled, choice of criminals!

Accurate rifle? Sniper rifle!

Inexpensive gun? Junk gun Saturday night special dangerous and choice of criminals!


Please, those groups have never met a gun that they did like or approved of.

[CO Liberal]

69. YOU Be Honest, BullDozer

From the VPC web site:

The Violence Policy Center is a national non-profit organization working to fight firearms violence through research, education, and advocacy. As a gun control think tank, the VPC analyzes a wide range of current firearm issues and provides information to policymakers, journalists, public health professionals, grassroots activists, and members of the general public.

I'd trust the VPC long before I'd trust anything from the Nuts Ruining America.

[BullDozer]

70. I WAS honest

Your blind hatred toward anything related to the NRA is senseless. You proved that with your dismissal of the Eddie Eagle program based mainly that it is an NRA program.

I notice that you didn't dispute that the VPC does advocate banning firearms.

[jhfenton]

71. We just disagree, CO Liberal.

I don't think the VPC has even a passing acquaintance with the truth. They have a very specific agenda and slant everything toward that end.

The NRA has no need to lie. The truth is very liberating.

I always find it ironic that the anti-self-defense crowd labels the NRA as an extreme organization. From my perspective and that of many gun owners, it is a very moderate organization, often too quick to support compromises that chip away at our rights. I know many gun owners who join groups such as the Gun Owners of America (GOA) or Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) rather than the NRA.

[jody]

72. CO, the following VPC position is clear to me "handguns should be banned"

Handgun Ban Backgrounder
QUOTE
America's gun problem is a handgun problem. Handguns exact an inordinate toll on American lives. The vast majority of gun death and injury–in homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings–is carried out with easily concealable pistols and revolvers. The public health model as well as the traditional approaches employed in protecting consumer health and safety lead to one inevitable conclusion: handguns should be banned.
UNQUOTE

I know you've said repeatedly that you do not advocate banning handguns. Is that still your position?

[CO Liberal]

74. Yes, It Is

But I believe that handguns should be strictly regulated, to keep them out of the wrong hands.

[Emoto]

75. Sorry, non-sequitur

"handguns should be strictly regulated, to keep them out of the wrong hands"

I know you believe that, CO, and I don't for a moment doubt your sincerity, but the vast majority of those "wrong hands" are wrong enough that they will always have guns (like illegal drugs) even if every law-abidinbg citizen is disarmed. That is why I have trouble with the logic in restricting guns more than they already are.

[CO Liberal]

76. And I Have Trouble With Throwing Up Our Hands......

....and saying, "Oh well, people are getting shot all over the place and dying all around us, but we can't do anything to control guns because we have to let any yahoo who wants a gun to have one."

[Emoto]

77. Reductio ad absurdum

You attempt to discredit my point by taking it to an extreme that I did not advocate.

We do a lot right now to control guns. But, it isn't the guns that are the problem, it is the bad people. The DOJ is supposed to be stepping up prosecutions of gun crimes and I would like to see that ramped up in a big way. It is a felony for a prohibited person to attempt to obtain a firearm, yet Reno wasn't going after all of the NICS denials. Ashcroft is trying to do that and it is about time.

[CO Liberal]

78. But the Bad People Use the Guns to Do Bad Things

Hence the endless cycle......

[jody]

79. Then you and I agree that VPC is wrong on that point. I know that

HCI also wanted to ban handguns and it evolved into the Brady Center which has never recanted the goal of banning handguns.

[CO Liberal]

80. From the Brady Center Web Site

I believe this spells out their stand on banning guns quite clearly, Jody. The emphasis is mine. - Wayne


http://www.bradycenter.com/about/mission.asp

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Vision and Mission Statement

As the largest national, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center are dedicated to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in their communities. The Brady Campaign and the Brady Center believe that a safer America can be achieved without banning all guns.

The Brady Campaign works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies through grassroots activism, electing progun control public officials and increasing public awareness of gun violence.

The Brady Center works to reform the gun industry and educate the public about gun violence through litigation and grassroots mobilization, and works to enact and enforce sensible regulations to reduce gun violence including regulations governing the gun industry.

[Emoto]

81. They'll leave us with single shot .22 rifles

If they get their way, all handguns will go. Glad I just bought another one. I think I'll go to the range tonight and enjoy my freedom...

[jody]

82. OK, but that is a clever way of concealing their true goal of

banning handguns. They said "without banning all guns" which is a dead give away that they are avoiding something.

I know Scary Brady has been quoted as saying she "doesn't want to ban handguns", but she has also been quoted as saying she "wants to ban handguns". It may be possible that she alone doesn't want to ban handguns but the directors of the Brady Campaign do want to ban handguns.

If the Brady Campaign is having a problem stating clearly what they want to ban, how can one write a law that bans a specific subset of guns?

Attempts to ban "saturday nite specials" and "assault weapons" have failed.

Given the HCI origin of the Brady Campaign and the people involved, I'll continue to believe that the Brady Campaign wants to "ban handguns".

[CO Liberal]

83. And Given The Current "Leadership" Of the NRA.....

....I'll continue to believe that they're the Nuts Ruining America.

[Emoto]

84. And you would be incorrect.

It's creamy peanut butter that is causing the problem.