Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, October 11, 2010

Semantics about guns

My "friends" from the pro-gun side of the issue are going around and around and around with me about the meaning of words that I have used in my blog. My mother used to say that was "spinning your wheels". Again, I must remind my readers that I did change my focus a few weeks ago when I realized that minds would unlikely be changed for those who are entrenched in their views. So I wrote my "I've changed my mind" post. My purpose here is to convince others of like mind to get active and join me in the cause to prevent gun injuries and deaths. Most specifically, what is needed is for people to contact their elected leaders to make it clear that they expect their representatives to act in the best interest of public safety for all. As I have noted many times, polling shows that the majority of the public, even gun owners, believe that sensible gun laws should be passed. There is agreement about background checks on all gun sales as well as making sure that terrorists can't buy guns legally and other specific provisions.

As an example of the semantic differences, take my latest post about the answers to my question about whether I will ban guns. Some of the same folks got all riled up about what exactly I meant by banning guns. Many appear to believe that any measure at all by way of regulation of guns or their owners or where and who can carry guns means gun banning. To me, banning means this ( from Merriam Webster):  to prohibit especially by legal means <bandiscrimination>; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of <ban a book> <ban a pesticide>". This means no guns at all anywhere. It turns out that some of the "gunnies" think that background checks on all gun sales at gun shows is banning guns. They also, according to some of the comments, believe that because there are some places where guns can't be carried, that is a gun ban. 


Further, I have been asked to absolutely define what I mean by banning guns and what country I can point to as an example of gun banning. Our country is unique because we have a Second Amendment to our Constitution that no other country has. This makes anything that happens with guns and gun laws in our country totally different than in any other country. I am working for common sense concerning gun laws in the U.S. Anything we do here will be different from any other country. And, by the way, our country is also unique in the number of gun deaths and injuries occurring in a civilized, industrialized country not at war.


Ever since I started blogging, I have been harassed and attacked because of the difference in the way I see the issue of guns and gun violence from some of my readers. In most cases, the assumption is that I must be completely wrong and maybe even crazy to subscribe to the beliefs that I have. And, of course, by default, that must mean that they ( the "gunnies) are always right. When I have found errors in reasoning or fact, I have pointed them out. And then we go around and around with "facts and figures". One particular commenter has tried to overwhelm me with his own statistics and percentages that cause my eyes to glaze over. What's the point? 


So I will continue with my blogging with the assumption that my definition of gun banning means that no one can have guns anywhere. Now we know that the Supreme Court, in its' Heller and McDonald decisions, has ruled that out entirely. Never mind. The "gunnies" keep accusing me of wanting to ban their guns. We haven't made much progress, it seems. But I am also aware that there are people reading my blog and not commenting, who do agree with me and hopefully I can persuade them to join me in demanding common sense.

53 comments:

  1. "They also, according to some of the comments, believe that because there are some places where guns can't be carried, that is a gun ban. "

    While I support the right to carry, I do not think that denying people that right equates to banning guns. However . . .

    "This means no guns at all anywhere."

    I have to disagree with this. Banning a particular type of gun (whether because it is too large, too small, to scary looking, fires too fast, or carries too much ammo) is in fact a gun ban. It may not be a complete ban, but there is no way to get around the fact prohibiting people from owning, or prohibiting manufacturers from manufacturing, a particular gun or type of gun is, in fact, a ban on that particular gun. By definition, that makes it a gun ban.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You don't want to ban guns.
    Except any that have magazines above a certain size.
    Except certain types of semi-auto rifles.
    Except cheap handguns.
    Except, Except, Except.

    you see now why we have trouble taking your position seriously.

    Do you want to ban my 13 round plastic framed .45 caliber handgun?
    Do you want to ban my bolt action rifle that can penetrate a police officer's vest at 400 yards?
    Do you want to ban the AR-15 I am building (but is still in small parts)?
    Do you object to me carrying a loaded, hidden, deadly weapon?
    Are you upset that on Saturday a group of us here in Raleigh went to dinner, all of us carrying our pistols openly (except for the children, of course)?

    The plain truth of it is, for each of the above questions we think your answer is and will remain, YES. The fact that you are willing to let me continue to own some sort of firearm while placing so much off limits (but not banning!) is small comfort.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "So I will continue with my blogging with the assumption that my definition of gun banning means that no one can have guns anywhere"

    This is why people get so wound up over people changing the definitions of words. In the past Assault weapon, sniper rifle ect get changed to mean what ever you want. The definition of ban from webster's is below.

    to prohibit especially by legal means ; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of

    So if you pass a law that restricts the use that is a ban. If you pass a law that restricts the sales/distribution/importation that is a ban. If you limit magazine sizes that is a ban. If you limit the number of guns you can buy in a amount of time that is a ban.

    "As I have noted many times, polling shows that the majority of the public, even gun owners, believe that sensible gun laws should be passed."

    Really people did not want to pass un-sensible gun laws. When you phrase a question like that how could you say no? The problem is the "common sense" and "sensible" are not the same for everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who thinks ( and then boasts about) having a bolt action rifle that can penetrate a police officer's vest at 400 yards. What's that all about? Why? Are you planning to kill a police officer? And a plastic framed gun? Why? Do you plan to try to get it through security when boarding a plane? And then what? And the fact that you admit to carrying a loaded deadly weapon says it all. We will differ on this one and I don't take your position seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As to Anthony, above, I rest my case. Why even bother responding because your remarks go to the very problem we are having with semantics?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sean D Sorrentino said...

    You don't want to ban guns.
    Except any that have magazines above a certain size.
    Except certain types of semi-auto rifles.
    Except cheap handguns.
    Except, Except, Except.


    Again, Heller-McDonald said:

    the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54).

    ReplyDelete
  7. You're absolutely right about their overuse of the word "ban." I've heard the expression "ban private gun sales," referring to the requiring of background checks on all transfers. "Ban" is one of the key buzzwords that they keep repeating and repeating.

    I'm guilty of it too, I must admit. Sean (Mr. pro-rights and Mr. Liberty) Sorrentino banned my comments from his blog even before I ever visited there.

    Come to think of it, that is a pretty good use of the word. He won't allow any of my comments ever, not the fully-automatic ones or the assault-type. It's a complete comment ban.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is sadly true that MikeB is banned at my blog. I have a strict policy of banning self-admitted criminals. For more info on this policy,

    http://ncguns.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-is-mikeb-banned.html

    Comments are not moderated, but criminals are BANNED in my house.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "And a plastic framed gun? Why? Do you plan to try to get it through security when boarding a plane?"

    Despite the hysteria back in the '80s, a plastic frame does not make it possible to get a gun through airport security. There is way too much metal in the slide and barrel to get through a metal detector or the X-ray machine.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Well, I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who thinks ( and then boasts about) having a bolt action rifle that can penetrate a police officer's vest at 400 yards. What's that all about? Why? Are you planning to kill a police officer?"

    Sean's point about having a rifle that will penetrate a police officer's vest at 400 yards is that just about any modern center fire RIFLE cartridge will penetrate police soft armor at 400 yards (which is what they wear) because police Level IIIA armor is only rated against .44 Magnum HANDGUN cartridges! Yet your side likes to demonize certain weapons and cartridges as being "armor piercing" and "cop killers," when in fact even the old hunting rifles that even you admit to having a couple of in the house (unless they're actually just .22s) will penetrate soft armor just as easily as any "evil black rifle" that you guys love to hate. Only the hard ballistic plates of the military's IBAS (and SWAT entry guys, I'd imagine) can stop rifle bullets up to 7.62 NATO. That's why we all get upset when you post questions like "do you agree with a ban on cop killing weapons and bullets that can penetrate police body armor?" It is extremely misleading and inflammatory to boot, yet you trumpet positive poll results to questions like that as "proof" that ordinary, non-gun owning Americans agree with your position.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am quite positive that most hunters don't think about whether their hunting guns can pierce a Kevlar vest. I have never heard any of my family or hunters I know brag about that. It's likely because they are among the majority who agree with me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm reasonably certain Sean wasn't bragging, he was facetiously pointing out what the Brady Bunch have claimed about a particular style of rifle he owns. Knowing what they say about assumptions, if I'm wrong about that, please feel free to correct me, Sean.

    Since ANY centerfire rifle cartridge will penetrate police Level IIIA armor, when the Brady's make waves about banning "armor piercing ammo" and "cop killer assault weapons," anyone with any firsthand knowledge about firearms hears "we want to ban all centerfire rifles." Which is exactly what you're saying, even if you don't realize it (or maybe you really do...). As proof, try and draft a law that will ban this tactical rifle (http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/tactical/centerfire-tactical/model-700-vtr-desert-recon.aspx) but not Grandpa's old hunting rifle (http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-700/model-700-bdl.aspx). Hint: you can't.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am quite positive that most hunters don't think about whether their hunting guns can pierce a Kevlar vest

    I'm sure they certainly would have thought about it if Senator Kennedy, with Handgun Control support, had managed to get ban through on the ammunition used in their hunting rifles. You do understand we're not blowing smoke when we say that just about any centerfire rifle cartridge will penetrate soft body armor right? Don't blame us for bringing this stuff up. It's your side that tried to ban ammunition based on that characteristic. So you're suggesting the ballistic characteristics of ammunition are off limits for the purposes of this particular debate? They seem highly relevant points to me.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Eric. As someone who watched you grow up I always had an uneasy feeling about you. Now I know why. I don't intend to be insulted by you. I'm sure you think you know everything. You would be wrong. Take your insults somewhere else. If I happen upon any of your friends. I'll let them know what kind of a person you have become- vicious and unkind. Your comments will not appear any more here. Go be rude to someone else. You are not welcome on my blog.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Whatever. Sean doesn't need explanation

    ReplyDelete
  17. Your comments are irrelevant to what my purpoe is on this blog. Most people could care less about you guys and whether your ammunition can penetrate soft armor. I'm actually worried about guys like you who obsess about thlhis stuff. I am wondering whether or not you actually intend to shoot a cop. Why dp you think they wear protective vests? The vests must protect them from se types of ammunition. If not,who would choose to be an officer?They'd have to fear every hunter who thinks like you do.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Colin. I appreciate your efforts to "educate" me. My concern is that too many of you guys sound whacky to me. That's just the way it is. Instead of reassuring me, I am more concerned than ever that any efforts to stem the tide of gun violence will be met with fierce ,and maybe even armed resistance. I don't need to know everything there is to know about guns to form my opinions. There ate lots of experts to do that. You guys have forgotten that most of the public simply does not care about your copious gun facts. They just know there are way tooamy shootings no matter what kind of gun is used. And for some of you to defend machine guns is beyond the pale. That is way far out of thesonstre thinking. You will have no support for that one. I would drop that rhetoric if I were you. Not a popular position.

    ReplyDelete
  19. My apologies to Eric R. Shelton if he is not the same person with the exact same name of the person I know. He has said his comments are not rude and accuses me of being sarcastic. It's hard to believe that I can be accused of the very things that are in the comments to and about me. Some of these I am not posting so my readers have no idea what is being said. I am now the object of vilification on someone's podcast and on other's blogs. It feels creepy, by the way. But I am not going away. No matter how hard they fight back, I will fight harder.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I will back up Sean and Colin. I am currently a student at Harvard University in computer science and neurobiology.

    Can we please get over the vest comment? It was simply a metric that is sensationalist and easy to understand. The point was that the parameters on which firearms are regulated are arbitrary and do not actually take into account ballistics.

    Anyone that understands firearms will understand ammunition capability. The understanding that a kitchen knife will kill someone when you stab them with it is not indicative of any intention to actually stab.

    The problem is legislators (on the most part) simply does not understand firearms, and therefore makes meaningless legislation against them.

    And for the record, I am far from being a 'right wing nut'

    ReplyDelete
  21. Comparing a kitchen knife with a speeding bullet is not logical.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Comparing a kitchen knife with a speeding bullet is not logical.

    Why not? Both can be used to kill. It's perfectly logical.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Come on. This has been discussed ad nauseum on this blog. You know the answer. If you are really a Harvard student, you can figure it out.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Apparently I can't figure it out, because it's not a very well supported argument...

    ReplyDelete
  25. What argument are you talking about? There is no comparison between knives and guns except that they both kill people. Other than that, guns kill many many more people than knives. Are there drive by knifings? Can children accidentally discharge a knife? Can a knife kill from 400 yards as the person who brought this up said? Check out the CDC WISQARS report for causes of death overall, causes of intenional death, causes of violent deaths and causes of suicides. You will find that guns far outweigh all other types of weapons and are right up at the top for overall causes of death for certain age groups.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 4 out of 10 murders in the US are committed with weapons other than firearms.

    What do you intend to do about that 40%?

    ReplyDelete
  27. You do know the answer to that one, but you just had to badger me again about it. I am working towards reducing and preventing gun injuries and deaths. I have said before, as you know, that I care about all the others but I have only so much time in my day. Why don't you take up that cause?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Some of us feel that we are trying to do something "about that 40%" by championing the use of small, handheld, self-defense weapons, the only way the weak can reliably protect themselves from the strong.

    We are more concerned about the overall murder rate (which we believe is lower due to the availability of firearms) rather than just those murders committed with firearms.

    I don't think you will agree/understand this, but we would rather have (for example) a society with a 5% murder rate, of which half are committed with firearms, than a society with a 10% murder rate, none of which are committed by firearms.

    BTW - God bless you, I fear we will never agree on this subject, but I believe you are an honest and good-hearted person trying to do what you feel is right. My heart grieves for your loss.

    ReplyDelete
  29. How would you describe these sorts of policies:
    - A prohibition on almost all private citizens purchasing Toyota Trucks (because Toyota vehicles are unsafe according to sensational anecdotes and media reports)
    - A prohibition on purchasing vehicles colored red; red vehicles are most likely to be involved in speeding or reckless driving cases.
    - A prohibition on any foreign vehicles that don't have legitimate sporting uses.

    Such broad prohibitions against broad classes of items go beyond "regulation." At some point regulation is best described as a ban. It may be a partial ban or a near-total ban but ban is still an appropriate word.

    I don't understand why you are so hung up on the "semantics" of this issue. I don't understand why you can't give a few examples of firearms that you think are acceptable for most people to own for lawful people, or why you can't point to regulatory regimes in any locality or other country that has at least partial elements that should be considered. For example, what do you think of Canada's classification of restricted and prohibited firearms? Do their categories make sense to you? Are they too strict or not restrictive enough?

    Whether it is just being coy, a failure to think through the issue thoroughly, lack of familiarity with the technical aspects of the issue, or some other issue, the lack of forthrightness from your side of the issue does not breed any sort of trust or confidence that initially selective and limited bans on specific categories will not be expanded into broader categories.

    Cheers,
    Chris from AK

    ReplyDelete
  30. Countries with much laxer firearms regulations have lower per capita murders, while countries with stricter regulations can have higher rates of violent crime. The opposite also holds.

    Given this, don't you think that the reason is fundamentally sociocultural? Regulating hardware does not address this issue at all.

    By the way, I took a look at WISWARS and regressed some data. I'm not sure what you were trying to point out that was so significant. I mean, the most significant statistic relation was motorvehicles...

    ReplyDelete
  31. Chris- I have answered this question before- not to your liking, apparently. The reason I am "hung" up on semantics is evident in your response and your questions.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Keep looking. You must have missed the fact that firearms are the cause of homicide and suicide deaths among people in the age categories from 5-64 by a large margin. Homicide is the 2nd and sometimes the first cause of death in some age categories ( of intentional deaths). Different stats show different things. Among overall deaths, firearm deaths are still a major cause of death.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Kane (and every other pro-gun blogger) said, "Given this, don't you think that the reason is fundamentally sociocultural? Regulating hardware does not address this issue at all."

    That's wrong. The "at all" part is wrong.

    Also what's wrong is your inference that by focusing on the gun we stop focusing on the other factors. That's not the case at all. Poverty, unemployment, poor education, addictions are all being dealt with in various ways. Removing guns from the equation by making them less available to criminals is something we need to do IN ADDITION to all those other efforts.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Show me a successful implementation of firearms control and the statistical significance of its effects then?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Why do Chicago, Washington DC, and New York have such horrible murder rates when they are model cities of gun control?

    You can't blame it on "loose gun laws" of neighboring states because Great Britain is an island, it has no neighbors, and it saw an increase in violence (an an increase in handgun violence) after it's total ban on handguns.

    I am interested in hearing your explanation why overall violence is up in these areas, and handgun violence is also higher.

    If it saved even one life, would you support lessening restrictions on firearms?

    ReplyDelete
  36. I really don't have to show you anything but since you asked, the Brady Bill enacted in 1994 has stopped over 1.7 million prohibited purchasers from buying guns from FFLs. The Assault Weapons Ban enacted in 1995 kept certain types of weapons, and ammunition clips and certain features of such guns off the streets. They are now back on our streets and killing police officers and citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Well, I will say it is guns from neighboring states because the ATF has shown that to be true. I am talking now about gun crimes and gun deaths and injuries. Let's get that part straight so you don't come back immediately and challenge me about that. I have discussed this many times before. Why do you keep asking the same questions? You know what my answers will be. Are you just trying to "get me" again? As to England, perhaps crime is up, but gun crime is down and not very prevalent.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Whatever those "common sense" laws are that you wish to enforce - ban or not - let me ask you something: How do you plan to enforce those laws?

    Some may disarm due to these "common sense" laws, whatever they are... What about those that won't?

    These "common sense" laws are attempting to take something from a person by force, threatening them with jail.

    What if that person simply won't comply, won't allow themselves to be arrested.

    What level of force are you willing to exert in order to enforce your "common sense" laws?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Can you tell me which "common sense" law will take away someone's gun by force if they are legally buying it or owning it? And what do you mean by threatening them with jail? Can you cite an example of what you are talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Would you say that California's gun laws are "common sense"? These laws outlaw "full capacity" magazines in pistols - to name one specific example.

    Were California's gun laws enacted nationwide, there would be quite a number of guns currently legally owned, that would become illegal.

    What other penalty but jail time do you envision for these "common sense" gun laws? Fines? What if these gun owners refuse to pay the fines? Is that not how the state enforces laws, in the end?

    ReplyDelete
  41. "They are now back on our streets and killing police officers and citizens."

    Where is your proof for this broad assupmtion?

    When was the last police officer shot by a rifle or gun that was "considered" an assualt weapon that was LEGALLY PURCHASED? Criminals WILL have guns and weapons whether we have "gun control" legislation or not, so all you are trying to do is control those people who "legally" purchase and own guns. This makes no sense. Punishing the people who obey the law because of those that do not?!? Why don't we take away your door locks on your house because criminals can use them to keep the police out?

    Ps. Removing a previous post by E.S. was pretty childish. You do realize he had some very good discussion points that you completely ignored and took them as assaults on you. This is not personal! This is a discussion we need to have because the broad influence of "fear" tactics have been used with unproven facts to "scare the public" about guns and gun laws. Check your facts! Correlation does not mean Causation!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Here's one- Richard Poplawski who shot up 4 police officers in Pittsburgh with an assault weapon: http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/r/19096134/detail.html

    Here is a recent shooting in St. Paul, Mn with an assault rifle. no mention if it was legal lor not. Does it matter if the gun is legal or not when someone shoots someone with it? The shooter becomes illegal in a matter of seconds. Many of the guns in Chicago used to kill people have been stolen and are assault rifles. Where do stolen guns come from? The sky? Most likely from someone's home who is a legal gun owner or from a dealer who is legal. Or do you have a different idea? The fact of the matter is that there are more assault rifles used in shootings now than there were before the AWB. Police talk about this all the time and say they are outgunned on the streets with more and more high powered guns than before. I am not making that up. It is common knowledgle. Read this one: http://www.gunguys.com/?p=1856; or this: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/03/11-8; " Miami Police Chief John Timoney spoke for the police department:

    For me it's a no-brainer. These are weapons of war. Under no circumstance do they belong in the cities of America. Now police officers are facing - and citizens are facing these assault weapons. If we don't stop it now, what's it going to look like 10 years from now? Rambo becomes reality. Source: ABC News"- from this article- http://www.examiner.com/city-buzz-in-miami/should-assault-rifles-be-banned-deadly-shooting-miami-renews-gun-control-debate

    I would be interested to know whether you think a shooting is O.K. if it is committed with an illegal assault weapon as oppose to a legal one.

    ReplyDelete
  43. For me it's a no-brainer. These are weapons of war. Under no circumstance do they belong in the cities of America. Now police officers are facing - and citizens are facing these assault weapons. If we don't stop it now, what's it going to look like 10 years from now? Rambo becomes reality. Source: ABC News"- from this article- http://www.examiner.com/city-buzz-in-miami/should-assault-rifles-be-banned-deadly-shooting-miami-renews-gun-control-debate

    I would be interested to know whether you think a shooting is O.K. if it is committed with an illegal assault weapon as oppose to a legal one.


    Funny, in the story you linked to on Poplawski, nowhere was it mentioned that he had an assault weapon. But for the sake of argument, let's say you're right and that he did. Of course the shooting is deplorable, and would be no matter what weapon he chose, be it a pistol, a rifle, a machine gun, a bomb, a machete, or a truck full of explosives. Murdering police officers is quite obviously never justified, and I imagine we can both at least agree on that!

    But I wonder, let's say this man did not have an assault weapon. Let's say when he decided to murder police officers that he instead used a pump-action shotgun—a weapon whose ownership your organization has never claimed the desire to prohibit. Do you think he would have been as successful, less so, or more so? Can you tell me what operational characteristics of "assault weapons" makes them deadlier than other classes of guns? Obviously an assault weapon must be differ in some way from a non-assault weapon. What are those differences? Do you know?

    Also, can you tell me the difference between an "illegal assault weapon" and a legal one? I don't quite follow, since there is lo longer a federal ban on assault weapons that would create the classification of "illegal assault weapon."

    ReplyDelete
  44. from the article: " Pittsburgh Police Chief Nate Harper said Poplawski was armed with a high-powered assault rifle and a pistol, and he had a significant amount of ammunition as he allegedly fired out of his bedroom window on Fairfield Street."

    As to your question, I don't remember who, now, asked if I could show that legal assault weapons had been used in a gun crime. My question, as you very well know, is to find out what difference it makes whether or not someone is killed with a legal or illegally obtained assault rifle. One obtained illegally would be a stolen weapon, as in one of the stories to which I linked, or a street purchase by an prohibited purchaser. We all know it's legal for felons and mentally ill people to purchase guns without background checks but they are prohibited from purchasing so it's not right and should be illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  45. " We all know it's legal for felons and mentally ill people to purchase guns without background checks"

    on which planet is it legal for this to occur?

    ReplyDelete
  46. It's not illegal for private sellers to sell guns to anyone without background checks at gun shows and elsewhere. That means felons and other prhobited purchasers. Don't play dumb, Sean. You know that is what I'm talking about

    ReplyDelete
  47. Actually, Japete, it is 100% illegal to sell a firearm to a felon, and it is 100% illegal for a felon to possess a firearm.

    If you want to retain what little credibility you have left, you should stop lying.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You guys just can't admit that felons CSM buy guns at gun shilowd without background checks because we allow private sellers to sell to anyone with no questions asked. Have you forgotten all if the hidden camera videos? I can proviide links.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Japete,
    Just because some people sell a firearm to a felon doesn't make it legal for the felon to buy it. When you say "it is legal" that is where "we" might think you are intentionally lying about it and call you on it. It is not legal, ever, for a felon to buy a firearm. Ever.

    If a person has no reason to suspect a person is a felon and believes he is legal to own the firearm, a person *can* sell a firearm to a felon without breaking the law. It is still illegal for that felon to make the purchase and possess the firearm. To say anything opposite of that is, in fact, a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "It's not illegal for private sellers to sell guns to anyone without background checks at gun shows and elsewhere. That means felons and other prhobited purchasers."

    You lie! Have you ever even been to a gun show? They run a background check while you're filling out the paperwork. Either that or you show em your purchase permit. Everyone knows that. You're entitled to your own opinion, but never your own facts. Integrity Violator.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thank you brando- or should I say Joe Wilson? No, in fact, I don't lie. Maybe you live in a state that requires background checks on all sales at gun shows. I do not nor do many others. In many states, 33, no background checks are required if a gun is purchased from a private seller. That is a fact. You are the one who has a problem with integrity, There is no name calling on this blog and since you are new to it, I will need to remind you to keep it that way or I won't publish any more comments.

    ReplyDelete