Biden vs Gun Owners

[Handlebar]

Trump was on Fox News yesterday proclaiming he won the election and it was stolen from him.

I'm sorry, but the man cannot face facts. He is on tape leaning on the Georgia Sect. of State for an exact number of votes to be found for him.

Transcript: President Trump’s Phone Call With Georgia Election Officials (Published 2021)

The president pressured Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to overturn the results of the election in an hourlong phone conversation. Here is a transcript of the audio recording.

www.nytimes.com

I read the transcript. He was not leaning to get votes delivered for him that is absurd. He was talking about the number of votes that he would need in order to win. This was after he talked about how many fraudulent votes the campaign believed they had identified.

 

[4ohSick]

Transcript: President Trump’s Phone Call With Georgia Election Officials (Published 2021)

The president pressured Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to overturn the results of the election in an hourlong phone conversation. Here is a transcript of the audio recording.

www.nytimes.com

I read the transcript. He was not leaning to get votes delivered for him that is absurd. He was talking about the number of votes that he would need in order to win. This was after he talked about how many fraudulent votes the campaign believed they had identified.

Be careful, reaching that hard puts you at significant risk for joint injury or falls!
To his credit, he was instrumental in defeating two horrible senators, so there's that...

 

[VikingsGuy]

No they aren't

The actual legal question says:

Are you the actual transferee/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.

Buying for yourself knowing you may sell to yet unknown future buyers does not meet this rule. It requires some connection/privity/coronation/intention between the straw buyer and the final possessor. An obvious loophole.

For example, Bob (from IN) asks Steve (from IN) to buy a gun for him because "he is busy" - Bob will pay Steve when he gets back in town. This is the classic straw purchase. And it doesn't matter if Bob would otherwise pass the background check on his own - it is illegal either way.

The second example, Steve is at a Gander Mountain (in IN) closeout sale and buys 5 handguns at 50%. Steve doesn't really need or want the handguns, but figures at this price he should just buy them and sell them later. He buys them and then two months later gets around to selling them at a local gun show (in IN) - as private sales to strangers. This is not a straw scenario - it doesn't matter if he had an intention to sell at a future time. This is currently legal.

A third example, Steve (an IL resident) routinely buys guns while visiting his parents in IN and sells them via private sale to strangers after returning to IL where market prices are higher. Again, this is not a straw sale and there is no Fed violation. However, IL has strict private sale rules, so Steve violated IL law in his subsequent sales.

** - I am not a license lawyer in IL or IN - if you want to traffic arms in these states I suggest you get a lawyer who is.

 

[Handlebar]

Be careful, reaching that hard puts you at significant risk for joint injury or falls!
To his credit, he was instrumental in defeating two horrible senators, so there's that...

I think McConnell and two very flawed candidates had more to do with that.

 

[Nick87]

However, IL has strict private sale rules, so Steve violated IL law in his subsequent sales.

That was my point, its not legal.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I think McConnell and two very flawed candidates had more to do with that.

Fairly good data shows that the split vote Trump drove amongst moderate conservatives most likely cost Predue a clean win in Nov. So at least one is on him. As for the run-off, I haven't seen good data breakdowns yet.

But I do like that every bad thing that has ever happened in the Trump universe is caused by the shortcomings of another Republican - see @noharleyyet's Raylon reference for further clarification on this problem.

 

[VikingsGuy]

That was my point, its not legal.

He referenced outcomes in other states as well, not just IL and in many states these would be "fine".

 

[Nick87]

He referenced outcomes in other states as well, not just IL and in many states these would be "fine".

Yes I was referring to Illinois

 

[Pmacc60]

The problems are complex and the answers are difficult, but if you read the report it helps understand some of the additional gun regulations that get floated around - like only purchasing 1 gun per month. It doesn't affect 99% of purchases, but the attempt is to reduce the gun flow in the pipeline to criminals. While most rational people can agree to that, the not-one-more-law people will not. The middle eventually crumbles and we end up where we are now.

The report is bias and anyone who sells guns to gangs or persons that cannot buy a gun legally is a criminal. Why should I be restricted to a one gun purchase a month because some scum bag is breaking the law. That goes for the gun shop who is selling 5 guns to one person at a time, that send up a pending flag in the back ground check, my son register two rifles this past week. One was a birthday present from me a 7-08 Ruger Hawkeye and a savage BMag 17 WSM he saw while doing the transfer. Both not guns used on crime but it drew him a pending flag and it took 45 mins to clear in Pennsylvania the state he purchased both rifles.

I am a rational person and I don’t agree to the one gun a month purchase . Thinking caring people do not sell guns to gangs ! I would not want that on my conscience that I sold a gun that could be used to kill or murder another person or persons! Most gun dealers 99.9 % would not risk their FFL and lively hood on such sales, many will call the ATF when something seems wrong.Year back a Delaware gun shop owner brought down a ring buying handgun ammo and sending it to Mexico . He was ask after a big sale of 45 and 9 mm ammo when his next shipment was coming in. He told them to come back on a certain date and alerted the ATF. Sure enough they were there made a major purchase and the ATF busted them.

My rationale is to not give up my 2A rights up for more gun laws that will not save one life. The bad word of the day is AR and High Capacity mags according to the FBI the AR are responsible for 2% of the homicides in this country . The most sold long gun in the country making up 60% of long gun sales. Most murder in this country is committed with illegal handguns. I’m sorry if I buy 5 handguns on the reg I would have a knock on my door and I would go to jail!

 

[FI460]

My rationale is to not give up my 2A rights up for more gun laws that will not save one life. The bad word of the day is AR and High Capacity mags according to the FBI the AR are responsible for 2% of the homicides in this country . The most sold long gun in the country making up 60% of long gun sales. Most murder in this country is committed with illegal handguns. I’m sorry if I buy 5 handguns on the reg I would have a knock on my door and I would go to jail!

That's the thing though. People make fantastical claims that the objective of gun control is to round up the populace and subject them to tyranny, but that's not what proponents of gun control are interested in. Sure there may be some fringe elements on that side that would make that claim, but general every day folks who support gun control are interested in saving lives.

The discussion is really about our perception on what will be impactful. I agree that high capacity magazine limits and banning AR's won't do much to address the problem, but universal background checks, including private party sales, and a 4 gun per month limit would save lives. Will it completely solve the problem? No. Will it have an impact on the problem? Absolutely. I also contend that it would not be burdensome to most gun owners. If you're buying more than 48 firearms a year get an FFL.

 

[Nick87]

4 gun per month limit would save lives.

Why 4? Why not 2? Why not 20?

 

[SAJ-99]

The report is bias and anyone who sells guns to gangs or persons that cannot buy a gun legally is a criminal. Why should I be restricted to a one gun purchase a month because some scum bag is breaking the law. That goes for the gun shop who is selling 5 guns to one person at a time, that send up a pending flag in the back ground check, my son register two rifles this past week. One was a birthday present from me a 7-08 Ruger Hawkeye and a savage BMag 17 WSM he saw while doing the transfer. Both not guns used on crime but it drew him a pending flag and it took 45 mins to clear in Pennsylvania the state he purchased both rifles.

I am a rational person and I don’t agree to the one gun a month purchase . Thinking caring people do not sell guns to gangs ! I would not want that on my conscience that I sold a gun that could be used to kill or murder another person or persons! Most gun dealers 99.9 % would not risk their FFL and lively hood on such sales, many will call the ATF when something seems wrong.Year back a Delaware gun shop owner brought down a ring buying handgun ammo and sending it to Mexico . He was ask after a big sale of 45 and 9 mm ammo when his next shipment was coming in. He told them to come back on a certain date and alerted the ATF. Sure enough they were there made a major purchase and the ATF busted them.

My rationale is to not give up my 2A rights up for more gun laws that will not save one life. The bad word of the day is AR and High Capacity mags according to the FBI the AR are responsible for 2% of the homicides in this country . The most sold long gun in the country making up 60% of long gun sales. Most murder in this country is committed with illegal handguns. I’m sorry if I buy 5 handguns on the reg I would have a knock on my door and I would go to jail!

There is nothing biased about the report. Your view is not unusual - “I don’t break the law, so there should be no new laws”. It just doesn’t solve the problems. The group that benefits most from lack of regulation is gun makers.

 

[Bowhunter999]

How many bad guys actually buy guns legally? Anyone have any statistics on that....

That Kensley, is the entire essence of the complete failure (or hypocrisy, take your pick) of gun control !! Controlling the law abiding gun owner will in no faction make even a pimple of difference in gun violence. The intention of penalizing millions of gun owners due to the actions of those mainly in inner cities gangs, is more than stupid, it is insane !

 

[FI460]

Why 4? Why not 2? Why not 20?

Well, being a base 10 society we tend to gravitate towards 5's and 0's. I'd wager that's the reason why 5 has been chosen as the arbitrary cutoff in that range.

I think 4-6 is the zone that would be palatable to the most people, which is why we settle at 5. 20 would be too high for proponents, 2 would be too low for opponents (though I doubt the majority of gun owners would ever run afoul of that limit).

Is quibbling over the number such a big deal that we as gun owners should throw our hands up and walk away from the table?

 

[FI460]

That Kensley, is the entire essence of the complete failure (or hypocrisy, take your pick) of gun control !! Controlling the law abiding gun owner will in no faction make even a pimple of difference in gun violence. The intention of penalizing millions of gun owners due to the actions of those mainly in inner cities gangs, is more than stupid, it is insane !

If it doesn't completely solve the problem it's stupid and insane to try and reduce gun violence?

We'll never stop all poaching. Does that mean that we shouldn't support any additional hunting regulations in an attempt to reduce poaching just because it might be slightly more burdensome for law abiding hunters?

 

[Nick87]

Well, being a base 10 society we tend to gravitate towards 5's and 0's. I'd wager that's the reason why 5 has been chosen as the arbitrary cutoff in that range.

I think 4-6 is the zone that would be palatable to the most people, which is why we settle at 5. 20 would be too high for proponents, 2 would be too low for opponents (though I doubt the majority of gun owners would ever run afoul of that limit).

Is quibbling over the number such a big deal that we as gun owners should throw our hands up and walk away from the table?

I would agree 99.9% of us without an ffl dont come close to that number per year, month etc. I don't see however how limiting the number of guns a law abiding person can buy is going to keep anybody any safer.

 

[Nick87]

If it doesn't completely solve the problem it's stupid and insane to try and reduce gun violence?

We'll never stop all poaching. Does that mean that we shouldn't support any additional hunting regulations in an attempt to reduce poaching just because it might be slightly more burdensome for law abiding hunters?

How about focusing on all violence not gun violence. People aren't any more violent because of guns. Should we be focused only on poaching with a rifle and not archery equipment?

 

[FI460]

How about focusing on all violence not gun violence. People aren't any more violent because of guns. Should we be focused only on poaching with a rifle and not archery equipment?

Sure. I think I'd be in favor of some form of comprehensive violence reduction policy. We all know that handgun violence is the greatest proportion of gun violence, and I think it's well established that having a gun in the home makes domestic violence much more dangerous.

But I think the more appropriate analogy would have been, how do we reduce handgun violence? You expanded the primary argument while reducing the secondary argument there.

 

[Nick87]

Sure. I think I'd be in favor of some form of comprehensive violence reduction policy. We all know that handgun violence is the greatest proportion of gun violence, and I think it's well established that having a gun in the home makes domestic violence much more dangerous.

But I think the more appropriate analogy would have been, how do we reduce handgun violence? You expanded the primary argument while reducing the secondary argument there.

Your probably right, I've seen first hand hand how well more gun laws have helped curb violence here in Illinois. The results are amazing, I highly recommended.

 

[Pmacc60]

That's the thing though. People make fantastical claims that the objective of gun control is to round up the populace and subject them to tyranny, but that's not what proponents of gun control are interested in. Sure there may be some fringe elements on that side that would make that claim, but general every day folks who support gun control are interested in saving lives.

The discussion is really about our perception on what will be impactful. I agree that high capacity magazine limits and banning AR's won't do much to address the problem, but universal background checks, including private party sales, and a 4 gun per month limit would save lives. Will it completely solve the problem? No. Will it have an impact on the problem? Absolutely. I also contend that it would not be burdensome to most gun owners. If you're buying more than 48 firearms a year get an FFL.

We have gun control, it does little to solve the problem . You think that I don’t want to save lives , I do but I’m a realist ! Most lives are lost in urban areas ( fact ) most people who kill use illegally acquired guns ( mostly handguns ) fact and these people have laws in the cities they live in the have oppressive handgun laws that they pay no attention to! Fact ! Here is a point a point for you to ponder , if I pass a universal background check then why do I need to be limited to purchase limits or type of firearm ? I’m already cool aren’t I ? Sorry I don’t believe it will have any effect on crime or the saving of lives. Where I live Maryland we have strict gun laws , bans on AR and semi auto assault type weapons , no handguns with high capacity magazines , back ground checks and a HQL to purchase a handgun and seven day wait is needed also. HQL is a handgun qualifying license that requires a course in handguns , a back ground check , fingerprinting a forty day processing period where you receive a letter that states your not disallowed to buy a handgun and then a seven day waiting period to buy a handgun not including $200 + in fees to complete the process. Oh I forgot 1 handgun purchase a month ! Baltimore is on of the deadliest cities in the country , go into the city and all the corners are carrying ! So I ask how many lives are saved ? See I live this nonsense every day ! I know it’s stupid and does not work , this month we got a new law passed . No private face to face long gun transactions , all has to be done through ffl ! It was however noted by a MD state senator that in the past 5 years there has not been one documented crime with a private sale firearm . Also a 2016 survey of convicted criminals states that only 2% were obtain legally the majority were stolen. 28,000 gun laws says your wrong to think more gun legislation will help.