Naomi Wolf, Authorette of My Vagina: A Novel of Obsession, Calls "Zero Dark Thirty" Director a Nazi Shill

Sad.

I was thinking recently about the pressure felt by single-issue advocacy groups to make all sorts of splashily provocative claims, or indulge in childish attention-getting, in order both to elevate their profile and to keep donations from the most strident believers in the cause -- a.k.a. those who donate -- flowing. Some groups, like PeTA, seem to find this pressure irresistible. Others seize on any junk science or dumb study to get their agenda out to the public.

I don't have any thoughts about it: I was just thinking about it.

But it does strike me as sad when people, like Queen Mother Vaigszh over here, must do this sort of thing as individuals. At least if you're working for someone you're getting a check, you have a degree of separation between yourself and what you do, as anyone doing a job does.

But poor Naomi Wolf has to push her brand, whatever that might be worth at this aged stage of the game, by herself and for herself, supposedly writing her own words and expressing her own real beliefs, by popping off with cheap, asinine provocations like this:

In a time of darkness in America, you are being feted by Hollywood, and hailed by major media. But to me, the path your career has now taken reminds of no one so much as that other female film pioneer who became, eventually, an apologist for evil: Leni Riefenstahl. Riefenstahl's 1935 Triumph of the Will, which glorified Nazi military power, was a massive hit in Germany. Riefenstahl was the first female film director to be hailed worldwide....Like Riefenstahl, you are a great artist. But now you will be remembered forever as torture's handmaiden.


Comments

1 Torture's Handmaiden would be a good name for a Black Sabbath song.

Posted by: Waterhouse at January 07, 2013 03:29 PM (S/WR4)

2 I had no intention of seeing Zero Dark Thirty, but thanks to lib idiots like Queen Vajayjay, I am definitely seeing it.

Posted by: Witchfinder at January 07, 2013 03:29 PM (pLTLS)

3 Gee, I was just sitting here wondering what shrill, irrelevant Femenazi Naomi Wolf was doing these days. Talk about synchronicity.

Posted by: huerfano at January 07, 2013 03:29 PM (bAGA/)

4 I'm looking forward to seeing the film.

Posted by: Ben at January 07, 2013 03:29 PM (C2Y4l)

5 she needs to get her head out of her vagina

Posted by: thunderb at January 07, 2013 03:29 PM (Dnbau)

6 Vagina gazing?

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at January 07, 2013 03:29 PM (BrQrN)

7 I thought the bearded clam discussion was the last thread?

Posted by: Vizzini at January 07, 2013 03:29 PM (O7Q1u)

8 Boo-hoo the vultures are turning on each other now.

Posted by: gigg423 at January 07, 2013 03:29 PM (41VCE)

9 hee hee hee He said "flowing". Heh!

Posted by: Beavis at January 07, 2013 03:29 PM (71LDo)

10 Naomi Wolf?? Who?

Posted by: dantesed at January 07, 2013 03:29 PM (5EmeM)

11 I kind of love that what was intended to be "Obama Killed Bin Laden With His Bare Hands: The Movie" has ended up being hated by leftists by simply telling the truth, for the most part.

Posted by: Ian S. at January 07, 2013 03:29 PM (B/VB5)

12 Ace, is this the quality of post we can expect in 2013? I blame Obama.

Posted by: SH at January 07, 2013 03:29 PM (gmeXX)

13 I prefer to think of it as terrorist fracking

Posted by: thunderb at January 07, 2013 03:30 PM (Dnbau)

14 I wasn't sure about it either but after people like Fienstein, McCain, and this scrunt all hating it, probably going to go see it this weekend.

Posted by: Adam at January 07, 2013 03:30 PM (/YJYi)

15 Ya know I wasn't gonna see this movie since I have not spent a dime on a Libbywood movie in well over 10 years, but if this movie is driving the libs bat shit crazy, I might just have to break down and spend some coin of the realm and see it.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2013 03:30 PM (9Bj8R)

16 She could be a pen-pal with MoDo. They share something in common - old vags.

Posted by: Roy at January 07, 2013 03:31 PM (VndSC)

17 So does that make Obama Hitler? Because it sure as hell seems that it does.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 07, 2013 03:31 PM (VtjlW)

18 Gee, I was just sitting here wondering what shrill, irrelevant Femenazi
Naomi Wolf was doing these days. Talk about synchronicity.


You and nobody both.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2013 03:31 PM (SY2Kh)

19

I'll bet my leftnut that Naomi wrote all that just to use the phrase "torture's handmaiden."

Posted by: soothsayer at January 07, 2013 03:31 PM (CXoSL)

20 If Bigelow is Leni Riefenstahl, then what is Obama?

Posted by: EC at January 07, 2013 03:31 PM (GQ8sn)

21 Ace, I resent being lumped in with single issue advocacy groups. I'll have you know I have LOTS of issues. Daddy issues, Mommy issues, state-issues...

Posted by: Naomi Wolf at January 07, 2013 03:31 PM (b+8h9)

22 Kind of hard to believe Chris Pratt as a seal, no?

Posted by: SH at January 07, 2013 03:31 PM (gmeXX)

23 If useless words were taxed, Naomi could fund the entire EPA.

Posted by: dfbaskwill at January 07, 2013 03:31 PM (71LDo)

24

I would need some hazmat gear to go anywhere near that love canal.

Gas detector would be mandatory.

She's got Chernobyl goin on down there.

Posted by: Rev dr E buzz at January 07, 2013 03:32 PM (raGXo)

25 Naomi need to write a study about Vagina Fracking.

Posted by: Roy at January 07, 2013 03:32 PM (VndSC)

26 If Bigelow is Leni Riefenstahl, then what is Obama?
Posted by: EC at January 07, 2013 03:31 PM (GQ8sn)


Good one. Maybe even a classsic

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2013 03:32 PM (9Bj8R)

27 she needs to get her head out of her vagina

But how else would she find her keys?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2013 03:32 PM (SY2Kh)

28 Why does the 'War on Women' almost always involve two women and not ancient Republican men with bad comb-overs and a strange interpretation of the Bible?

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at January 07, 2013 03:32 PM (feFL6)

29 more liketorture's handjob

Posted by: thunderb at January 07, 2013 03:32 PM (Dnbau)

30 What about that guy she tortured by making him talk to her vagina?

Posted by: Cricket at January 07, 2013 03:33 PM (DrC22)

31 O/T but I just read TFG's supporters are pissed off because
Of the increase in SS withholding tax. I love it!

Posted by: CarolT at January 07, 2013 03:33 PM (IS2o0)

32 27
she needs to get her head out of her vagina

But how else would she find her keys car?




Fixed.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at January 07, 2013 03:33 PM (UOM48)

33 5
The clinical term is Cranial Vaginitis sp. Flukengia which is not to be confused with the dominant democrat voter condition of Cranial Rectumitis.

Posted by: Exasperated expat at January 07, 2013 03:33 PM (gkfSV)

34 Wasn't all the torture done during the dreaded Bush years anyway?

Posted by: SH at January 07, 2013 03:34 PM (gmeXX)

35 PeTA? What a bunch of whores.

Posted by: A nation's lonely eyes culled by ASPCA at January 07, 2013 03:34 PM (I88Jc)

36 What we need is to make our military less "phallocentric" and more "vag centric". Then, and only then, can the true feminists get on board with films portraying the military in a positive light.

Posted by: wooga at January 07, 2013 03:34 PM (PN5rn)

37 Who's afraid of Naomi Wolf? Nobody.

Her vagina? That's another story entirely.

Posted by: Roy at January 07, 2013 03:34 PM (VndSC)

38 "Torture's handmaiden." Sounds German.

Posted by: Cricket at January 07, 2013 03:34 PM (DrC22)

39 we just kill them now. So much better from the lib point of view. I wish would would kill them after we talk to them though.

Posted by: thunderb at January 07, 2013 03:35 PM (Dnbau)

40 >>>Ace, is this the quality of post we can expect in 2013? I blame Obama.

it's a pretty slow news day. I'm going to be posting minor things to day. I've been looking for something interesting but I just keep finding minor stuff. So, I started writing about the minor stuff.

There are only two big stories: 1, Democrats claim they want more in taxes and McConnell says the tax store is closed.

I don't know how big that is though. It's kind of obvious.

and 2, and here I need help from commenters and/or may get into a fight with commenters: Obama wants to make private sales of guns subject to a background check. I don't really understand the objection to this, apart from the usual "this is the first step towards confiscation." Any step, I grant, is some step, small though it may be, in that direction, but I still don't fully understand the objection: If everyone agrees that guns in the hands of *non*-criminal, *non*-lunatic citizens are the good thing, then why is it bad to try to make certain that private sellers do not sell guns to the criminal/previously committed?

I don't know the answer. Maybe I'll just ask. But I really don't feel like fighting today or being called a RINO and a communist 300 times.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:35 PM (LCRYB)

41 In a time of darkness in America, you are being feted by Hollywood, and
hailed by major media. But to me, the path your career has now taken
reminds of no one so much as that other female film pioneer who became,
eventually, an apologist for evil: Leni Riefenstahl. Riefenstahl's 1935
Triumph of the Will, which glorified Nazi military power, was a massive
hit in Germany. Riefenstahl was the first female film director to be
hailed worldwide....Like Riefenstahl, you are a great artist. But now
you will be remembered forever as torture's handmaiden.




That right there could have only been written by an LibArts college English Major.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 03:35 PM (da5Wo)

42 28 Why does the 'War on Women' almost always involve two women and not ancient Republican men with bad comb-overs and a strange interpretation of the Bible?


-----

Because patriarchy, duh. And anyway, no one is a woman unless real women like me, Kathy Griffin and Helen Thomas say she's a woman.

Posted by: Naomi Wolf at January 07, 2013 03:35 PM (b+8h9)

43 Check out my Vaginascape™!

Posted by: Sandra Lee at January 07, 2013 03:35 PM (UOM48)

44 >>>34 Wasn't all the torture done during the dreaded Bush years anyway?

Bad bush versus good vag. Keep it straight.

Posted by: wooga at January 07, 2013 03:36 PM (PN5rn)

45 Riefenstahl was the first female film director to be hailed worldwide....

Ignorant scrunt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Guy-Blach%C3%A9

Posted by: Alice Guy-Blaché at January 07, 2013 03:36 PM (ZKzrr)

46 That right there could have only been written by an LibArts college English Major.

Don't you mean a theater major?

Posted by: EC at January 07, 2013 03:36 PM (GQ8sn)

47 I saw the movie recently and I highly recommend it. I could not find any overt politics at all. Very good movie.

Posted by: Howcome at January 07, 2013 03:36 PM (a3fYY)

48 Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:35 PM (LCRYB)

Not to quibble but the nomination of hagel and brennan are pretty big stories also

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2013 03:36 PM (9Bj8R)

49 I thought Zero Dark Thirty was the PR film for Obama praising him for nailing Ben Laden????


Why is she attacking her hero?

Posted by: Vic at January 07, 2013 03:37 PM (53z96)

50 RINO Communist!

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at January 07, 2013 03:37 PM (BrQrN)

51 Surf Nazis must die!

Posted by: USMC8541 at January 07, 2013 03:37 PM (sGtp+)

52 This thread is icky. Quick, someone post a picture of me!

Posted by: Kate Upton at January 07, 2013 03:37 PM (a0nis)

53

I don't think Katherine Bigelow will be "forever remembered" for anything.

And neither will Naomi Wolf.

Posted by: soothsayer at January 07, 2013 03:37 PM (1WM2H)

54 that there is bearded clam speak, to quote Sandra Lee

Posted by: thunderb at January 07, 2013 03:37 PM (Dnbau)

55 Forget it Jake, it's Vaginatown.

Posted by: Vizzini at January 07, 2013 03:38 PM (O7Q1u)

56 Make believe drama queen making make believe drama out of make believe drama effort.

Who's gonna prosecute her for torturing us over her make believe angst?

Posted by: ontherocks at January 07, 2013 03:38 PM (aZ6ew)

57 Naomi Wolf: plane + parachute + Hindu Kush. Hilarity ensues.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at January 07, 2013 03:38 PM (UOM48)

58 Shut up, Naomi. Who's torturing who?

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2013 03:38 PM (1hr+f)

59 Any step, I grant, is some step, small though it may be, in that direction, but I still don't fully understand the objection




The first part of that statement answers the second.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 03:38 PM (da5Wo)

60 Scorn. Derision. Mockery. That's the only way to deal with these hysterical females. (That and a few stinging slaps to their faces.)

Posted by: kathysaysso at January 07, 2013 03:38 PM (y5uWA)

61
I'm surprised the old gynosaur didn't throw in a racist angle since they like using that along with nazi or fascist.

Posted by: YIKES! at January 07, 2013 03:38 PM (mETGQ)

62 it's a pretty slow news day.

Speaking of which, whatever happened to the Big Mars News NASA announced that was going to blow everyone's socks off?

Posted by: Waterhouse at January 07, 2013 03:39 PM (S/WR4)

63 and 2, and here I need help from commenters and/or may get into a fight
with commenters: Obama wants to make private sales of guns subject to a
background check. I don't really understand the objection to this,
apart from the usual "this is the first step towards confiscation."


That alone probably wouldn't a tremendous amount of pushback IF the records weren't databased. Currently, gun dealers have to maintain records, but NICS records by law can't be kept more than a few days.

However, he wants to keep all sales on record, creating de facto gun registration.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2013 03:39 PM (SY2Kh)

64 Fuckin Frat-Con RINO Communists.

They're killing America.

Posted by: Lurking Canuck at January 07, 2013 03:39 PM (BrQrN)

65 Too bad America's socialists never learn the real lessons from the legacy of the German Worker's Nationalist Socialist party.

partiotism and nationalism are not sins.

combine it with totalitarianism (i.e., socialism (or for the soft brains out there socialism or/and fascism)), yeah, you necessarily have made it a bad thing...

much like mixing ice cream and dog shit makes ice cream "bad."

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 07, 2013 03:39 PM (QxSug)

66 her problem is that it portrays the militaryas good guysand the terrorists as bad guys. Weird how that is controversial

Posted by: thunderb at January 07, 2013 03:39 PM (Dnbau)

67 Obama wants to make private sales of guns subject to a background check. I don't really understand the objection to this, apart from the usual "this is the first step towards confiscation

Red Dawn says any comprehensive paper trail system is bad. Avenge me!

Posted by: wooga at January 07, 2013 03:39 PM (PN5rn)

68

I'm sick of the mainline political stories, to be honest.

It's the same old shit, anyway.

Posted by: soothsayer at January 07, 2013 03:39 PM (eHNxr)

69 then why is it bad to try to make certain that private sellers do not sell guns to the criminal/previously committed?

I don't think it's "bad" as much as "it's going to be a huge expensive hassle for the law-abiding, with decent people serving prison time for using the wrong color ink but the guys who sell to T'brawndo Gangsta and Jose Cartel are just gonna laugh and go about their business as usual."

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at January 07, 2013 03:39 PM (ZKzrr)

70 This is still about an Obama-fellating hollywood film. I'm surprised so many are saying they're now going to see it because a shrill lib doesn't like it. Don't be a shill and try to enjoy a little blue on blue infighting.

Posted by: Chairman LMAO at January 07, 2013 03:40 PM (9eDbm)

71 Also isn't saying it's a time of darkness in America racistly racist of that racist to say?


Also, based solely on what I've read, it's my understanding that the depiction of water boarding is neither positive or negative. Information is obtained but it's not clear if it's accurate. In other words, the movie deals with the messiness of actual reality. No wonder the Left hates it.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 07, 2013 03:40 PM (VtjlW)

72 I have no idea who she is. Why is this even news?

Honestly, who give a shit what some crackpot says?

Leave he alone to polish her vag or something semi useful.

Posted by: marcus at January 07, 2013 03:40 PM (GGCsk)

73 If a bear farts in the woods and nobody smells it, do I give a fuck?

Posted by: maddogg at January 07, 2013 03:40 PM (OlN4e)

74 >>>Not to quibble but the nomination of hagel and brennan are pretty big stories also

ehhhh... I guess, but not really fodder for comments, right?


Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:40 PM (LCRYB)

75

Reading anything from Niomi Wolf...is torture.

It's like Vogon poetry.

Posted by: wheatie at January 07, 2013 03:40 PM (dC04t)

76 If a bear farts in the woods and nobody smells it, do I give a fuck?
Posted by: maddogg at January 07, 2013 03:40 PM (OlN4e)

Depends? Does the bear have any matches and is the forest dry?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2013 03:41 PM (9Bj8R)

77 For i - 1 to 500
"You are a fucking commie"
Next i

Whew... I got that out of the way for you.

Posted by: gigg423 at January 07, 2013 03:41 PM (41VCE)

78 Man....that must be one hell of a movie!

Posted by: Kasper in Arlington at January 07, 2013 03:41 PM (HqpV0)

79 In a time of darkness in America, you are being feted by Hollywood, and hailed by major media. But to me, the path your career has now taken reminds of no one so much as that other female film pioneer who became, eventually, an apologist for evil: Leni Riefenstahl. Riefenstahl's 1935 Triumph of the Will, which glorified Nazi military power, was a massive hit in Germany. Riefenstahl was the first female film director to be hailed worldwide....Like Riefenstahl, you are a great artist. But now you will be remembered forever as torture's handmaiden.


Take away that "great artist" bit and this applies nicely to 99% of Hollyweird.

Posted by: VerucaFluke at January 07, 2013 03:42 PM (7ObY1)

80 Old ladies talking about older stuff doesn't put the butts in the seats. Stay in school, kids!

Posted by: hanson bros' next hit, 'Mmm-Barack' at January 07, 2013 03:42 PM (I88Jc)

81 "I don't have any thoughts about it: I was just thinking about it."


Hehehe... that sounds like Mamet-speak, Ace. I love it.

Posted by: Crazy Bald Guy at January 07, 2013 03:42 PM (8ltUk)

82 Reading anything from Niomi Wolf...is torture.

It's like Vogon poetry.


Posted by: wheatie at January 07, 2013 03:40 PM (dC04t


I survived by gnawing off my own arm.

Posted by: EC at January 07, 2013 03:42 PM (GQ8sn)

83 The Nazis advocated fracking. See my new film "Promised Land". Hurry, it won't be in theaters long.

Posted by: Matt Damon at January 07, 2013 03:42 PM (Cm5S0)

84 I think the biggest objection to the background check is it is aimed primarily at stopping gun shows. That's pretty hardcore stuff to the red state. I'm not even a big gun fan (although I have a CCP and so on, because, Hoosier) and I have a really sick feeling in my gut region when I contemplate shutting them down. When I get dragged...I mean get to go...to one, there's a raw feeling of freedom and people exercising same that I don't get anywhere else. I think it's because everyone one there knows what's at stake, ultimately, if the 2A goes down.

Posted by: Pentangle at January 07, 2013 03:42 PM (u5q8R)

85 ::::hailed worldwide....Like Riefenstahl, you are a great artist. But now
you will be remembered forever as torture's handmaiden. :::/

Shut up, you irrelevant, unhappy, pinch-faced, misandristic twat. I'm even less interested in your "thoughts" on torture than I am hearing a monologue about your leathery piss-flaps.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 07, 2013 03:42 PM (ll6WS)

86 If a bear farts in the woods and nobody smells it, do I give a fuck?
Posted by: maddogg


Can I interest you in my book?

Posted by: Scat McNutty author of Fucking Bears at January 07, 2013 03:42 PM (KDq5l)

87 whatever happened to the Big Mars News NASA announced
---
I think they found a fiscal cliff.

Posted by: RioBravo at January 07, 2013 03:42 PM (eEfYn)

88
You know what else?

It seems like every day the media decides what I need to worry about today. Fuck them; I'll decide what I want to burn brain cells on today.

Posted by: soothsayer at January 07, 2013 03:42 PM (LL42r)

89 It's like Vogon poetry.


Posted by: wheatie at January 07, 2013 03:40 PM (dC04t)

Maybe she could have worked a few fig eating apes into that mess.

Posted by: kathysaysso at January 07, 2013 03:42 PM (y5uWA)

90 The Clam-Media has spoken.

Posted by: Joe Mama at January 07, 2013 03:42 PM (v9Cj5)

91 >>>I don't think it's "bad" as much as "it's going to be a huge expensive hassle for the law-abiding, with decent people serving prison time for using the wrong color ink but the guys who sell to T'brawndo Gangsta and Jose Cartel are just gonna laugh and go about their business as usual.

I suppose there could be problems with execution (in OUR government? No way.) But what if was just a matter of paying the nearest licensed federal firearms dealer like $40 to do a background check, the same as he would do for his own customer? Since that system works okay, why not piggy back on that and say "it costs $40 to run the check through that guy, same as if you'd pay $5 to get something notarized by a notary public."

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:42 PM (LCRYB)

92
74
>>>Not to quibble but the nomination of hagel and brennan are pretty big stories also


-------------------------


ehhhh... I guess, but not really fodder for comments, right?







Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:40 PM (LCRYB)


We hate them....they're incompetent, leftist assholes who will further weaken the country...anti-israel...weakness.....
There ya go Ace. There's the comments for that post.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 03:43 PM (da5Wo)

93 Obama wants to make private sales of guns subject to a background check.


The original law specifically did not call for that and I am adamantly opposed to the existing laws as being unconstitutional. Adding still more is anathema.


As for the practical application, it would make criminals of very private gun trader and eliminate 99% of the honest trades. How will private citizens do background checks. In addition, it in effect registers another class of guns since they never get rid of those forms.


And most of all, what damn good will it do? The criminals will simply lie on their forms.

Posted by: Vic at January 07, 2013 03:43 PM (53z96)

94 One of the greater routes of America's cultural suicide was the acceptance of feminism as a form of intellectualism and an academic field.

It's basically political credentialism. That is, it's a circular she's smart because she's a feminist because she's smart...

who cares what she has to say aside from her being smart because she's a feminist because she's smart...

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 07, 2013 03:43 PM (QxSug)

95 Since it's a slow news day, here's a Halloween video of New York's first lady.

http://tinyurl.com/a6c4ju2

Posted by: Jane D'oh at January 07, 2013 03:43 PM (UOM48)

96 Don't forget this loon thought Bushitler was after her because her kids' report cards came in the mail late....

Posted by: GuyfromNH at January 07, 2013 03:43 PM (YOe1f)

97 I don't know the answer. Maybe I'll just ask. But I really don't feel like fighting today or being called a RINO and a communist 300 times.
---

Of course I was just kidding ace. You could have just given me the "Get your own blog response." That would have been fine. I'm just bored today and wanted a lot of snark. The fracking blog post gave me an outlet for a while.

My objection to the gun-sale idea by Obama would simply be this. What is the true mark of a free society. The ability to freely sell your property to someone else. I realize we have limited that quite a bit. But if guns are constitutionally allowed (and the Court seems to take that possession), then liberty requires that I be freely allowed to sell those guns in a private sale. Obviously, you can put restrictions - sales to minors, etc. But a complete ban, is a big step, no?

In any event, my thought is always this. When someone is trying to take a right away from me, it is upon them to demonstrate why it is necessary to do so.

Further, we conservatives should fight this every step of the way. Even if it seems reasonable, we should fight it. I've long thought that a lot of the liberty we have lost over the past 20 years can be traced to the cigarette wars. Many conservatives sat on the sidelines as governments enacted anti-smoking bans everywhere. This has made it much easier to allow other bans.

Posted by: SH at January 07, 2013 03:43 PM (gmeXX)

98 40
The background check for private sellers creates a paper trail of likely gun owners. People talk of police going door to door confiscating firearms which is ridiculous. They already have a database if addresses likely to possess firearms through background checks, CCW and firearm purchase forms that can be targeted with minimal cost. When you include photos on Facebook, twitter and forums that log your IP address you have another data set to check into. Plus the cost and legal requirement of private transaction background checks places an undue burden on firearm purchasers. One which many are unable to bear. It's a stealth manner in which to close the gun show loophole and create a paper in trail for when registration will become required. Finally giving the state the power to regulate this type of private transaction gives the state the power to regulate all types if private transactions. That power never ends well.

Posted by: Exasperated expat at January 07, 2013 03:43 PM (gkfSV)

99 Ace, this is my favorite blog, I love you.

Posted by: CarolT at January 07, 2013 03:43 PM (hrAg/)

100 But now you will be remembered forever as torture's handmaiden.

Actually she won't be remembered at all, but whatev's.

"Torture's Handmaiden" would be an excellent title for a book, though. Just divorce it from this florid bit of self-aggrandizing prose and you're laughing.

Or conversely it might be another name to add to Alexthechick's list of royal monikers: "Alexthechick, (somewhat) benign dictator of Alextopia, Royal Highness of Raptors, Torture's Handmaiden..." and so forth.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at January 07, 2013 03:43 PM (4df7R)

101 to quote Sandra Lee, "look at that fish taco!"

Posted by: thunderb at January 07, 2013 03:43 PM (Dnbau)

102 Vagina gazing?

Similar to navel gazing. But with the addition of meat curtains!

Posted by: rickb223 at January 07, 2013 03:43 PM (GFM2b)

103 ehhhh... I guess, but not really fodder for comments, right?


Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:40 PM (LCRYB)

Yep, just another day at the sycophant soirée.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 03:43 PM (l86i3)

104 "Torture's HandMaiden" is probably the coolest nickname a woman could have, is all.

Posted by: spongeworthy at January 07, 2013 03:43 PM (r5w1L)

105 triumph glorified socialism at least as much as it glorified germany's military- the military glorified are paramilitary, demonstrating that they were "unified" notwithstanding the long knives purge.

Posted by: wm flip at January 07, 2013 03:44 PM (lB/5N)

106 ehhhh... I guess, but not really fodder for comments, right?

I dunno, I can think of some pretty good comments in reply to that story Insty had about people defending Hagel by saying he was being defamed by an International Zionist Conspiracy being controlled by the Dread Bibi Himself.

Posted by: Ian S. at January 07, 2013 03:44 PM (B/VB5)

107 Plus, Zero Dark Thirty isn't even a real time.

Posted by: USS Diversity at January 07, 2013 03:44 PM (MPjT8)

108 Queeff

Posted by: Torturers ovenmitt at January 07, 2013 03:44 PM (tdaam)

109 >>>I think the biggest objection to the background check is it is aimed primarily at stopping gun shows. That's pretty hardcore stuff to the red state.

Why couldn't they have like five guys at the event running background checks the way licensed dealers do? Like you'd have to go over to that guy, with your provisional bill of sale, then he runs you up in the system, then gives you a stamp and a code indicating you passed the check, then you bring your code and stamp over to the dealer and pick up your gun?

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:45 PM (LCRYB)

110 fuck all the gun control laws? Is that an option that the House GOP could take?

realistically?

If the anti-reality democrats were to look at recent massacres, then we should be introducing a "control your psychotic kids, single mothers" bill. But that's not politically feasible either, eh?

Much like the US Army fearing the worst thing to happen from Major Mohammed's shooting is that diversity would be affected negatively.

barf

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 07, 2013 03:45 PM (QxSug)

111 I don't know the answer. Maybe I'll just ask. But I
really don't feel like fighting today or being called a RINO and a
communist 300 times.





Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:35 PM (LCRYB)

Bwahahaha. You're posting on AOSHQ. If someone isn't calling you a RINO you're saying nothing at all.
The rejoinder is this: Do you think background checks on private arms sales will result in less crime? No? How about more state control? Yes?
Ok.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 07, 2013 03:45 PM (xAtAj)

112 Just another lefty who has never been mugged. Unfortunately some leftys would continue to defend the mugger after being mugged ala Fisk.

Doing my best imitation of spurwing plover, this reminded me of the movie with Nicholas Cage where he was the secret service man assigned to the first lady who got kidnapped. One of the co conspirators would talk so Cage shot him in the knee. Hollywood seemed to love that scene.

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2013 03:45 PM (m2CN7)

113 No diss on Naomi, she's got the pretentious elitist a-hole look buttoned down tight. You know, the look that impresses all her vajay-jay monologic peeps.

Posted by: kallisto at January 07, 2013 03:45 PM (jm/9g)

114 I don't know the answer. Maybe I'll just ask. But I really don't feel like fighting today or being called a RINO and a communist 300 times.
Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:35 PM (LCRYB)


---------------------------------------------


They need to start upgrading the lists from psychologists and pshyciatrists if they're serious about this. I think it's all just incrementalism anyway. I should be able to sell a gun to anyone I wish.

I really do see a widespread black market for weapons and ammo coming.

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2013 03:45 PM (1hr+f)

115 I'm surprised the old gynosaur didn't throw in a racist angle since they like using that along with nazi or fascist.

Uh... 'Cornbread Sister?'

Posted by: Rob Parker at January 07, 2013 03:46 PM (feFL6)

116
Since it's a slow news day, here's a Halloween video of New York's first lady.

http://tinyurl.com/a6c4ju2


Posted by: Jane D'oh at January 07, 2013 03:43 PM (UOM4


Look out Jane! Anna is going to come after you with more links to hentai and Didem.

Posted by: EC at January 07, 2013 03:46 PM (GQ8sn)

117 Kathryn Bigelow, 2nd wife of James Fuckin' Cameron, looks a lot like Linda Hamilton, 3rd wife of James Fuckin' Cameron

Posted by: kbdabear at January 07, 2013 03:46 PM (wwsoB)

118 Why couldn't they have like five guys at the event
running background checks the way licensed dealers do? Like you'd have
to go over to that guy, with your provisional bill of sale, then he runs
you up in the system, then gives you a stamp and a code indicating you
passed the check, then you bring your code and stamp over to the dealer
and pick up your gun?





Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:45 PM (LCRYB)

How much would that cost? I honestly don't know how much infrastructure is needed to do it.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 07, 2013 03:46 PM (xAtAj)

119 It's Nicolas Cage's birthday.

Let's just post like Nicolas Cage. All you have to do is just post normally and then, all of a sudden START SHOUTING AND GOING APESHIT CRAZY!!!!

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2013 03:46 PM (T0NGe)

120 **96 Don't forget this loon thought Bushitler was after her because her kids' report cards came in the mail late....**

her and the other feminist nutbag were full on "I'm being bugged by Bush" mode in 2004.

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 07, 2013 03:46 PM (QxSug)

121 By the way...

Setup a plot with the facts this raid was years in the making, involved extensive coordination across agencies/military, new policies from a previous president, a president, by the way. who also issued the original kill order.

Then try to gratuitously fellate the current President because he repeated "yes, let's do it".

Gutsy call? You must be kidding. He probably peed his pants because of some perceived political risk to himself.

Posted by: marcus at January 07, 2013 03:46 PM (GGCsk)

122
Any step, I grant, is some step, small though it may be, in that direction, but I still don't fully understand the objection


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Your welcome.

Posted by: MadameMayhem at January 07, 2013 03:46 PM (iRgZG)

123 "Vagina, A New Autobiography"

"It was nev-er easy for me. I was born a poor pink vulva."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfAvQp-Uk5I

Posted by: West at January 07, 2013 03:47 PM (1Rgee)

124

Your keys, sir.

Posted by: torture's valet at January 07, 2013 03:47 PM (oxIUw)

125 >>>My objection to the gun-sale idea by Obama would simply be this. What is the true mark of a free society. The ability to freely sell your property to someone else. I realize we have limited that quite a bit. But if guns are constitutionally allowed (and the Court seems to take that possession), then liberty requires that I be freely allowed to sell those guns in a private sale. Obviously, you can put restrictions - sales to minors, etc. But a complete ban, is a big step, no?

I don't know what Obama has proposed (and I wouldn't support a "ban"). I'm asking what is the objection to having to, say, pay a licensed federal dealr to run a background check (say the mandated price for this is $40), then you pick up a print-out stating "no problems found" and so you complete the sale (and keep the printout for your records, should anyone want to hassle you).

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:47 PM (LCRYB)

126 Naomi Wolf Vag-O-Matic - it dices, it slices. Do you want fries with that?

Posted by: Roy at January 07, 2013 03:47 PM (VndSC)

127

You rang, m'lord?

Posted by: torture's butler at January 07, 2013 03:48 PM (uff2W)

128 fucking leaves

Posted by: torture's poolboy at January 07, 2013 03:48 PM (S/WR4)

129 >>>"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

are background checks at federal firearms dealers unconstitutional then?

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:48 PM (LCRYB)

130 Hagel: Not one shred of evidence that I’m anti-Israeli
Published: 01.07.13, 21:57 / Israel News



Chuck Hagel fired back at critics after being nominated by President Barack Obama to be the next secretary of defense, saying there is “not one shred of evidence that I’m anti-Israeli.”

Hagel told the Lincoln Journal-Star, his hometown newspaper, that he had been “hanging out there in no-man’s land unable to respond to charges, falsehoods and distortions” without the ability to respond while Republicans and foreign policy hawks “completely distorted” his record on Iran and Israel. (AFP

'Foreign Policy Hawks"? Hum sounds an awful lot like code for Joooos!

Posted by: Nevergiveup at January 07, 2013 03:48 PM (9Bj8R)

131 If the anti-reality democrats were to look at recent massacres, then we should be introducing a "control your psychotic kids, single mothers" bill. But that's not politically feasible either, eh?

How about the "hold lawyers liable for the consequences of the suits they bring" bill?

Sauce for the goose, as it were.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2013 03:48 PM (T0NGe)

132 Why couldn't they have like five guys at the event
running background checks the way licensed dealers do? Like you'd have
to go over to that guy, with your provisional bill of sale, then he runs
you up in the system, then gives you a stamp and a code indicating you
passed the check, then you bring your code and stamp over to the dealer
and pick up your gun?





Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:45 PM (LCRYB)


For what purpose? Is there some evidence that criminals are buying guns in private sales at gun shows? I haven't been to a ton of shows, but the private sales between citizens seem to revolve almost exclusively around collectibles and hunting rifles. Not exactly what the criminal element is after.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 03:48 PM (da5Wo)

133 At least she moved beyond the standard "water carrier" slur to "handmaiden".

Posted by: Torture's Foot Butler at January 07, 2013 03:48 PM (PN5rn)

134 I am here on my iPhone having lunch.
Hagel, Brennan & Kerry all suck!

Posted by: CarolT at January 07, 2013 03:48 PM (BNuW6)

135 didn't she advise Gore to wear brown because.... whatever?

Posted by: thunderb at January 07, 2013 03:49 PM (Dnbau)

136 I think the biggest objection to the background check is it is aimed primarily at stopping gun shows.

I don't see how. 99.99% of sales at gun shows already have to go through the NICS check, because almost all sales at gun shows are through a dealer.

Right now, private citizens don't even have the option to perform a NICS background check. Giving them the ability (or even mandating it) wouldn't be a big deal IF (and only if) it were handled like the current NICS check. The ATF is currently forbidden from maintaining records on dealer purchases, though the dealer has to keep records locally.

That's not what Obama wants though. He wants all sales- private and dealer- not only to go through the background check, but also the ability to keep and maintain those records. This effectively creates a national gun registration database, and registration tends to lead to confiscation.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2013 03:49 PM (SY2Kh)

137 Now just hold still as I pop your vag back into place.

Posted by: Torture's Chiropractor at January 07, 2013 03:49 PM (9eDbm)

138 For more important breaking news there is this:


RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters) - A cat carrying a saw and a mobile phone was "detained" as it entered a prison gate in northeast Brazil, Brazilian media reported on Saturday.

Prison guards were surprised when they saw a white cat crossing the main gate of the prison, its body wrapped with tape. A closer look showed the feline also carried drills, an earphone, a memory card, batteries and a phone charger.

Posted by: RWC at January 07, 2013 03:49 PM (fWAjv)

139 Plus, Zero Dark Thirty isn't even a real time.
Posted by: USS Diversity at January 07, 2013 03:44 PM (MPjT


-------------------------------------------


Have you ever had to pull guard duty at night in the middle of nowhere in a cold rain and 35degree temperature. Zero-dark-thirty is very real.

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2013 03:49 PM (1hr+f)

140 Why couldn't they have like five guys at the event running background checks the way licensed dealers do?

Because the gun dealers can already do that over the phone when you buy a gun.

Posted by: EC at January 07, 2013 03:49 PM (GQ8sn)

141 then you pick up a print-out stating "no problems
found" and so you complete the sale (and keep the printout for your
records, should anyone want to hassle you).





Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:47 PM (LCRYB)

You might run afoul of the law later.

We lived without the background checks until 1993. No reason we couldn't live without them now.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 07, 2013 03:49 PM (xAtAj)

142 Gutsy call? You must be kidding. He probably peed his pants because of some perceived political risk to himself.

---

And, according to sources, King Putt kept putting off a decision to the point where Leon Panetta said "Fuck it, go ahead on my authority."

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 07, 2013 03:49 PM (e0xKF)

143 Ace: the objection is that the Feds would then have gun owners on file, making confiscation dead easy. Registration has proceeded confiscation in several actual countries, after all, so this isn't all that theoretical. I like to think that my lefty friends are good-faith actors as much as you do, but ultimately they aren't.

Posted by: Ian S. at January 07, 2013 03:49 PM (B/VB5)

144 Private sales? We would all become Travis Bickell and buy our guns from a guy in a hotel room. He of course would throw in a holster for free.

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2013 03:50 PM (m2CN7)

145 I'm responsible for whoever I loan my car to. Potential million dollar lawsuit could bankrupt me if I give the keys to a nut case. Making guns available to people with mental issues should have just as much potential financial ramifications.

I know... RINO.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at January 07, 2013 03:50 PM (feFL6)

146
129>>> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


are background checks at federal firearms dealers unconstitutional then?

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:48 PM (LCRYB)


Only when we don't get the Drug Cartel Discount, Ace.

Posted by: wheatie at January 07, 2013 03:50 PM (dC04t)

147
I'm confused.....

I had the assumption that ODT was a movie that would be blubbering in in praise and adoration for TFGs gutsy call.


OTH.... the professional left HATES this movie.

What gives???

Posted by: fixerupper at January 07, 2013 03:50 PM (nELVU)

148 > Like you'd have to go over to that guy, with your provisional bill of
sale, then he runs you up in the system, then gives you a stamp and a
code indicating you passed the check, then you bring your code and stamp
over to the dealer and pick up your gun?
<

Why would you concede that?

I can by a gun privately from another individual without a background check.

If you don't believe that is a next step, you haven't paid attention to the constant liberal creep on these issues.

Ultimately, the government will now start to create a de facto list of every single firearm.

Posted by: marcus at January 07, 2013 03:50 PM (GGCsk)

149 If I wrote a book and titled it I'm Totally Excited About My Dong - Why You Should Be Too could I be some sort of leftie hero also, or does it need to be a one man play first (not that it isn't already)?

Posted by: Xander Crews at January 07, 2013 03:50 PM (LVxGp)

150 >>>How much would that cost? I honestly don't know how much infrastructure is needed to do it.

Well it would cost something, obviously, and each sale would have the cost of this additional service slapped on to it (whether it's $15 or $25). but then there are a lot of costs at a gun show (or any convention). I can't see why this particular cost would be dealbreaking.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:50 PM (LCRYB)

151 whatever happened to the Big Mars News NASA announced
----
They found sand with methane. just like in 2008. Excited now?

Posted by: RioBravo at January 07, 2013 03:51 PM (eEfYn)

152 I don't know what Obama has proposed (and I wouldn't support a "ban"). I'm asking what is the objection to having to, say, pay a licensed federal dealr to run a background check (say the mandated price for this is $40), then you pick up a print-out stating "no problems found" and so you complete the sale (and keep the printout for your records, should anyone want to hassle you).

In principle, nothing. In practice, it's attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist. If this is in a reaction to Newtown, how would this in any way have solved any problem with respect to Newtown?

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2013 03:51 PM (T0NGe)

153 >>>119 It's Nicolas Cage's birthday.

That's a good thread starter.

Posted by: wooga at January 07, 2013 03:51 PM (PN5rn)

154 The gun shows that I have been to don't have a lot of private sales. That hole issue about gun shows is a red hearing to try to make it sound like they are "getting by" the law.


Calling for checks at a gun show will have very little impact on gun shows. But it will make a lot of new criminals because people will still buy, sell, and trade guns among themselves w/o doing it.


Just one more law to punish "enemies of the State" with, meaning enemies of whoever is in charge.


And besides that, IT.IS.UNCONSITUTIONAL


We either believe in it, or throw the damn thing away. As I said this morning. Lets start a movement in red States to make it a felony to be a Democrat or vote for A Democrat. If we are going to trash the Constitution lets go both ways instead of us always taking it in the shitter.

Posted by: Vic at January 07, 2013 03:51 PM (53z96)

155 And before everyone forgets:

Ace you're a freaking RINO.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 07, 2013 03:52 PM (xAtAj)

156 Who plays Sir Golfsalot in the film?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at January 07, 2013 03:52 PM (UOM48)

157
yes, I advised Algore to wear "earth tones"

Posted by: torture's fashion adviser at January 07, 2013 03:52 PM (QVBzT)

158 again, the left hates this movie because it show our military in a good light and the terroists as bad guys. It goes against the narrative. Our soldiers are only good, only useful, as victims, not victors. We shouldn't acknowledge or God forbid celebrate their successes.

Posted by: thunderb at January 07, 2013 03:52 PM (Dnbau)

159 They found sand with methane. just like in 2008. Excited now?

---

So... proof that SUVs caused global warming on Mars?!?

Posted by: Stupid Typical Fucking Moonbat at January 07, 2013 03:52 PM (e0xKF)

160 Shut up, you irrelevant, unhappy, pinch-faced,
misandristic twat. I'm even less interested in your "thoughts" on
torture than I am hearing a monologue about your leathery piss-flaps.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 07, 2013 03:42 PM (ll6WS)


The poetry of that brings a tear to my eye and restores my faith in humanity.

Posted by: tcn at January 07, 2013 03:52 PM (ZOUmX)

161 I had the assumption that ODT was a movie that would be blubbering in in praise and adoration for TFGs gutsy call.


Pretty sure I saw a headline on Drudge a few weeks ago that said it doesn't even mention him by name.

Posted by: Adam at January 07, 2013 03:52 PM (/YJYi)

162 Private sales? We would all become Travis Bickell and buy our guns from a guy in a hotel room. He of course would throw in a holster for free.

Sell the holster and whatever comes in it is free.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2013 03:52 PM (T0NGe)

163
Ultimately, the government will now start to create a de facto list of every single firearm.
---
Considering how much Canada spent on their fiasco, Obama is going to need another trillion for this...

Posted by: RioBravo at January 07, 2013 03:52 PM (eEfYn)

164
Well, maybe there is a subliminal pro-Obama message, and Naomi Wolf is purposely criticizing the movie to get us unhinged wingnut racist h8ters to go see it, and get the subliminal message.

Not gonna see it, wouldn't be prudent, at this juncture.

The World, and especially the Main Stream Bullshit Media, isfull of drama queens and sob sisters. The newspapers at the turn of the 20th century and up 'till WWII were full of "sob sister" writers (as they were called) writing total BS to sell newspapers to the sentimental slob demographic (although they didn't use those terms back then).

Naomi Wolf - total drama queen. She sleeps safe in her bed at night because some tough hombres in the US Army and theMarine Corpswere finding, fixing and killing the bad guys in Iraq and Afghanistan. She reminds me of the total idiot blimp Rosie O'Donnel who praised Giuliani after 9/11 for being a steady hand in NY Cityand then turned on him like the fat snake she is. A lot of New Yorkers are like that.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes...... at January 07, 2013 03:52 PM (RFeQD)

165 I suspect that Obama has no real designs on any form of gun control. Sure, he'll say a few words, say we have to do something, even let a few Senators bring some dumb bills to the floor. But all that cost nothing. Those are side shows. Rally his base a little, get the other side all worked up, knowing that nothing will be done in the end anyway, because it is a political loser and doesn't do anything to cement his legacy.

What he really wants is to expand government by not cutting spending and by immigration reform. So while the right gets worked up about guns, he is pushing on these other fronts. The Manchins of the world can show how they stood up to Obama to protect your guns, but meanwhile voted with Obama to increase your taxes and increase spending. He can trade gun control - a big cultural and political issue for many GOP reps - for spending cuts, something that doesn't really move votes.

Let's not fall for these diversionary tactics. Keep our eyes on the prize.

Posted by: SH at January 07, 2013 03:53 PM (gmeXX)

166 Man, if they ever made a movie about Obama's DRONE ASSASSINATIONS, Wolfe's head might explode.

Posted by: Lizzy at January 07, 2013 03:53 PM (amaU1)

167 or does it need to be a one man hand play first

FIFY

Posted by: Vizzini at January 07, 2013 03:53 PM (O7Q1u)

168 >>> you will be remembered forever as torture's handmaiden.

Pot, meet kettle.

Posted by: Naomi Wolfe's Sybian at January 07, 2013 03:53 PM (cHeYs)

169
Obama wants to make private sales of guns subject to a
background check. I don't really understand the objection to this,

How about because"Fuck you.., that's why"

Posted by: Fan of GuyMohawk at January 07, 2013 03:53 PM (012vu)

170 are background checks at federal firearms dealers unconstitutional then?

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:48 PM (LCRYB)

Yes because it is an "abridgement".

Posted by: Vic at January 07, 2013 03:53 PM (53z96)

171 Riefenstahl's 1935 Triumph of the Will, which glorified Nazi military power, was a massive hit in Germany. Riefenstahl was the first female film director to be hailed worldwide....Like Riefenstahl, you are a great artist. BUT NOW YOU WILL BE REMEMBERED FOREVER AS TORTURE'S HANDMAIDEN!!!!

AGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

Posted by: Naomi "Nick Cage" Wolf at January 07, 2013 03:53 PM (9eDbm)

172 it's a pretty slow news day. I'm going to be
posting minor things to day. I've been looking for something
interesting but I just keep finding minor stuff. So, I started writing
about the minor stuff.





Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:35 PM

Here's something along the lines of what you've been saying all along. Free Shit can't be free for long

Cliff Asness: "Nobody, Left Or Right, Really Thinks The Math Works, No Matter What They Say In Public"

http://tinyurl.com/b8wyugh

The only way to finance a big European-style state is to have it paid for by massive taxation of everyone, mostly the middle class. Right now, we are avoiding honest debate on this fact.




Posted by: kbdabear at January 07, 2013 03:53 PM (wwsoB)

173 I'm asking what is the objection to having to, say, pay a licensed federal dealr to run a background check (say the mandated price for this is $40)

One objection is that in some states it's done for free now.
Another objection is that it could be used similar to a poll tax.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 07, 2013 03:53 PM (GFM2b)

174 Tortures Handmaiden? my ex wife holds that title...

Posted by: Clemenza at January 07, 2013 03:53 PM (x59Gv)

175
Have you ever had to pull guard duty at night in the middle of nowhere in a cold rain and 35degree temperature. Zero-dark-thirty is very real.
----------
Actually, lookout duty in the North Atlantic, but yeah.
Iguess Ineed to work on my funny.

Posted by: USS Diversity at January 07, 2013 03:53 PM (MPjT8)

176 166
Man, if they ever made a movie about Obama's DRONE ASSASSINATIONS, Wolfe's head might explode.




Don't tease.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at January 07, 2013 03:54 PM (UOM48)

177 >>>Why would you concede that?

Because I don't think it's a "concession."

I don't see how we talk about lawful guns in law-abiding citizens' hand being a good thing, and then, in the same breath, say that we refuse any sort of check about the lawfulness of a buyer. Like, our rhetoric is "Guns for law-abiding citizens" but our actual *policy* is "guns for the law abiding and criminal (and previously involuntarily committed) alike."

That seems dishonest to me.

I would like rhetoric to match reality.

If it's really "our" collective position that the criminal should have the right to buy guns too, the let's go to market with that claim, instead of the dishonest version of it, which is more salable, politically, but which is, of course, dishonest.


Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:54 PM (LCRYB)

178 the federal power granted to do this thing obama wants could be abused to make even typos a major felony. This is the federal government that fined a guy $90K for bad cages on his rabbit farm, that sends armed USDA agents to bust raw milk sales, and yet doesn't give a shit about black panthers, illegal aliens, or fast and furious.

Joe Biden finally got his unified executive, or whatever it was he was pissing his pants about when lecturing alito.

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 07, 2013 03:54 PM (QxSug)

179 Kathryn Bigelow couldn't carry Leni Reifenstahl's clapboard.

For an interesting story on a real Hitler film, this month TCM is showing Hitler's Titanic, and boy is it a doozy.

http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/102735|0/Titanic.html


Posted by: scottst at January 07, 2013 03:54 PM (YT+GP)

180 In practice, it's attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

I'm pretty sure guns are sold (or gifted) to young criminals from "private sellers" on the streets of Chicago every day. Some may even have been legally purchased by the seller.

But they aren't going to go to their local registered dealer and pay $40 for a background check before the transaction takes place.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at January 07, 2013 03:54 PM (ZKzrr)

181 If these private sales have the potential to close down gun shows theonly thing gun shows would do is not allow the private sale of guns. This would eliminate about .1% of the transactions that go on at gun shows.

easy peezy

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2013 03:54 PM (m2CN7)

182 So... proof that SUVs caused global warming on Mars?!?
--
In other news, there is no reported killing by an SUV on Mars yet.

Posted by: RioBravo at January 07, 2013 03:54 PM (eEfYn)

183 Who plays Sir Golfsalot in the film?

Biz Markie.

Posted by: EC at January 07, 2013 03:54 PM (GQ8sn)

184 O/T Just put out a Employee Memo letting everyone know their paychecks are going to be smaller this Friday. Makes me sick to my stomach.

Posted by: wendy at January 07, 2013 03:55 PM (uBVp6)

185 @173 you already have a pole tax its called Obama care..and you will feel the pole..

Posted by: Clemenza at January 07, 2013 03:55 PM (x59Gv)

186 You people just don't realize that I'm speaking from my VA-JAY-JAY... where my deepest thoughts and emotions come from! You'll never understand why it's important to me in touch with your feminine side and take womyn's studies at all of the elite universities! It's time that the feministias take over this country and the world and make all of you MEN subservient to us!

DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO HAVE A PERIOD!!!

Posted by: Naomi Wolf at January 07, 2013 03:55 PM (Jls4P)

187 and that unified executive is unified in hating any deviance from the blue state cog in the machine model of compliant citizenry.

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 07, 2013 03:55 PM (QxSug)

188
sand and methane

sounds like spring break

Posted by: thunderb at January 07, 2013 03:56 PM (Dnbau)

189
are background checks at federal firearms dealers unconstitutional then?
Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:48 PM (LCRYB)


Then we have to argue the definition of infringement.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 03:56 PM (l86i3)

190 @Ace,

on #2, I think it's more interesting that people are grumbling that Guns may be a "public health" problem, and thus we need to get "doctors" involved (read: Public Health professionals really, doctors never do this stuff).

Convincing people something is a "public health" issue is often the first step to a Big Government Solution (TM). Think Obesity and Nanny Bloomberg.
I suspect this is because public health did some great things back in the day (clean water, sanitation, etc.) so people tend to trust it. However it's time has faded (seeing as we now have clean water, better plumbing, etc.) and it's grasping at power in a desperate attempt to stay relevant. (Kinda like the March of Dimes did after we eliminated Polio.)

But, meh, it could just be the ramblings of a man who has to sit in an office 1 floor above the school of public health. (Well used to, I moved offices.)

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 07, 2013 03:56 PM (Ssth1)

191 Having to get a background check on private sells would be nothing but a pain in the ass for law abiding citizens.

Posted by: Adam at January 07, 2013 03:56 PM (/YJYi)

192 The lefty bedwetting over this movie is the greatest promo ever. Can't wait to see it.

Posted by: Andy at January 07, 2013 03:56 PM (C/NnJ)

193 Because the gun dealers can already do that over the phone when you buy a gun.
Posted by: EC at January 07, 2013 03:49 PM (GQ8sn)


-----------------------------------------


I'm thinking that the name of this type of check will be changed to something that sounds a bit more forceful. Nothing will really change, but it will sound like someone's doing something.

As for private sales. It's none of their goddamn business.

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2013 03:56 PM (1hr+f)

194 DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO HAVE A PERIOD!!!
Posted by: Naomi Wolf at January 07, 2013 03:55 PM (Jls4P)

No, but I know what it's like to live with someone who does.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 03:57 PM (l86i3)

195 I don't see how we talk about lawful guns in law-abiding citizens' hand
being a good thing, and then, in the same breath, say that we refuse any
sort of check about the lawfulness of a buyer. Like, our rhetoric is
"Guns for law-abiding citizens" but our actual *policy* is "guns for the
law abiding and criminal (and previously involuntarily committed)
alike."



Again, you're arguing a solution to a problem that doesn't appear to exist. Is there any evidence at all that criminals are purchasing guns at gun shows?

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 03:57 PM (da5Wo)

196
I'm fine with background checks but would never concede the point. Why would I? Am I getting paid? No? Feck off, then.

Seriously, I'd trade that forrepeal of some of the stupider and more ineffective gun laws, like the ones dealing with appearance. But for nothing? Blow me.

Posted by: spongeworthy at January 07, 2013 03:57 PM (r5w1L)

197 "In a time of darkness in America..."

Raaaacist!

Posted by: Lizzy at January 07, 2013 03:57 PM (amaU1)

198 But, meh, it could just be the ramblings of a man
who has to sit in an office 1 floor above the school of public health.
(Well used to, I moved offices.)


Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 07, 2013 03:56 PM (Ssth1)

I'm thinking Naomi Wolf's girlie parts are a public health hazard. Can we get the state to impound them, so we don't have to hear about them again?

Posted by: tcn at January 07, 2013 03:57 PM (ZOUmX)

199 I thought this was a smart military blog!

Posted by: EC at January 07, 2013 03:57 PM (GQ8sn)

200

How would 'background checks' have prevented any of the mass shootings that have happened?

Ace? ....Anyone?

Posted by: wheatie at January 07, 2013 03:57 PM (dC04t)

201 Well, I would say NICS checks are unconstitutional.

Where does the Constitution allow for what people call today "reasonable" licensing requirements? Nowhere, it is resident in case law and so-called principles generally written by liberal courts.

We submit to it because of the initial innocuous nature and stated intent. But then it is distorted to gradually diminish and consume your rights.

Obsuscating foundational principles using the law to reduce your individual liberties is the sine qua non of liberals.

Posted by: marcus at January 07, 2013 03:57 PM (GGCsk)

202 Any step, I grant, is some step, small though it may be, in that direction, but I still don't fully understand the objection Cost. It just makes no sense to monitor transactions between private parties. Would this mean that if a relative dies and you inherit thier property you have to notify the government. The criminals and whack jobs still aren't going to comply. All is does is punish/inconvienence law-abiding citizens.

Posted by: Infidel at January 07, 2013 03:58 PM (O/fK8)

203 DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO HAVE A PERIOD!!!
---
Yes, but it is italics that I need.

Posted by: RioBravo at January 07, 2013 03:58 PM (eEfYn)

204 Why don't we have background checks for registering to vote? Convicted felons are not allowed to vote either.

Posted by: Vic at January 07, 2013 03:58 PM (53z96)

205 When you have the Big D by your name, you can "misspeak" all day long ..

Harry Reid: ‘I simply misspoke’ when I wrote off Katrinavictims

http://tinyurl.com/aoucm3e

Posted by: kbdabear at January 07, 2013 03:58 PM (wwsoB)

206
This post almost makes me sad that I never go to movies or buy them to watch at home.


Well, not really sad. I'm still happy to miss all movies.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 07, 2013 03:58 PM (1Y+hH)

207
remember Bernadette Peters' BEEHIVE hair-do in THE LONGEST YARD?

Posted by: soothsayerwing plover at January 07, 2013 03:58 PM (eHNxr)

208 192
The lefty bedwetting over this movie is the greatest promo ever. Can't wait to see it.




Yet, every time TFG bragged "Osama bin Laden is dead, and al Qaeda is on the run!" lefties squealed with glee.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at January 07, 2013 03:58 PM (UOM48)

209 I don't know what Obama has proposed (and I wouldn't support a "ban"). I'm asking what is the objection to having to, say, pay a licensed federal dealr to run a background check (say the mandated price for this is $40), then you pick up a print-out stating "no problems found" and so you complete the sale (and keep the printout for your records, should anyone want to hassle you). In principle, nothing. In practice, it's attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist. If this is in a reaction to Newtown, how would this in any way have solved any problem with respect to Newtown?

------

If I may disagree, in principle everything. But my objections would be the same objections to just about any government program. (1) The federal government does not have that power, and (2) I am not interested in spending any more federal dollars to do things that the states can do for themselves if they so choose.

But the public doesn't really care for those objections. Maybe our best objection is that because then you will create a black market with the resultant criminal activitiy associated with it worse the the problem you were trying to solve in the first place. I'm not too sure the public cares about that objection either.

Posted by: SH at January 07, 2013 03:58 PM (gmeXX)

210 Liberals be krazy!

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 07, 2013 03:58 PM (HDgX3)

211 109
The majority of private sales are person to person not gun shows. What type of system wouldn't place an undue burden on Bob in Boulder selling to .john in Longmont? Gun shows and private transactions need to be separated. Sellers at gun shows are considered private and don't require an FFL and thus don't require background checks. The simple gun show fix is to require sellers to maintain FFLs and put them into the retail system meaning background checks, sales tax, etc., Doing that though would remove the boogeyman and turn off that part of the anti-gun campaign fund spigot though so will never happen.

Posted by: Exasperated expat at January 07, 2013 03:59 PM (gkfSV)

212 200

How would 'background checks' have prevented any of the mass shootings that have happened?

Ace? ....Anyone?

***

time for some reality based push back on these gun grabbing efforts.

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 07, 2013 03:59 PM (QxSug)

213 FU pixy.

Posted by: Infidel at January 07, 2013 03:59 PM (O/fK8)

214 If these private sales have the potential to close down gun shows theonly thing gun shows would do is not allow the private sale of guns. This would eliminate about .1% of the transactions that go on at gun shows.

easy peezy


It also shuts down gun sales amongst friends, people at gun clubs, rifle ranges, two dads talking at their son's little league game, etc.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 07, 2013 03:59 PM (GFM2b)

215 Does this qualify as one of those Godwin-y things I used to hear about?

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 07, 2013 03:59 PM (1Y+hH)

216 Having to get a background check on private sells would be nothing but a pain in the ass for law abiding citizens.
Posted by: Adam at January 07, 2013 03:56 PM (/YJYi)


Sounds like infringement to me.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 03:59 PM (l86i3)

217 I'm thinking that the name of this type of check will be changed to
something that sounds a bit more forceful. Nothing will really change,
but it will sound like someone's doing something.


How about "Gun Registration And Buyers" database?



Posted by: EC at January 07, 2013 03:59 PM (GQ8sn)

218 How about having a background check on someone running for President?

Posted by: Roy at January 07, 2013 04:00 PM (VndSC)

219 >>>Is there any evidence at all that criminals are purchasing guns at gun shows?

no they're buying them off the internet, from newspapers, and from guys who have clean records but who are in fact buying lots of guns (legally) then selling them out of suitcases (also legally-- but why is that legal)?

The "gun show loophole" is largely a misnomer.

It's private sales by nonlicensed dealers which are generally permitted without a check.

So long as ONE person passes a check when he buys a gun, that gun is now "laundered" and can be sold to anyone.

I don't get this. When most of you bought your guns, you went through a check; why the squeamishness about making criminals pass a check?



Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 04:00 PM (LCRYB)

220 on #2, I think it's more interesting that people are grumbling that Guns may be a "public health" problem, and thus we need to get "doctors" involved (read: Public Health professionals really, doctors never do this stuff).

---------------------------------------------


Ocare. When it's in full implementation, every aspect of one's life is going to be associated with one's health. That's why this law is so insidious, not only economically, but socially.

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2013 04:00 PM (1hr+f)

221 It also shuts down gun sales amongst friends, people at gun clubs, rifle ranges, two dads talking at their son's little league game, etc.
Posted by: rickb223 at January 07, 2013 03:59 PM (GFM2b)

Sounds like more infringement.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:00 PM (l86i3)

222 Ace, you can get an FFL to do an NCIS check for you. My problem is that the private seller doesn't have to keep a bound book of all the BATFE form 4473s documenting firearm sales.

By law, there can be no database of 4473s, but law enforcement can always go to a small number of brick and mortar stores to examine bound books. That's not practical with a large, diffuse number of private sellers. Hence, the push for a database. After all, it's only *reasonable.*

What about inheriting weapons or transferring to our kids? We have to run NCIS checks on them?

And finally, how will this stop even one single crime? this sounds like more well-intentioned but foolish measures like "Gun Free Zones" that may actually make us less safe.



You fucking RINO.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 07, 2013 04:00 PM (ll6WS)

223 you can bet that any requirement or regulation will be onerous and impossible to fulfill.

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 07, 2013 04:00 PM (QxSug)

224 165
I suspect that Obama has no real designs on any form of gun control.
Sure, he'll say a few words, say we have to do something, even let a few
Senators bring some dumb bills to the floor. But all that cost nothing.
Those are side shows. Rally his base a little, get the other side all
worked up, knowing that nothing will be done in the end anyway, because
it is a political loser and doesn't do anything to cement his legacy.



What he really wants is to expand government by not cutting spending
and by immigration reform. So while the right gets worked up about
guns, he is pushing on these other fronts. The Manchins of the world can
show how they stood up to Obama to protect your guns, but meanwhile
voted with Obama to increase your taxes and increase spending. He can
trade gun control - a big cultural and political issue for many GOP reps
- for spending cuts, something that doesn't really move votes.



Let's not fall for these diversionary tactics. Keep our eyes on the prize.

Posted by: SH at January 07, 2013 03:53 PM (gmeXX)

_________________
It's not an either or proposition.
He will ban guns
AND

give amnesty
AND
increase taxes

AND
increase spending
AND
kill the energy sector

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 07, 2013 04:01 PM (HDgX3)

225 Ever wonder what happens when the FSA has to pay a bill.


It ain't pretty.

Language NSFW


http://tinyurl.com/bgf2j6e

Posted by: RWC at January 07, 2013 04:01 PM (fWAjv)

226 Those Blued Brothers!

Posted by: Henry Gibson, Illini Not See at January 07, 2013 04:01 PM (I88Jc)

227 Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:45 PM (LCRYB)

I'm not saying you're wrong, Ace (and I love this blog like a brother), but I agree with another comment above - why should we have to? We're law abiding people engaging in private trade of legal stuff. And there does seem to be something emotionally different about 2nd versus any other. It should be the least encumbered because it really does protect everyone in this country, including liberals, from tyrants. Regardless of what the leftists say, in the back of their mind, no doubt unconsciously, is the thought, "They probably won't, I'm sure they wouldn't....but they *could*" The threat of armed resistance is the ultimate threat, and you can only use it once. So no one wants to do it. But we (gun owners) all know that, if push comes to shove for real, we *can*. And so do they. So they chip, chip away.

Posted by: Pentangle at January 07, 2013 04:01 PM (u5q8R)

228 My vag is older than Naomi's or Leni's. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Anna Wintour at January 07, 2013 04:01 PM (Cm5S0)

229 >I would like rhetoric to match reality.
<

Where are all the criminal acts committed with guns purchased at guns shows?

What is the problem we are trying to solve?

You don't want reality to match rhetoric. You want a feel-good measure which seems logical and reasonable, but isn't.

The end result is to diminish our individual liberty. And if past is prologue it won't stop at gun shows.

Posted by: marcus at January 07, 2013 04:02 PM (GGCsk)

230 So my dad bought me a new .40 pistol for Christmas. I should have had to go through a background check before receiving it Christmas day?

Posted by: Adam at January 07, 2013 04:02 PM (/YJYi)

231 no they're buying them off the internet, from newspapers, and from guys
who have clean records but who are in fact buying lots of guns (legally)
then selling them out of suitcases (also legally-- but why is that
legal)?



The "gun show loophole" is largely a misnomer.




Then why were you using the example of having guys set up at gun shows to run checks?

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 04:02 PM (da5Wo)

232 How about "Gun Registration And Buyers" database?



Posted by: EC at January 07, 2013 03:59 PM (GQ8sn)

Nope, Not everyone has registered guns. If I want to buy a gun from a private owner thats between me and him.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:02 PM (l86i3)

233 >>>
How would 'background checks' have prevented any of the mass shootings that have happened?

Definitionally, how would you know about a mass shooting that didn't happen?

As it stands people can do one of two things: Go to a dealer or a reputable seller, and pass a gun check; or avoid that altogether and buy a gun from someone on the internet, or who they met on the street, or someone they meet in a hotel room.

Obviously, criminals will prefer the latter.

I don't see the problem in extending the law to them.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 04:02 PM (LCRYB)

234 I bought a handgun at a gun show in 2009 and they did a background check. This whole gun show loophole meme is just a talking point so the gun grabbers can have something to push for.

Also I recently sold a carbine to Cabela's (my Hi Point 4595, I miss her. Having sellers remorse I guess.) While I was waiting for the offer a guy offered to buy it from me but he looked sketchy, I think he was a cop. Anyway, I felt better knowing she was going to a good home and turned down the offer.

Posted by: CozMark at January 07, 2013 04:02 PM (WAHqd)

235 17 So does that make Obama Hitler? Because it sure as hell seems that it does.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 07, 2013 03:31 PM (VtjlW)


Umm, Alex? That would be a "consequence," and she's an Identity Leftist, so that means consequences only apply to the Dreaded Other.

Seriously, if she understood that ideas have consequences, she would have to give up a substantial number of her ideas, and That Just Wouldn't Do.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 07, 2013 04:02 PM (bxiXv)

236 Torture's handmaiden is reading the drivel she writes.

Posted by: Cheri at January 07, 2013 04:03 PM (G+Wff)

237 I don't get this. When most of you bought your
guns, you went through a check; why the squeamishness about making
criminals pass a check?



Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 04:00 PM (LCRYB)


Not true. Most of the last guns I bought were from private individuals. I have only bought one gun from a dealer in the past 30 years and that was only because it was as special order.

Posted by: Vic at January 07, 2013 04:03 PM (53z96)

238 Watched it off of a DVD screener over the weekend (Bittorrent FTW. Fuck You, Hollywood).

It's surprisingly good, and I was amazed at just how evenhanded it was. Exactly the kind of film us cons can watch without regret. In fact, the only JugEars-fellating that I noticed was when sleezeball Stannis Baratheon as sleezeball NSA Donilon said that TFG was a "thoughtful and analytical guy". The way it was presented, it seemed to me to be sarcasm on the part of the filmmakers.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at January 07, 2013 04:03 PM (TIIx5)

239 Not that I favor Obama's plan but, why would you want to buy a gun from just some dude at a gun show? Aren't you afraid it's either stolen or was used in a crime or something like that? Personally I'd never sell or buy a gun to another person for fear of the gun's history or what someone will do with the gun after they get it. I want it done through a gun dealer so there is a paper trail of the gun's history before and after me.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 07, 2013 04:03 PM (HDgX3)

240 Nope, Not everyone has registered guns. If I want to buy a gun from a private owner thats between me and him.

Look closer:

Gun
Registration
And
Buyers
database

G.R.A.B. database.

Get it?

Posted by: EC at January 07, 2013 04:03 PM (GQ8sn)

241 In other news, Hildebeast is back to work today.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at January 07, 2013 04:03 PM (UOM48)

242 For an interesting story on a real Hitler film, this month TCM is showing Hitler's Titanic, and boy is it a doozy.

That's the best Titanic movie EVAH. James Cameron cribbed a lot from it. You will laugh your ass off.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at January 07, 2013 04:03 PM (ZKzrr)

243 I don't get this. When most of you bought your
guns, you went through a check; why the squeamishness about making
criminals pass a check?









Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 04:00 PM (LCRYB)


We all also get an ass raping from the FedGov with each and every paycheck. Doesn't mean we like it, agree with it or want to expand it.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 04:03 PM (da5Wo)

244 I don't see how we talk about lawful guns in law-abiding citizens' hand being a good thing, and then, in the same breath, say that we refuse any sort of check about the lawfulness of a buyer. Like, our rhetoric is "Guns for law-abiding citizens" but our actual *policy* is "guns for the law abiding and criminal (and previously involuntarily committed) alike."
----------------

Because you are increasing the price of guns and pricing some law abiding citizens out of the gun market. I do not expect the criminals to follow the private sale prohibition.

But there is a larger point. We have won the gun battle. We won it pretty easily. We did not win it by making concessions. Why would we fight this war using the same tactics as the tax/spending fight where we make concessions that get us nowhere. Why wouldn't we fight it using the same tactics that we won with 20 years ago. This is one of those few cultularal issues that the public and conservatives seem to be on the same side together. Sure things could change, but there is no indiciation to think it has in this regard.

Posted by: SH at January 07, 2013 04:04 PM (gmeXX)

245
As it stands people can do one of two things: Go to a dealer or a reputable seller, and pass a gun check

I'm sure the Bloods and the Crips scrupulously follow the law.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 07, 2013 04:04 PM (DXlwL)

246 Shut up, you irrelevant, unhappy, pinch-faced, misandristic twat. I'm
even less interested in your "thoughts" on torture than I am hearing a
monologue about your leathery piss-flaps.


LPF

Huzzah!

Posted by: eleven at January 07, 2013 04:04 PM (KXm42)

247 say, wasn't hitler a gun grabber? Are conservatives allowed to play that game?

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 07, 2013 04:04 PM (QxSug)

248 Gun shows and private transactions need to be
separated. Sellers at gun shows are considered private and don't require
an FFL and thus don't require background checks.


False. Go to one sometime.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2013 04:05 PM (SY2Kh)

249 Get it?
Posted by: EC at January 07, 2013 04:03 PM (GQ8sn)


I'm slow today.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:05 PM (l86i3)

250 in Texas there are laws already on the books outlawing the private transfer of guns to individuals who couldn't buy the guns themselves. The sentence is 10 years. I am sure other states have similar provisions

Posted by: thunderb at January 07, 2013 04:05 PM (Dnbau)

251

I inherited all my guns, including one often called an assault weapon.


Gracious, what am Ito do?

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 07, 2013 04:05 PM (1Y+hH)

252 It also shuts down gun sales amongst friends, people at gun clubs, rifle ranges, two dads talking at their son's little league game, etc.
Posted by: rickb223 at January 07, 2013 03:59 PM (GFM2b)

I'm only referring to what the evil gun shows would do in response to any proposal that would effect them. Of course any change in the private commerce law would again only effect law abiding citizens. Criminals or crazies seek out strawman buyers or other criminal sellers ofweapons.

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2013 04:05 PM (m2CN7)

253 oh, and what's the disqual for having a gun, then? You can be the bar will be low?

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 07, 2013 04:06 PM (QxSug)

254
I thought Zero Dark Thirty was the PR film for Obama praising him for nailing Ben Laden????
<spits coffee out in shock>

Posted by: Kal Penn at January 07, 2013 04:06 PM (5iuEW)

255 No interest in it before; no interest in it now.

In other news, Noted Liberal Projects Projectingly

Posted by: Truman North at January 07, 2013 04:06 PM (I2LwF)

256 I'm slow today.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:05 PM (l86i3)


And you're an author, a person who wrote a book and is supposed to be good at words and stuff!!!

Posted by: EC at January 07, 2013 04:06 PM (GQ8sn)

257
I don't get this. When most of you bought your guns, you went through a check; why the squeamishness about making criminals pass a check?

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 04:00 PM (LCRYB)

------------

Because it ignores the absurdity of it, Ace.

We have thousands of miles of porous borders.
We cannot keep illegal immigrants and drugs from coming into the country.

So you think that bringing guns into the country would be a hard thing?
No.
It's happening already.
I don't know the numbers on it...but I've heard of clandestine, parking-lot sales going on, for decades.

This new push for 'background checks' is just a backdoor way of establishing a National Registry.
Which is what the liberals have wanted to do for years.

Posted by: wheatie at January 07, 2013 04:06 PM (dC04t)

258 I always feel like, "give them 30-round clips and they'll take the pump shotguns".

Posted by: USS Diversity at January 07, 2013 04:06 PM (MPjT8)

259 >>>Then why were you using the example of having guys set up at gun shows to run checks?

I don't think you understand the issue or what gun shows are. i don't really feel like explaining it all, but it is PRIVATE sales, not by federally licensed dealers, which are exempt. MANY people at gun shows are in fact federally licensed dealers and do run checks. But some are private dealers, and do not.

The question is, assuming the process is easy and fast, we shouldn't extend the minor hassle to private sellers? Like if you're selling your shotgun in a yard sale, and it costs, say, $40 or up to $10% of the price of the weapon (whichever is lower) to get an instant check, why wouldn't you want to run the check?

Let's posit that you are an ethical person. You're selling a shotgun. It's old but functional. A dude wants to buy it who gives you a clearly "criminal" vibe. Like 7-Elevens are in season.

Do you sell it to him? Why not?

And if you wouldn't, wouldn't it be a generally sound notion that guns shouldn't be purchased from any vendor except those who can prove they can pass a background check?

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 04:06 PM (LCRYB)

260 Obviously, criminals will prefer the latter.



I don't see the problem in extending the law to them.





Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 04:02 PM (LCRYB)



How in the world would it extend the law to them? They're criminals. They break the law. It's, quite literally, what they do. They will continue to break the law, including this proposed one.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 04:06 PM (da5Wo)

261 I can't see why this particular cost would be dealbreaking.
Posted by: ace


I think we've been lulled into a rather crappy posture regarding the Federal Government and their police powers.

If the Federal government cannot demonstrate a strong and clear need through hard data, they should not be granted any further powers.

Even prior to the background check system, was there a clear danger from private transactions? Is there a rash of crime now that is the results of private transactions?

Neither of those has been demonstrated. Our default position must be that of restricting the Feds, not asking the people 'why not?'

Insert stuff Jefferson said here.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at January 07, 2013 04:06 PM (KDq5l)

262 I've never even called you a communist one time you WINO

Posted by: ontherocks at January 07, 2013 04:07 PM (aZ6ew)

263 So you think that bringing guns into the country would be a hard thing?
No.
It's happening already.
I don't know the numbers on it...but I've heard of clandestine, parking-lot sales going on, for decades.

And that's just when the ATF does it!

Posted by: rickb223 at January 07, 2013 04:07 PM (GFM2b)

264 The infringement is not in the background check but in the handling and usage or potential handling and MISUSE if the data gleaned from the check and the circumstances surrounding it. It's one thing to exclude those marginal gun customers such as felons, DV perps but quite another to use that information as a means to alter the actual margin.

Posted by: Exasperated expat at January 07, 2013 04:07 PM (gkfSV)

265 I am sure someone else has stated this, but I really, honestly do not see a lot of private sales at gun shows. Even now with the craziness and terror purchases. I went to two shows in the last 5 weeks, looking for something specific, I noticed maybe 5 "trunk transactions". Out of the literally thousands of people there, this has to be a pretty small number of people. If enacted it will force you to sell, buy trade through a dealer. Personally I would have little problem with the background checks, if those records were purged on a regular basis. I do not mind the concept of denying guns to felons, but I really do not like the government keeping records that I requested a background check to purchase a gun.

Posted by: gigg423 at January 07, 2013 04:07 PM (41VCE)

266 How would 'background checks' have prevented any of the mass shootings that have happened?

In the most recent case, no. But my proposal, to make the owners of guns responsible financially wouldn't have helped either. Because she's dead in the early moments. The 'mom' most likely knew her son wasn't firing on all eight cylinders but still chose to make the guns available to him. If she had survived (under my proposal) she would have been exposed to about a 50 million dollar lawsuit which would have stripped her of her home, her savings, her yearly divorce settlement for making such a stupid decision to not lock her guns away securely. Maybe it would have made a difference, maybe not.

I support the rights of people to have guns and make intelligent decisions, but when they stray from that area, I say 'let the lawyers at 'em'. I don't lend my car keys, or make my car available to people I don't trust.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at January 07, 2013 04:07 PM (feFL6)

267 re: "I still don't fully understand the objection"

I don't understand the proposal. Is there a crime wave being perpetrated by ex-cons and crazy dudes with their own now-lawfully purchased guns? You'd think it would make the news, if so.

So what the hell's the point? Just to Send A Message to people who oppose "sensible" gun laws that they don't ever get to win, no matter what? That anytime people getting shot becomes a big thing on TV, Something (no matter how irrelevant) will be Done (to them)?

That's going to annoy them, yes.

Posted by: oblig. at January 07, 2013 04:08 PM (cePv8)

268 I don't get this. When most of you bought your guns, you went through a check; why the squeamishness about making criminals pass a check? ----------------
If most people did this, why do we need another law?

___________

The question is, assuming the process is easy and fast, we shouldn't extend the minor hassle to private sellers? Like if you're selling your shotgun in a yard sale, and it costs, say, $40 or up to $10% of the price of the weapon (whichever is lower) to get an instant check, why wouldn't you want to run the check?

---------------

Why should I accept your assumption? And if I did, what would be a resasonable price and what would be instant?

Posted by: SH at January 07, 2013 04:08 PM (gmeXX)

269 Let's have federally mandated waiting periods as well. Connecticut's worked so well.

Posted by: Adam at January 07, 2013 04:08 PM (/YJYi)

270 I had a debate with a libtard on another forum. Went something like this:

Lib: We must ban large capacity magaiznes
Me: What's your definition of large
Lib: I don't know but there's no need for you to own one
Me: OK fine, so what's the number 5, 10, 20?
Lib: Doesn't matter what the number is, we need common sense gun control
Me: So you want to ban something you can't define?
Lib: I'm done talking to gun nuts

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 07, 2013 04:08 PM (HDgX3)

271 Well Bowden, is the last to admit, that folks who were waterboarded, or otherwise subjected to 'Extensive Interrogation' gave up the name Al Kuwaiti, the courier who would lead us to Bin Laden. Jose Rodriguez, who ran the program, says the procedures were not nearly as violent as depicted in the film, on the composite figure Ammar, who is a combination of Zubeydah and Al Quahtani, the 20th hijacker,

Posted by: chip dillard at January 07, 2013 04:09 PM (Jsiw/)

272 Texas already prohibits the private transfer of guns to individuals who could not get them on their own. The person making the illegal transfer can serve 10 year in jail. I am sure that is true in other states as well. If there are laws on the books, why is more action needed?

Posted by: thunderb at January 07, 2013 04:09 PM (Dnbau)

273 I cannot remember where I read this, but Kerry
can't make decisions either. A former staff
member wrote it, he was offered a few of them
To be promoted & months went by without
a decision by Kerry.
The entire administration sucks and I hope
That they do something so screwed up
We can impeach TFG!

They are all incompetent & hate our country.

Posted by: CarolT at January 07, 2013 04:09 PM (bZKG0)

274
"I don't see the problem in extending the law to them."

I do, as it's the same old story of impinging the freedom of law-abiding people in order to ineffectively attempt to stop a criminal from committing a crime witha gun.But that's just me.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 07, 2013 04:09 PM (1Y+hH)

275 I don't speak Vaginese. Maybe this is a cry for help from an old scrunt who just realized the Left are fascists.

Yeah, like I'd inform the .gov that I sold an unknown, to them, weapon to a bud. Sure, you can trust me.

It's like when I joined the Navy. On the weed question I said, "I should say no to that, right?"
The recruiter replied, "I there a record of you smoking weed?" I said, "No." and he replied, "Do you want there to be one?" *raised eyebrow*

Posted by: Invictus at January 07, 2013 04:09 PM (OQpzc)

276 Ace, no need to thank me for turning this post into a fun gun-control post.

Posted by: SH at January 07, 2013 04:10 PM (gmeXX)

277 Torture's Handmaiden would be a good name for a Black Sabbath song.

Or a lesbian goth band.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at January 07, 2013 04:10 PM (3x3F6)

278 Regardless of what the leftists say, in the back of their mind, no doubt unconsciously, is the thought, "They probably won't, I'm sure they wouldn't....but they *could*"

They are not afraid of us, otherwise they wouldn't give us the tools to control them.

Do they even think for a moment that the religious zealots they fear so much would gain sufficient power? Not at all, since they provide a nice mechanism by which, say, anal sex can be banned because of its negative effects on health.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2013 04:10 PM (T0NGe)

279 Naomi comes from the Postmodern school of Yale-trained English lit majors. She's not a shameless self-promoter; she's an agent provocateur.

Posted by: Cricket at January 07, 2013 04:10 PM (DrC22)

280 I see now that the election is over Bigelow and her work are no longer required. Fire away.

Posted by: Decaf at January 07, 2013 04:10 PM (TJQ3a)

281 Obviously, criminals will prefer the latter.



I don't see the problem in extending the law to them.





Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 04:02 PM (LCRYB)

It's somewhat an unenforcable law though ace. I'm not opposed to it per se, it sounds like a good idea on its face, but it won't stop people intent on breaking the law.Is the ATF going to look at craigslist all day and call each seller trying to set up a fake sale?

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 07, 2013 04:10 PM (Ssth1)

282 Criminals historically haven't complied with background checks.

I think that it's a matter of pride with them.

Posted by: ontherocks at January 07, 2013 04:10 PM (aZ6ew)

283 I support the rights of people to have guns and make intelligent decisions, but when they stray from that area, I say 'let the lawyers at 'em'. I don't lend my car keys, or make my car available to people I don't trust.
Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at January 07, 2013 04:07 PM (feFL6)


So if someone stole your car and hits a few kids your taking the punishment, right?

Posted by: RWC at January 07, 2013 04:10 PM (fWAjv)

284 But there is a larger point. We have won the gun battle.


On what planets was this? We still have a shit ton of illegal gun laws. We still have the ATF classifying some shotguns as weapons of mass destruction because they judge them to not have a "sporting purpose".


I can't order an M-1 Garrand from Sears like I used to in the early 60s. (for $79).

Posted by: Vic at January 07, 2013 04:11 PM (53z96)

285 >>>
How in the world would it extend the law to them? They're criminals. They break the law. It's, quite literally, what they do. They will continue to break the law, including this proposed one.

as it stands they can go to a private owner and buy a gun with no check, and neither party is breaking the law, even though a criminal is buying a gun to commit a crime.

At the moment criminals don't even have to break the law, at least not when purchasing the gun.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 04:11 PM (LCRYB)

286
ACE....

This is all machination.

Bottom line is there are lots of Di-Fi's running around the Fed that would start confiscation yesterday if they could.

but... they dont know where the guns are to a large extent.

Registration and "papers" for private sales starts the tracking. (You saw the article where the paper published the names of pemit holders right??.... feel "secure in your papers and possessions"????)

I AM NOT OKAY WITH ANYTHING THAT GIVES THE FED THE TOOLS TO START THE DISARMING OF THE CITIZENRY.

Honest enuff??

Posted by: fixerupper at January 07, 2013 04:11 PM (nELVU)

287 The problem is not necessarily the NICS check. It is what the government does with that data.

You want to make certain a person is not a felon or mental case? OK that seems reasonable.

But why do they have to save and accumulate that data replete with all the information? What purpose does that serve?

Notice they want NICS checks with no restrictions on the data or use. Maybe next, someone files a FOIA request and makes a map of everyone purchasing a gun?

No thanks.

It's always one way. They attempt the "appeal to reason" line of argumentation;

Oh this makes so much sense, etc., but won't allow additional measures to ensure the safety or misuse of that information.

Posted by: marcus at January 07, 2013 04:12 PM (GGCsk)

288 I don't think you understand the issue or what gun shows are.


Hey, know you said you didn't like being insulted for your viewpoint? Neither do I.


But anyway, I don't think you understand where any of us are coming from. And you don't care to. So I'm done.


I enjoy your site Ace, I really do. I admit, I'm a fan of yours. I'm sure you take shit all the damn time from tons of people and that has to get really old. But just because someone chooses to disagree with you, that doesn't mean they're a fucking idiot deserving of scorn. Which seems to be a go to.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 04:12 PM (da5Wo)

289 Well, the alleged purpose of the background check is to prevent guns from being sold to felons or to individuals whose mental illness is severe enough to have brought them to the attention of the courts, right?

Why not simply require that persons who go onto the list of those prohibited from owning firearms submit all their government-issued I.D. to be indelibly stamped with a big "No Guns" marker? Social Security card, military I.D., driver's license, etc. Mark bank cards and credit cards, too, for that matter. Then all a prospective private seller has to do is say, "show me your I.D., so I can see that it's clear of any gun prohibition marks."

Sure, it would be possible for a dedicated criminal to game the system, but they could game practically any system.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at January 07, 2013 04:12 PM (29+x5)

290 Wasn't here a post here about tens of thousands of felons violating the law by applying for a background check, and only like a thousand investigations?

Posted by: gigg423 at January 07, 2013 04:12 PM (41VCE)

291 10 year in jail. I am sure that is true in other states as well. If there are laws on the books, why is more action needed?
Posted by: thunderb at January 07, 2013 04:09 PM (Dnbau)

Did you ever get the feeling The Law is more about creating felons than it is about making anything safer, or better?

Posted by: Invictus at January 07, 2013 04:12 PM (OQpzc)

292 The "gunshow loophole" isn't a loophole and has nothing to do with gun shows.

So, pretty much par for the course.

Pretty much three arguments against the NICS-for-private-sales thing. Well, 3+.

1. The Libertarian it's freaking "shall not be infringed," we're citizens not serfs, we can trade among ourselves, it's none of their business thing.

2. The "don't give an inch they always take a yard" thing, opposing on principle (and because of long experience).

3. The "what problem are you trying to solve" thing, because, basically, it's not like they prosecute more than a couple percent of people who break this law, and no one selling FandF guns out of trunk is doing NICS checks anyway.

Pretty much all three of these arguments include the "registration leads to confiscation" thing, which is what I call a "contentious truism," basically it's useless except as a precursor to further infringement, and the antis are *itching* for more of it.

*If* people trusted their government (i.e. it didn't lie about keeping records and it didn't give weapons to narco-terrorists and it actually prosecuted criminals instead of the law-abiding), NICS might be a useful tool. It's kind of a bastard registration boondoggle.

BUT to people for whom consequences are a mysterious, distant, foggy image (no insult meant, people can't be expected to know everything or predict the future), it seems like a Gosh Darn Good Idea.

Some people are just gonna say no:

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 07, 2013 04:13 PM (bxiXv)

293 I don't get this. When most of you bought your guns, you went through a check; why the squeamishness about making criminals pass a check?
Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 04:00 PM (LCRYB)


First off because they're criminals. If they have to go through a background check to buy a gun legally, they'll just obtain a gun illegally. It doesn't solve that problem at all, and just makes criminals of otherwise law abiding citizens. You bought your friend's hunting rifle after he got himself a new one? But he didn't get a background check on you? Well then, you're a criminal and so is he.

Secondly, I'm against anything that gives the government any more say in private commerce. They've already got their noses in everything, Obamacare being the most recent. Just as my private discussions with my doctor shouldn't have jackshit to do with the government, neither should my private transactions when it comes to anything I choose to purchase. We've already got this bullshit when it comes to trying to purchase Sudafed at the pharmacy, and that's controlled at a STATE level. You think the federal government overseeing private gun sales is going to function any better?

And third, I'd have a little more trust in the government if someone would come out and tell us just what the hell Fast Furious was supposed to accomplish, who thought it up, and who's head deserves to be on the chopping block for the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans and several Americans. When the gubmint feels it's okay to sell guns to Mexican drug cartels with no kind of trackingor interdiction mechanism in place, but then feels the need to start regulating a very small section of the gun sales market that has previously been unmolested, I get suspicious. And you can call me a conspiracy nut if you want, but I don't think anything we suspect this idiot Preezy and his corrupt government of doing is even close to some of the real shit they do every single day.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at January 07, 2013 04:13 PM (4df7R)

294 Texas already prohibits the private transfer of guns to individuals who
could not get them on their own. The person making the illegal transfer
can serve 10 year in jail. I am sure that is true in other states as
well.


It's against the law to knowingly sell to a prohibited person, but a private seller typically doesn't have any way of knowing if a buyer is a felon or otherwise prohibited.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2013 04:13 PM (SY2Kh)

295 This is all machination.

Bottom line is there are lots of Di-Fi's running around the Fed that would start confiscation yesterday if they could.

but... they dont know where the guns are to a large extent.

Registration and "papers" for private sales starts the tracking. (You saw the article where the paper published the names of pemit holders right??.... feel "secure in your papers and possessions"????)

I AM NOT OKAY WITH ANYTHING THAT GIVES THE FED THE TOOLS TO START THE DISARMING OF THE CITIZENRY.

Honest enuff??
Posted by: fixerupper at January 07, 2013 04:11 PM (nELVU)


^^^^^^^^^^^^^

THIS X 1000

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:13 PM (l86i3)

296 Just realized I can say "ace of spades HQ" to my tablet and it connects to the site. Mind blown.

Posted by: lincolntf at January 07, 2013 04:13 PM (ZshNr)

297 >>>Criminals historically haven't complied with background checks.

again they don't even have to break the law to get a gun. Only a few states require background checks for private sales; the great majority do not.

It's one thing to say "criminals will break the law anyway." It's another thing to say "law abiding citizens ALSO won't obey the law." If there needs to be a background check, then a law-abiding private seller won't end up selling a gun unwittingly to a criminal (and won't wittingly do so -sometimes people will sell a gun to someone who seems sketchy).

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 04:13 PM (LCRYB)

298 Some yummy schadenfreude for the day;

Layoffs Rock Left-Wing Politico

http://tinyurl.com/bbl8euk

Posted by: kbdabear at January 07, 2013 04:14 PM (wwsoB)

299 I don't get this. When most of you bought your
guns, you went through a check; why the squeamishness about making
criminals pass a check?

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 04:00 PM (LCRYB)



I don't think the squeamishness is about making criminals pass a check, it's about private citizens being compelled to act as a government functionary for such sales. It's like pointing out to the etsy sellers that they really should have a business license for whatever county/state they are in and that they should be collecting sales tax. It's one thing if that is your business. It's another thing if you are just selling crafts on the side. Same thing for guns. If I'm not running a gun shop, why should I have to put up with the exact same type of administrative overhead? Why do I have to worry about complying with HIPAA and ATF regs and all kinds of stuff I don't even know about?

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 07, 2013 04:14 PM (VtjlW)

300 Also I recently sold a carbine to Cabela's (my Hi Point 4595, I miss her. Having sellers remorse I guess.) While I was waiting for the offer a guy offered to buy it from me but he looked sketchy, I think he was a cop. Anyway, I felt better knowing she was going to a good home and turned down the offer.
Posted by: CozMark at January 07, 2013 04:02 PM (WAHqd)


-----------------------------------------


It's how I bought my 870. Was talking with a Tulsa cop at an OKC gun show and told him that I was looking for the perfect home-defence weapon. He told me to follow him to his car and he pulled the 870 out of the trunk and sold it to me on the spot. And, yes, he was a cop. He had his newly dry-cleaned Tulsa police uniforms hanging in the back and a badge on his belt.

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2013 04:14 PM (1hr+f)

301 At the moment criminals don't even have to break the law, at least not when purchasing the gun.
Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 04:11 PM (LCRYB)

If he is a felon he certainly is breaking the law.

Posted by: RWC at January 07, 2013 04:14 PM (fWAjv)

302 Should I know who Naomi Wolf is and what is so friggin great about her vadge??

Posted by: dananjcon at January 07, 2013 04:14 PM (jvd3N)

303 It's somewhat an unenforcable law though ace. I'm not opposed to it per se, it sounds like a good idea on its face, but it won't stop people intent on breaking the law

-----

I'm basically oppossed to most laws per se (almost all federal laws). This is just part of growing up and realizing that every bad law seemed like a good idea, and was often from good intentions. But it has led to a bloated executive, innocent citizens being found guildty from some technical violation, and other all around shittiness.

I'd rather simply live with good old fashion common law. Sure it left some holes, but it was basically built on solid morality of right v. wrong.

Posted by: SH at January 07, 2013 04:15 PM (gmeXX)

304 Did anyone read the column by Fred Barnes
over the weekend on how he has never seen
The MSM cover a president like they have
TFG?
It is more than the usual R vs D coverage,
They have to be tired of him.

Posted by: CarolT at January 07, 2013 04:15 PM (g2ldK)

305 I don't really understand the objection to this, apart from the usual "this is the first step towards confiscation."


I'll help you out ace.

Question 1.
Is their an overriding reason why an action has to be done at the FEDERAL level and not the STATE level?

Arguably no. States have had a multitude of background check and registration rules for a while depending on the demographics and political makeup of the different states with different rules. Making a single rule amounts to another one size fits all approach for no good reason other than to federalize yet another state function and impose the will of some states on others.

You don't see the Feds telling California that they can't ban ARs or .50 cal BMG rifles, or that the process of issuing concealed carry permits is too cumbersome, so why should I accept the feds imposing on Texas rules that the people of Texas don't want? Say NO to the federal ratchet.



Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at January 07, 2013 04:15 PM (0q2P7)

306 If he is a felon he certainly is breaking the law.

Posted by: RWC at January 07, 2013 04:14 PM (fWAjv)


That's the old law, the new one will fix shit. Promise.

Posted by: Adam at January 07, 2013 04:16 PM (/YJYi)

307 Private citizens won't comply either.

Why send $40 to the feds when you can just exchange cash with your buddy?

How the hell will this be prosecuted?

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 07, 2013 04:16 PM (xAtAj)

308 294 -

In my state you will be criminally liable if you sell to someone who is not able to obtain a gun (felons, mentally handicapped, etc).

In other words, if you don't know, don't sell it. Use a broker.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 07, 2013 04:17 PM (BeSEI)

309 I don't know the laws in all the states but in Minnesota this "loophole" does not exist for Handguns and "military style weapons".

http://tinyurl.com/al4s3hx

So changing federal law doesn't make any sense if state are already taking care of it. Think a states gun laws are to lax don't move there. It's a solution in search of a problem.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at January 07, 2013 04:17 PM (81UWZ)

310




Can I just shoot a bullet into the ground and dedicate it toslicing off Naomi Wolf's right nipple?

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 07, 2013 04:17 PM (1Y+hH)

311 Ace,

I think you'd get a lot more traction by suggesting that the background check would be an optional "best practice" though.
I suspect, many law abiding citizens might just be willing to do it if it wasn't forced on them.
Give them the option (without the mandate) and see what happens. (At the very least, I might do it just because if the gun I sold were later used in a crime, even by someone X-steps removed from my buyer, at least it'd produce a paper trail showing it was no longer my weapon.)

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 07, 2013 04:17 PM (Ssth1)

312 >again they don't even have to break the law to get a gun. Only a few
states require background checks for private sales; the great majority
do not.
<

Where is all the crime that resulted from criminals purchasing guns in a private sale?

Again is there a problem? What's the goal here? What will you be preventing with a NICS check on private sales?

Most of the guns used in crimes are stolen. The criminal idea is to have an untraceable weapon.

Posted by: marcus at January 07, 2013 04:17 PM (GGCsk)

313 Hard to believe that this stupid whore is who Al Gore hired to make him less of a beta male in 2000.

Posted by: Zippity Doo Dah at January 07, 2013 04:18 PM (E55AK)

314
If someone had told me a thread was about to be posted that cried for pussy jokes, I wouldn't have went to the bank.

It's too late now, so don't even ask.

Posted by: jwest at January 07, 2013 04:18 PM (ZDsRL)

315 Am I dreaming? This reads like a movie review of Ilsa: She-Wolf of the SS.
Seems as if her vagina is into Nazi fetish porn.

Posted by: Fritz at January 07, 2013 04:18 PM (/ZZCn)

316 To the data miners I may or may not have purchased multiple gun show firearms and I may or may not have only needed to hand over cash. Now that may change in other jurisdictions of that I have no knowledge. The sad part is any law abiding person really has no aversion to the check but they would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stem the flow of arms to those wishing to use them for illegal aims. It only serves as a means to restrict those on the right side of the law. Using bit coin you can buy Russian ppks and have them shipped in pieces anywhere in the world. Checks and restrictions only serve to restrict the self reliant culture surrounding firearms. If your unstable or criminal you will find what you need. It would take an hour to go down all the ways junkies adapted household chemicals to get their high.

Posted by: Exasperated expat at January 07, 2013 04:18 PM (gkfSV)

317 So if someone stole your car and hits a few kids you're taking the punishment, right?

The terms of my insurance are very clear, the people I choose to make my automobile available to are covered -- and by default my responsibility if my insurance is deficient, those who would steal my car without my permission are obviously on their own.

I'm talking about people who should know better then make guns available to people who are a threat to themselves and society. It's not rocket science to know who they are. Common sense.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at January 07, 2013 04:18 PM (feFL6)

318 How the hell will this be prosecuted?
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 07, 2013 04:16 PM (xAtAj)

It won't be. More Lawyers writing more laws for other lawyers to fuck with citizens that have to hire lawyers to protect them from the other lawyers that try to enforce a law.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:18 PM (l86i3)

319 bc,

well you called it the "Gun show loophole" and suggested it had to do with gun shows when it really doesn't. "Gun show loophole" is a branding effort by the left.

It's the general rule covering all private sales, whether at a gun is at a gun show or bought in a yard sale or out of someone's suitcase at a hotel.

"Gun show loophole" is a fiction created by the left for their own purposes, which you seemed to buy into thinking I was talking about gun shows. I'm actually not, because most people selling at gun shows are actually Federal dealers themselves, who are just going to the gun show because it's a venue that attracts people and results in impulse sales.

So yes, I didn't think you understood. This isn't about gun shows or "loopholes." It's about private sales, which make up 40% or so of all sales, and at that level it's not a loophole, it's too big for a "loophole."



Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 04:18 PM (LCRYB)

320 Posted by: BurtTC at January 07, 2013 04:17 PM (BeSEI)


Personally, I wouldn't sell to someone I didn't know.

Posted by: RWC at January 07, 2013 04:19 PM (fWAjv)

321 THIS IS ABOUT THE EMOTIONS THAT I HAVE BEEN STORING IN MY VA-JAY-JAY SINCE I WAS BORN! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ME!

Posted by: Naomi Wolf at January 07, 2013 04:19 PM (Jls4P)

322 Personally, I wouldn't sell to someone I didn't know.
Posted by: RWC at January 07, 2013 04:19 PM (fWAjv)


I have, in the middle of the day in a public place. Then we had lunch, shot the shit and was on our way.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:20 PM (l86i3)

323 It won't be. More Lawyers writing more laws for other lawyers to fuck with citizens that have to hire lawyers to protect them from the other lawyers that try to enforce a law.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 07, 2013 04:20 PM (T0NGe)

324 Where is our dedicated Tenther in all of this?

He'd probably have... written about it... somewhere?

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 07, 2013 04:20 PM (xAtAj)

325 But there is a larger point. We have won the gun battle.On what planets was this? We still have a shit ton of illegal gun laws. We still have the ATF classifying some shotguns as weapons of mass destruction because they judge them to not have a "sporting purpose". I can't order an M-1 Garrand from Sears like I used to in the early 60s. (for $79).
------------

Vic, on the larger point we won the gun battle. Just like we basically won the tax battle. That doesn't mean that taxes aren't still too high, just that most Americans accept the premise of low taxes. Frankly, these are two easy battles to win really. What we have lost is the spending battle. We have lost the regulation battle. Part of the reason we have lost the regulation battle is because we have ceded some ground first. My point was that, we should cede no ground on guns with the hopes that that will stop the enemy. We should work toward getting other non-sensical gun laws overturned. We have won the larger point of whether Americans should be able to own guns in this country. The country said yes. Now let's go on the offensive.

Posted by: SH at January 07, 2013 04:20 PM (gmeXX)

326 It's somewhat an unenforcable law though ace. I'm not opposed to it per se, it sounds like a good idea on its face, but it won't stop people intent on breaking the law.


What we need are background checks on the sales of is private vehicles. There is NO constitutional right to own a car. THAT's how drunk drivers get around the breathalyzer ignition switch! Any old drunk can just walk up to anyone, flop out the cash, no checks involved, then drive avay in a 3,000 lb missle.
We need a federal instant background check on unlicensed car sellers!
Sounds silly. Doesn't it?
Replace car with whatever weapon you want. Hammers. Knives. Baseball bats.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 07, 2013 04:20 PM (GFM2b)

327 I appreciate Ace's tenacity on the issue (i.e., actually reading comments and writing thoughtful replies) but what's the point?

Gun control laws hurt people, cities with strict laws have higher crime rates.

The big picture seems to be that:

1. gun controls don't work
2. they wouldn't stop the bad acts we've seen in the past
3. there's barely enough political will to do anything the donks want to do as they exploit the latest crisis in this crisis based presidency (i.e., the House should kill any GC bill).

so, why argue over Obama's proposal?

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at January 07, 2013 04:20 PM (QxSug)

328
"Personally, I wouldn't sell to someone I didn't know."
Posted by: RWC at January 07, 2013 04:19 PM (fWAjv) Unless they had cash... and an honest face.

Posted by: jwest at January 07, 2013 04:21 PM (ZDsRL)

329 If there needs to be a background check, then a law-abiding private
seller won't end up selling a gun unwittingly to a criminal (and won't
wittingly do so -sometimes people will sell a gun to someone who seems
sketchy).


Oh. So you want to register private gun sales with the federal government to protect decent sellers from accidentally selling to a criminal?

"Oh. I guess I can't sell this to you."
"Thats OK, Pops." *knocks him on the head and takes off with the piece*

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at January 07, 2013 04:21 PM (ZKzrr)

330 again they don't even have to break the law to get a gun.

They're breaking the law if they're criminally or mentally barred from possessing a gun but go ahead and buy one anyway. Which means that those individuals who would choose to purchase a gun this way to get out of a background check would go steal one, or buy one from a gangbanger in the slums, if they were prevented from getting one otherwise. It's a self-defeating, unnecessary roadblock for law-abiding citizens.
This so-called fix solves absolutely nothing.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit at January 07, 2013 04:21 PM (4df7R)

331 Replace car with whatever weapon you want. Hammers. Knives. Baseball bats.

---

Given the thread about the intruder shot five times by a mother, how about crowbars?

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at January 07, 2013 04:22 PM (e0xKF)

332 Does Wolf know that the US has only waterboarded three people while Obama has assasinated 100s, including an American citizen, his son, as well as bystanders (maybe not innocent, but not the target, either)?
Does Wolf know that Obama still uses rendition?
Does Wolf know that Gitmo is still open?
It's amazing she can get so riled by a movie when there's still a lot of real stuff a Lefty could get outraged over, huh?

Posted by: Lizzy at January 07, 2013 04:22 PM (amaU1)

333 I have, in the middle of the day in a public place. Then we had lunch, shot the shit and was on our way.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:20 PM (l86i3)


But I'm also not pressing for a law forbidding you to do so :-)

Just a personal preference.

Posted by: RWC at January 07, 2013 04:22 PM (fWAjv)

334 Private citizens won't comply either.

Why send $40 to the feds when you can just exchange cash with your buddy?

How the hell will this be prosecuted?


They want to permanently maintain record of all gun sales. If your buddy got caught committing a crime with a gun you sold him, they'd go after you for selling without a background check.

Again- right now, the feds are forbidden from keeping record of NICS transactions beyond a short period of time. The Dems want to keep those records permanently.

Registration- de facto or otherwise- is a line in the sand for 2nd Amendment supporters. The only way the current NICS checks passed (with NRA support) is the provision banning them from keeping gun sale records.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 07, 2013 04:22 PM (SY2Kh)

335 Relax, BCochran1981.

He snaps off on me or otherwise insults my intelligence/integrity a least twice a year.

But on the other hand, I've rarely been bored here. Sometimes he has this urge to take on all comers and see how many arguments he can parry simultaneously, if not deftly.

Fuckin lawyers, what're ya gonna do?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 07, 2013 04:22 PM (ll6WS)

336 I gotta agree on the piece of shit propaganda work ZDT. Osama was dead for nearly a decade.

Is the claim he rose like Jesus to lead a Jihad?

Can Zombies do that?

I imagine some idiot will view this film not as fiction but some form of reality.

Most likely after the meds kick in.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/11/26/the-osama-bin-laden-myth-2/

Obviously, a man suffering from terminal lung and kidney disease did not survive for another decade to be murdered by a US Navy SEAL team in Abbottabad. A Pakistani TV interview with the neighbor of the alleged “bin Laden compound” exposed the assassination hoax. This sensational interview also went unreported by america’s “free press.” I had the interview translated, and it is available here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/pakistan-tv-report-contradicts-us-claim-of-bin-laden-s-death/25915 See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13329078

Shortly after the alleged assassination 30 members of the SEAL unit died in a mysterious helicopter crash in Afghanistan, and now we learn that not a single one of the thousands of sailors on the aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinson, witnessed bin Laden’s alleged burial at sea from that ship. The press reports with a straight face that for unexplained reasons it was kept secret from the ship’s sailors. This is supposed to be the explanation of the sailors’ emails reporting to family and friends that they witnessed no burial at sea. Some speculate that the SEALs were bumped off before their questions to one another, “Were you on that raid?,” reached outside the unit. Apparently, it doesn’t strike the media or the public as strange that the US government captured and killed the terror mastermind without interrogating him and without keeping any evidence or presenting any witnesses to support the assassination claim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDTEEXG3ge8

Flashback: Benazir Bhutto Says Osama Bin Laden Dead In 2007!

Posted by: Mike Hunt at January 07, 2013 04:23 PM (G6kli)

337
No more compromise on guns and the Second Ammendment. Every "common sense" law we've enacted since 1934 (or before) has done nothing but chip away at our liberty. The 22,000 laws on the books did nothing and could have never done anything to stop what happened in Newtown. Don't let them pretend Just One More Law could.

If you want to feel better about your own private firearms transaction, insist on seeing a DL and Carry Permit or offering it up yourself when you're the buyer. I do. Hell, I did it this past weekend.

Posted by: Jaws at January 07, 2013 04:23 PM (4I3Uo)

338 Personally, I wouldn't sell to someone I didn't know.

And if they close the "gun show" loophole, you won't be able to sell to someone you do know. Without the background check. At least, not legally.

Posted by: rickb223 at January 07, 2013 04:23 PM (GFM2b)

339 Unless they had cash... and an honest face.
Posted by: jwest at January 07, 2013 04:21 PM (ZDsRL)


Ted Bundy on line 1.

Posted by: RWC at January 07, 2013 04:23 PM (fWAjv)

340 well you called it the "Gun show loophole" and suggested it had to do
with gun shows when it really doesn't. "Gun show loophole" is a
branding effort by the left.



I didn't bring up gun shows Ace, you did.




109 Why couldn't they have like five guys at the event running
background checks the way licensed dealers do? Like you'd have to go
over to that guy, with your provisional bill of sale, then he runs you
up in the system, then gives you a stamp and a code indicating you
passed the check, then you bring your code and stamp over to the dealer
and pick up your gun?





Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:45 PM (LCRYB)


150
>>>How much would that cost? I honestly don't know how much infrastructure is needed to do it.



Well it would cost something, obviously, and each sale would have
the cost of this additional service slapped on to it (whether it's $15
or $25). but then there are a lot of costs at a gun show (or any
convention). I can't see why this particular cost would be
dealbreaking.





Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:50 PM (LCRYB)

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 04:24 PM (da5Wo)

341 Though I think the best solution would be to add a box on your drivers license that you have passed a background check. Then the actual purchases aren't tracked. This would work well for private parties also since If I check your DL I have more confidence when selling to a stranger.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at January 07, 2013 04:24 PM (81UWZ)

342 PS. Al Qaeda are now our buddies in Syria. So much for 911 outrage.

Posted by: Mike Hunt at January 07, 2013 04:24 PM (G6kli)

343 Torture? We are the ones who have to hear about Wolf, fer cryin' out loud. That's hella more painful than Mrs. My Vagina. Her overwrought meta-angst could wipe out a Division.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at January 07, 2013 04:25 PM (eHIJJ)

344 So yes, I didn't think you understood. This isn't about gun shows or "loopholes." It's about private sales, which make up 40% or so of all sales, and at that level it's not a loophole, it's too big for a "loophole."
Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 04:18 PM (LCRYB)

Where did you get the figure that 40% of gun sales are from private transactions? Sounds bogus .

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2013 04:25 PM (m2CN7)

345 >>>It's somewhat an unenforcable law though ace. I'm not opposed to it per se, it sounds like a good idea on its face, but it won't stop people intent on breaking the law.


there are two parties in any gun sale, vendor and buyer. If the criminals is the buyer, then YES, HE is breaking the law, and he doesn't care.

But what about when the vendor is law-abiding? If a law-abiding vendor runs a check, then the criminal doesn't get the gun.

Yes, one criminal can sell to the other, as always.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 04:25 PM (LCRYB)

346 Again- right now, the feds are forbidden from keeping record of NICS transactions beyond a short period of time.

----

As OSP explained to me yesterday.......4473's have a retention requirement of 25 years for the dealer. If the dealer stops doing business.... those 4473's are sent to the BATFE with a rentention time of . . . .forever.

Posted by: fixerupper at January 07, 2013 04:25 PM (nELVU)

347 Why are you people arguing --

loopholes?

IO thought this was suppose to be about Naomi Wolf's va..ga....

oh wait...

Posted by: tasker at January 07, 2013 04:26 PM (r2PLg)

348
@62 a pretty slow news day.
Speaking of which, whatever happened to the Big Mars News NASA announced that was going to blow everyone's socksoff.I believe they found the American flag that this nitwit. Rep Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) referred to when visiting the Mars control facility.

Posted by: Bufalobob at January 07, 2013 04:26 PM (x+7qA)

349 Speaking of shills, when are Dick Morris and that hillbuzz guy going to apologize to all the idiots who listened to them and thought Romney was going to win. Hannity just reminded everyone that he said "romney might be able to eeek out a win".

Posted by: Caustic at January 07, 2013 04:26 PM (/b8+5)

350 Where did you get the figure that 40% of gun sales are from private transactions? Sounds bogus .
Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2013 04:25 PM (m2CN7)


I would think it would be more.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:26 PM (l86i3)

351 This reads like a movie review of Ilsa: She-Wolf of the SS.


Go on.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 07, 2013 04:26 PM (VtjlW)

352 So what you guys are really saying is--


loopholes are like __________?

Posted by: tasker at January 07, 2013 04:26 PM (r2PLg)

353 Where did you get the figure that 40% of gun sales are from private transactions? Sounds bogus .

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2013 04:25 PM (m2CN7)

Ditto

Posted by: Joe Mama at January 07, 2013 04:27 PM (v9Cj5)

354 My simple response to Why ace is because, its mine and I can. I can basically resell any of my legal posessions to any other person. About the only exception (beside stocks) are old toys (and mattresses - actually I think I can resell that). That's the kind of non-sensicallaws you get from the federal government. Its mine and I want resell it. That's it.

Posted by: SH at January 07, 2013 04:27 PM (gmeXX)

355
335
Relax, BCochran1981.



He snaps off on me or otherwise insults my intelligence/integrity a least twice a year.





Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 07, 2013 04:22 PM (ll6WS)


Oh I get it. But I was getting irritated and snapping off at Ace is real quick way to a banning. And I like you degenerates and hanging out here.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 04:27 PM (da5Wo)

356 341 Though I think the best solution would be to add a box on your drivers license that you have passed a background check. Then the actual purchases aren't tracked. This would work well for private parties also since If I check your DL I have more confidence when selling to a stranger.

---------
I would prefer the big red (No guns) mark for a felon that was suggested earlier.

Posted by: gigg423 at January 07, 2013 04:27 PM (41VCE)

357 THIS IS ABOUT THE EMOTIONS THAT I HAVE BEEN STORING IN MY VA-JAY-JAY SINCE I WAS BORN! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ME!
Posted by: Naomi Wolf at January 07, 2013 04:19 PM (Jls4P)

There's a cream for that.

Posted by: Decaf at January 07, 2013 04:27 PM (TJQ3a)

358 Chicago. Tightest regs anywhere. Murder capitol of the US if not the world.
If criminals want guns, they get guns. Much easier than I do when I go through all the bells and whistles.

Posted by: Pentangle at January 07, 2013 04:27 PM (mT1uy)

359
Ted Bundy on line 1.

Posted by: RWC at January 07, 2013 04:23 PM (fWAjv) Ted never asked for credit... plus, he didn't use a gun when he committed his serial murders.

Posted by: jwest at January 07, 2013 04:27 PM (ZDsRL)

360 I don't think any of these new laws being proposed are going to pass. Dems and repubs, especially in the House, know there's enough gun laws on the books and any more will definitely hurt their chances for re-election in 2014. All they have to do is notice the gun and ammo sales since this idea was broached.

And I'll repeat. Repubs and dems are looking at 2014 now.

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2013 04:28 PM (1hr+f)

361 bc,

yes, because someone said, wrongly, "Well then that would shut down gun shows!"

Well, no, because:

First, most sellers at a gun show are dealers and will be conduciting these checks anyway,

and, second, even among the private sellers, accommodations can be easily made for running background checks either buy having guys there just to run background checks, or having them pay some amount of money, $20 or $30 or whatever, to the gun dealers already there.

Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 04:28 PM (LCRYB)

362 As OSP explained to me yesterday.......4473's have a retention requirement of 25 years for the dealer. If the dealer stops doing business.... those 4473's are sent to the BATFE with a rentention time of . . . .forever.

---

Ooops, my business burned down. Shitty "fireproof" safe vaporized the books.

Posted by: Retiring gun dealer at January 07, 2013 04:28 PM (e0xKF)

363
Oh I get it. But I was getting irritated and snapping off at Ace is real quick way to a banning. And I like you degenerates and hanging out here.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 04:27 PM (da5Wo)


Nah, he'll argue but he's not petty. You have to be a troll or a big time Fk up to get banned.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:28 PM (l86i3)

364 99% of statistics are bullshit

The other 1% are speculation.

Posted by: Joe Mama at January 07, 2013 04:28 PM (v9Cj5)

365 So...no one is even really talking about the movie?

wtf

Posted by: tasker at January 07, 2013 04:28 PM (r2PLg)

366 Ok- little help? Where have I heard the name Lacchio?

Posted by: teej at January 07, 2013 04:29 PM (pBcpe)

367 364
99% of statistics are bullshit

The other 1% are speculation.


Posted by: Joe Mama at January 07, 2013 04:28 PM (v9Cj5)

____________
97% of men admit to jacking off. The other 3% lie.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 07, 2013 04:29 PM (HDgX3)

368 You have to admire Obama in the why can't we get our own idealoge sort of way. He is such a leftist that you basically have to fight him on every front. He gives you nothing to not fight over. By doing that you are going to get a bunch of things through because who has the energy to fight everything.

Would be nice to get the conservative counterpart someday.

Posted by: SH at January 07, 2013 04:29 PM (gmeXX)

369 Nah, he'll argue but he's not petty. You have to be a troll or a big time Fk up to get banned.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:28 PM (l86i3)




I can be a first rate grade prick when I get pissed off. Especially if I think someone is actually insulting my intelligence.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 04:29 PM (da5Wo)

370 All of this is obvious jealousy on Ace's part because he doesn't have a vagina.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 07, 2013 04:30 PM (GsoHv)

371 So...no one is even really talking about the movie?

wtf
Posted by: tasker at January 07, 2013 04:28 PM (r2PLg)

What movie? I thought it was about Naomi wolf getting a Taint lift.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:30 PM (l86i3)

372 Thank God I have no idea who that lefty loon is.

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at January 07, 2013 04:30 PM (DGIjM)

373 366 Ok- little help? Where have I heard the name Lacchio?
Posted by: teej at January 07, 2013 04:29 PM (pBcpe)

_____________

Are they related to--

Chachi?

Posted by: tasker at January 07, 2013 04:30 PM (r2PLg)

374 But how would this law be enforced, you ask?

The Total Surveillance Society. A Camera On Every Tree.

Seriously, one person is asking "what harm will it do" and dismissing the answers, the other side is asking "what good will it do" and not seeing much.

As Usual.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 07, 2013 04:30 PM (bxiXv)

375 40% of all transactions are gun sales.


I think that's right. Could be, anyway.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 07, 2013 04:30 PM (ll6WS)

376 So...no one is even really talking about the movie?

wtf
Posted by: tasker at January 07, 2013 04:28 PM (r2PLg)



Give the Horde credit, we have inverted the rule that all threads become movie threads by turning a movie thread into a gun thread.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 07, 2013 04:30 PM (VtjlW)

377 I can be a first rate grade prick when I get pissed off. Especially if I think someone is actually insulting my intelligence.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 04:29 PM (da5Wo)


I know, I remember.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:30 PM (l86i3)

378 Obama is a true Fascist. He loves all of it including the war part.

Congress refuses to declare war? Does it himself!

Congress hasn't put in place a way to prosecute renegade Americans? Assassinate him!

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 07, 2013 04:31 PM (xAtAj)

379 I can be a first rate grade prick when I get pissed off. Especially if I think someone is actually insulting my intelligence.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 04:29 PM (da5Wo)

We can vouch for the prick part, but....what intelligence?

Now go home and get your fucking shinebox.

Posted by: Typical troublemaking moron at January 07, 2013 04:31 PM (GsoHv)

380
40% of all transactions are gun sales.





I think that's right. Could be, anyway.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 07, 2013 04:30 PM (ll6WS)

What fraction of these are done by private sellers and not professional sellers?

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 07, 2013 04:31 PM (xAtAj)

381 I can be a first rate grade prick when I get pissed off. Especially if I think someone is actually insulting my intelligence.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 04:29 PM (da5Wo)



Hold on, hold on, I'm taking notes.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 07, 2013 04:31 PM (VtjlW)

382 371 So...no one is even really talking about the movie?

wtf
Posted by: tasker at January 07, 2013 04:28 PM (r2PLg)

What movie? I thought it was about Naomi wolf getting a Taint lift.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:30 PM (l86i3)


___________________

Is that where the Nazis come in?

Posted by: tasker at January 07, 2013 04:32 PM (r2PLg)

383 I can be a first rate grade prick when I get pissed off.

-----


Heh.... I had you pegged as third rate.....

Posted by: fixerupper at January 07, 2013 04:32 PM (nELVU)

384 360
I don't think any of these new laws being proposed are going to pass.
Dems and repubs, especially in the House, know there's enough gun laws
on the books and any more will definitely hurt their chances for
re-election in 2014. All they have to do is notice the gun and ammo
sales since this idea was broached.



And I'll repeat. Repubs and dems are looking at 2014 now.

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2013 04:28 PM (1hr+f)

__________
That's what we said about Obamacare too.
Democrats will sacrifice a mid term loss to advance their long term goals. We always seem to forget that. They knew 2010 would be bad if they passed O-care. They did it anyway. Socialized health care is worth losing a mid-term election. Same is true for banning guns.

Sadly Republicans never think like that. How sweet would it have been to privatize SS in 2005? Yeah a bunch of Reps would have lost- re-election in 2006. Would have been well worth it.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 07, 2013 04:32 PM (HDgX3)

385 And I'll repeat. Repubs and dems are looking at 2014 now.

-----

Exactly. Gun control is an emotional voting issue. This is the issue that moves voter, regardless of what district you live in. Cutting spending - doesn't move voters. There is a lesson for the GOP here. Engage on cultural issues. But engage during elections. No need to engage now. Now it is just a diversionary tactic by Obama to allow certain members to show their district how the stood up to Obama on gun control. Meanwhile they voted to blow past the debt limit. Because no one gives a crap about that.

Posted by: SH at January 07, 2013 04:32 PM (gmeXX)

386 Waiting for the movie on Netflix where I have "Triumph of the Will" and "Birth of a Nation" in my instant queue.

Posted by: CozMark at January 07, 2013 04:32 PM (P0AbR)

387 If you assert that 40% of guns sales are private, after conceding those transactions are untraceable, where is the logic?

Posted by: Joe Mama at January 07, 2013 04:32 PM (v9Cj5)

388 Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 04:27 PM (da5Wo)


Argue with him rationally and he may beat the snot out of you, but I have never seen him ban anyone for just argument.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 07, 2013 04:33 PM (GsoHv)

389 I would think it would be more.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:26 PM (l86i3)

I know many in the gun crowd and I say maybe 10% of their guns were brought privately. I've got eleven and all were purchased from licensed dealers. From this rather large sample I would think 40% was way high.

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2013 04:33 PM (m2CN7)

390 Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 07, 2013 04:32 PM (HDgX3)

agree

Posted by: Caustic at January 07, 2013 04:33 PM (/b8+5)

391 What fraction of these are done by private sellers and not professional sellers?
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 07, 2013 04:31 PM (xAtAj)

That percentage cannot be known because it's not tracked and it's no ones fucking business.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:33 PM (l86i3)

392 376 So...no one is even really talking about the movie?

wtf
Posted by: tasker at January 07, 2013 04:28 PM (r2PLg)


Give the Horde credit, we have inverted the rule that all threads become movie threads by turning a movie thread into a gun thread.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 07, 2013 04:30 PM (VtjlW)

___________________

Okay --got it.

So--I have to wait for the gun thread--to get the movie review.

Posted by: tasker at January 07, 2013 04:33 PM (r2PLg)

393 What fraction of these are done by private sellers and not professional sellers?

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 07, 2013 04:31 PM (xAtAj)


And what fraction are made by the BATF?

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at January 07, 2013 04:33 PM (bxiXv)

394

People are breaking laws and must be stopped by passing laws making it illegal to break laws!

Damn criminals!

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 07, 2013 04:33 PM (1Y+hH)

395

Here's the thing...

People's mental health problems don't show up on a 'background check'.

That orange-haired guy who massacred people in the movie theatre would've passed a background check.

All these mass-shooters have been head cases.
Some were getting psychological treatment...but some weren't.

You can't peer into the brain of someone, and tell in advance what their 'intent' is.
This is the big gaping hole in this argument for having National Background Checks.

Posted by: wheatie at January 07, 2013 04:34 PM (dC04t)

396 Damn this thread is pissing me off and I am not even sure why :S

Posted by: gigg423 at January 07, 2013 04:34 PM (41VCE)

397 Democrats will sacrifice a mid term loss to advance their long term goals. We always seem to forget that. They knew 2010 would be bad if they passed O-care. They did it anyway. Socialized health care is worth losing a mid-term election. Same is true for banning guns.

----

That's a good point.

Posted by: SH at January 07, 2013 04:34 PM (gmeXX)

398 OMG OT but my new FR-S has just arrived in the USA and will be at my dealership by the 27th! I am literally dancing with joy!

Posted by: DangerGirl crosseyed from cross stitch at January 07, 2013 04:35 PM (GrtrJ)

399
Naomi Wolf, OTOH, will be remembered as the tortured metaphor's handmaiden.

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars at January 07, 2013 04:35 PM (Jcd0S)

400 Roll Tide !!

http://tinyurl.com/a6l74le

Posted by: kbdabear at January 07, 2013 04:35 PM (wwsoB)

401 ::::393 What fraction of these are done by private sellers and not professional sellers?

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at January 07, 2013 04:31 PM (xAtAj) :::

You're killin me. Read it again.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 07, 2013 04:36 PM (ll6WS)

402 How could we prevent head cases from making gun purchases? Does not HIPPA prevent health-care workers from releasing patient data?

Posted by: Joe Mama at January 07, 2013 04:36 PM (v9Cj5)

403 So do I need to conduct a background check on whomever I sell my truck to just in case they may have been convicted of a DUI? My responsibility for what the purchaser does with my former property onky extends to the level at which the government recognizes the change in transaction? am i liable for their speeding in my former truck through a school zone?What assumption are we all missing when we say we should check the purchasers background to ensure I'm not arming the Zetas? To ensure the government doesn't find me at fault for my former property? We are all assuming with those arguments that the government has a record of the chain of custody for that firearm and the last legal, lawful owner of that firearm is responsible for what it is used for from that point forward. You want to know why background checks are a bad idea? That's why because the state has a record it can use to track monitor and prosecute the last lawful purchaser of that firearm. If someone breaks that legal chain of custody whose to say it wasn't last legally held by you? At least in the eyes of the state. You never know whose identity was stolen, whose giving you granddaddy SSN, you never actually know.

Posted by: Exasperated expat at January 07, 2013 04:36 PM (gkfSV)

404 In theory I don't see anything wrong with having checks for all purchases. But like others have said I oppose it 100% because it is the first step. Democrats will never settle for just a small win. Look at the fiscal cliff. They got higher taxes on evil rich white people. And what do they do a week later? Announce they want even more taxes on evil rich white people.

The NRA has had a zero tolerance attitude. No gun control Period. You want background checks? Fuck you. You want waiting periods? fuck you. You want limits of guns bought per month? Fuck you. That's how you win against liberals. Not the "let's negotiate in good faith" bullshit Boehner gives us.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 07, 2013 04:36 PM (HDgX3)

405 Private sales are more common out here in the sticks where there are few dealers. Those that are here charge $45-50 for a transfer, so the answer is no, I'm not driving 20 miles into town to pay an extra $50 to conduct a private sale.

Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at January 07, 2013 04:37 PM (epxV4)

406 >>Especially if I think someone is actually insulting my intelligence.
Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 04:29 PM (da5Wo)


You don't get your intelligence insulted here, just a regular two handed shove on a semi regular basis.
If you can't handle that, (and I'm not saying that you can't, you communist RINO dummy) you might be confusing intelligence with vanity.

Posted by: ontherocks at January 07, 2013 04:37 PM (aZ6ew)

407 I know many in the gun crowd and I say maybe 10% of
their guns were brought privately. I've got eleven and all were
purchased from licensed dealers. From this rather large sample I would
think 40% was way high.

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2013 04:33 PM (m2CN7)

I confess, it's a heck of a lot easier for me to just buy and sell to a dealer, especially one that I trust. If I'm buying used, I'd like some trust that I'm not buying a lemon, and since I'm not that great at figuring these things out (yeah yeah yeah, laugh it up) it's easier for me to go to my trusted store.If I'm buying new...well...store, that's it, private sellers would, by definition, have used guns.
And if I'm selling, I don't have to worry about the dude's check not clearing or trying to find and meet up with a buyer. I can just go to the store and sell.

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 07, 2013 04:37 PM (Ssth1)

408
And I'm hungry like the Wolf.

Posted by: Her Vagina at January 07, 2013 04:37 PM (UgFxe)

409 Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 07, 2013 04:36 PM (HDgX3)

Well, really, they need to take all their money to redistribute and it's going to take more laws.

Posted by: liberal lulu at January 07, 2013 04:38 PM (/b8+5)

410 still, this bit from an article that Wolf wrote in the Guardian 12/21/12 ("The coming drone attack on America") caught my eye:

"What can we do if we want to oppose this? I wondered. According to
Stanley, many states are passing legislation banning domestic drone use.
Once again, in the fight to keep America a republic, grassroots
activism is pitched in an unequal contest against a militarized federal
government."

Nice to see we're not the only ones who remember that this is a republic. I'll give her one point. Maybe two.

Posted by: mallfly at January 07, 2013 04:38 PM (bJm7W)

411 OMG the comments to Wolf's article are priceless, such as:

"Triumph of the Will, which glorified Nazi military power, was a massive hit in Germany...." "I
don't believe it was a hit at all; it's actually a very long and boring
film. Post-war bourgeoise film critics celebrated its achievements, for
some 'artistic' reasons e.g "Like Riefenstahl, you are a great
artist"...

What do you know, I felt the same way about An Inconvenient Truth. . . funny how that works.



Posted by: LizLem at January 07, 2013 04:38 PM (8wqqE)

412 Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at January 07, 2013 04:37 PM (epxV4)

I must be the only person who drives out to the sticks to buy my guns .
(The Gun shop south of here has a better selection for my tastes, none of the big stores have what I want.)

Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 07, 2013 04:38 PM (Ssth1)

413 I can make one bet about this proposed law. If passed it would result in a lot of filing done on gun serial numbers. Which I'm sure is against the law.

Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 07, 2013 04:39 PM (1Y+hH)

414 And I'm hungry like the Wolf.

Do not ask what's in the chili.

Posted by: Wolf Brand Chili at January 07, 2013 04:39 PM (O7Q1u)

415
"That orange-haired guy who massacred people in the movie theatre would've passed a background check."

And clowns.

Who in their right mind would sell a gun to clown? You've got to know that anyone who would dress up as a clown is a sick fuck. I give a little deference to midgets and mimes, but anyone who deal with a clown needs to be arrested.

Posted by: jwest at January 07, 2013 04:39 PM (ZDsRL)

416 Oh well.

Posted by: teej at January 07, 2013 04:39 PM (1CULz)

417 vanity.
Posted by: ontherocks at January 07, 2013 04:37 PM (aZ6ew)

Yep, thinned skinned vanity will take you down.

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:39 PM (l86i3)

418 I don't see how we talk about lawful guns in law-abiding citizens' hand
being a good thing, and then, in the same breath, say that we refuse any
sort of check about the lawfulness of a buyer. Like, our rhetoric is
"Guns for law-abiding citizens" but our actual *policy* is "guns for the
law abiding and criminal (and previously involuntarily committed)
alike."


Got to throw the bullshit flag on this.
Explain to me how it is that you are going ensure that this minor inconvenience will actually affect the way criminals conduct their bidniz.
A short recap on prohibition or the war on drugs vis your proposal would be instructive.

No, this is just one more stupid, pointless, money grubbing hoop the truly law-abiding-ain't-gonna-mow-down-no-school kids-schmuck will try his best to let pass and abide by, for the chirren.

Law breakers gonna break laws.

Shorter answer: Aw, HELL NO!

Posted by: Chris 'the other white meat' Christy at January 07, 2013 04:40 PM (I7O5y)

419
a girl came as tortures handmaiden to a halloween party i went to last year,she was hot

Posted by: kj at January 07, 2013 04:40 PM (wmA7o)

420 By the way, the NICS "fee" is nothing of the sort. It is a tax.

Posted by: marcus at January 07, 2013 04:40 PM (GGCsk)

421 Sock Begone!

Posted by: Roland THTG at January 07, 2013 04:40 PM (I7O5y)

422 If you give them an inch they'll cram 10 more up your ass. Remember that.

Posted by: USS Diversity at January 07, 2013 04:40 PM (MPjT8)

423 Nah, he'll argue but he's not petty. You have to be a troll or a big time Fk up to get banned.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:28 PM (l86i3)


-----------------------------------------------


Heh. When I first read that I thought you had written, "he'll argue, but he's not pretty". I thought, oh no. Not Oldsailor.

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2013 04:41 PM (1hr+f)

424 It had to happen


Release the Kraken!


http://is.gd/aBw6uB

Posted by: Vic at January 07, 2013 04:41 PM (53z96)

425 I like alotta fagina

http://tinyurl.com/axq4bq6


Posted by: dananjcon at January 07, 2013 04:41 PM (jvd3N)

426 Fuck all of you very very much. Lmao


Ace, lemme see if I can sum up my objection. This govt, in its inception, was one of limited, specifically enumerated powers. Where does the govt have the power to determine how I purchase a gun from another private citizen?

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 04:41 PM (Qf1dM)

427
Have you considered enrolling in ROTC?

Posted by: torture's guidance counselor at January 07, 2013 04:41 PM (Ba6aP)

428 >>Yep, thinned skinned vanity will take you down.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:39 PM (l86i3)

It took me while to learn to punch in comments while doing the low crawl.There was no way to sling the laptop.

Posted by: ontherocks at January 07, 2013 04:44 PM (aZ6ew)

429 Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 07, 2013 04:38 PM (Ssth1)

I've bought most of my handguns from Academy. 10 to 15% cheaper than any gun store or gun show. Ususally have one generation older glocks they are dumping for a good price.

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2013 04:44 PM (m2CN7)

430 There is a Wikipedia article about gun shows that is somewhat helpful....

The best information in tangential to the article and pertains to weapons in Mexico.

wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States at wikipedia dot org

Posted by: RioBravo at January 07, 2013 04:45 PM (eEfYn)

431 I know many in the gun crowd and I say maybe 10% of their guns were brought privately.>>

80% of mine were private. But I am also going to be abby normal since my brother is a big time collector that sometimes needs to free up space in the vault or runs across a good deal that he doesn't want.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at January 07, 2013 04:45 PM (81UWZ)

432 It took me while to learn to punch in comments while doing the low crawl.There was no way to sling the laptop.
Posted by: ontherocks at January 07, 2013 04:44 PM (aZ6ew)


LOL

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, aka Jack July author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. at January 07, 2013 04:46 PM (l86i3)

433 And ontherocks, vanity? Maybe. But it's a sore spot for me at times. I've had my intelligence insulted as a general rule because I speak with a Southern accent, because (when) I was an athlete, etc.

So maybe I'm a bit touchy.

*shrugs*

Sorta like EoJ and his major in theater.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 04:46 PM (Qf1dM)

434 (93. Vic) How will private citizens do background checks

DMV?


Posted by: olddog at January 07, 2013 04:47 PM (VML0m)

435 80% of mine were private. But I am also going to be abby normal since my brother is a big time collector that sometimes needs to free up space in the vault or runs across a good deal that he doesn't want.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at January 07, 2013 04:45 PM (81UWZ)

Where does you brother buy his?

Posted by: polynikes at January 07, 2013 04:47 PM (m2CN7)

436 It's grey?


Now I'm ready for a little Wolf punching




IYKWIMAITYD

Posted by: Liam Neeson at January 07, 2013 04:49 PM (UgFxe)

437 Comment at 434 was supposed to have a lot of laughing signs and shit.

Posted by: olddog at January 07, 2013 04:49 PM (VML0m)

438 How could we prevent head cases from making gun purchases? Does not HIPPA prevent health-care workers from releasing patient data?
Posted by: Joe Mama at January 07, 2013 04:36 PM (v9Cj5)


-------------------------------------------


And here you have what's called a "legal contradiction". Even if they wanted to, congress would have to repeal parts of HIPPA to make the reporting of mentally unstable people possible. So this is a non-starter from the beginning.

All they're trying to do is make it as difficult as possible to exercise a Constitutional right.

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2013 04:49 PM (1hr+f)

439 "...Any step, I grant, is some step, small though it may be, in that direction, but I still don't fully understand the objection: If everyone agrees that guns in the hands of *non*-criminal, *non*-lunatic citizens are the good thing, then why is it bad to try to make certain that private sellers do not sell guns to the criminal/previously committed? I don't know the answer. Maybe I'll just ask. But I really don't feel like fighting today or being called a RINO and a communist 300 times."
Posted by: ace at January 07, 2013 03:35 PM (LCRYB)

It wouldn't be a bad thing to try and make certain private sellers don't sell guns to the criminal/previously committed. However, any gun control legislation, no matter how seemingly obviously beneficial,requires good faith negotiation, debate, and compromise as the details are worked out. These people are not and have not been operating in good faith on any issue of national import and certainly not on 2nd Amendment issues. They intend to disarm Americans--or at least those Americans not wealthy enoughor politically connected enough to have them. Any 2nd Amendment-related legislation they propose is a means to that end.

Posted by: troyriser at January 07, 2013 04:50 PM (vtiE6)

440
402How could we prevent head cases from making gun purchases? Does not HIPPA prevent health-care workers from releasing patient data?

------------

Exactly.

That was my point, upthread...these mass shootings that have put this issue on the front page...would not have been prevented by 'background checks'.

These shooters were head cases without any criminal records.
And their medical histories...if they had them...would not have been included in a background check.
Much less, their state of mind.

Posted by: wheatie at January 07, 2013 04:51 PM (dC04t)

441 17
So does that make Obama Hitler? Because it sure as hell seems that it does. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 07, 2013 03:31 PM (VtjlW)

The Triumph of the Hope? And yes it does ATC; I've felt for some time that the MFM and Obama's team are pushing optics that would have made Riefenstahl blush (the Obama halo, really?!), and no one was noticing it, or cared. Drove me nuts. But then how many people in my generation actually even know who Riefenstahl is?

Speaking of Oscar contendors, one of the reasons that I didn't get why libs ate up "The King's Speech" so much was that the message of the film seemed to run counterintuitive to everything Obama stood for.

Posted by: LizLem at January 07, 2013 04:53 PM (8wqqE)

442 I truely don't care if criminals are armed as long as I am as well.

Posted by: Cicero Kid at January 07, 2013 04:53 PM (b1VIZ)

443 >>So maybe I'm a bit touchy.


Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 04:46 PM (Qf1dM)


Just try insultin' my intelligence.
I keep it well concealed at all times.

.....good strategery IYKWIM

Posted by: ontherocks at January 07, 2013 04:53 PM (aZ6ew)

444 Where does you brother buy his?>>

His are probably 50/50 private /dealer. And that is only because he travels in a circle of people who are constantly buying selling. Though even in those circles most have likely passed through a dealer at some point.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at January 07, 2013 04:53 PM (81UWZ)

445
(93. Vic) How will private citizens do background checks



DMV?


An FFL will act as a third-party to do thre background check.

That's what they do here in CA. CA requires both parties to be present when initiating the transfer. We still have a 10-day waiting period here in CA (Congress chose not to invoke the Supremacy Clause in this case).

An exception to the 10-day period is for family transfers. The transfer has to be direct inter-generational up to two generations (i.e. grandparent to grandchild). No sibling or cousin transfers without the waiting period. My bitch here is that spousal transfers are not exempted; in effect, the ATF does not recognize married couples as one entity like other Federal agencies do.

Posted by: David Gregory, noted Hi-Cap Mag owner at January 07, 2013 04:55 PM (kqqGm)

446 443 Just try insultin' my intelligence.
I keep it well concealed at all times.

.....good strategery IYKWIM

Posted by: ontherocks at January 07, 2013 04:53 PM (aZ6ew)


Lmfao

Posted by: BCochran1981 at January 07, 2013 04:56 PM (Qf1dM)

447 OT. Sign of the times.
Just spotted on an off-ramp in Boulder, a 20 something dude with a sign:

Will work for Weed.

Posted by: Joe Mama at January 07, 2013 04:57 PM (v9Cj5)

448 OT. Sign of the times.Just spotted on an off-ramp in Boulder, a 20 something dude with a sign:Will work for Weed.
Posted by: Joe Mama at January 07, 2013 04:57 PM (v9Cj5)


----------------------------------------------


And there you have it. The perfect example of legalizing pot.

Posted by: Soona at January 07, 2013 04:59 PM (1hr+f)

449 Whoops, sorry guys, I will stop steering the thread back OT and back to the gun thread as God and nature intended.


Posted by: LizLem at January 07, 2013 05:01 PM (8wqqE)

450 One the movie: as a proud Moron with somewhat less conservative fire, I read various pieces of media, including Time (whose fuck faces picked Putin over Petraus for man of the year, but I digress.) Thus I know that ZDT is not a movie that gives Obama a blowjob; indeed Obama appears only once in the movie, in a newsreel where he discusses torture. It is about as pro-American as you get, yet captures the murky reality behind CIA work. Only the last fifth of the movie deals with the raid. ZDT looks to be a fine movie, which implicitly commemorates the sacrifices our nation made to cap that motherfucker. I, like many of you, deplore anti American movies and Hollywood makes many (Micheal Moore anyone). Yet Hollywood makes one thats not anti American and y'all still don't want to see it? For me, good entertainment in cinema is more important than a directors politics, provided they aren't too extreme. Act of Valor is fascinating because it involves real SEALS, but we all know (as we are a smart military blog) that the real world of covert ops isn't as clean as a movie made by the Navy would have us think. I mean lets face it, as much as I would like the Marines to show enlisted recruits pictures/testimonies of combat casualties and of USMC male rape victims (as they do for Officers and NCOs-and as someone going from enlisted to officer, I have experience in the intricacies of each) it's not going to happen. Thus ZDT is worthy if for no other reason than for making us realize the complexity that war is, without denigrating our brave servicemen-and women (no its not Nancy Pelosi photoshopping women for inclusion, the female lead in the movie is based on a real female CIA agent who helped track down UBL).

Posted by: Danny at January 07, 2013 05:02 PM (qMpC0)

451 New Orleans gun grab should make you question all proposed gun legislation.

Posted by: RWC at January 07, 2013 05:03 PM (fWAjv)

452 I meant ON topic not OT, sigh

Posted by: LizLem at January 07, 2013 05:05 PM (8wqqE)

453

>>Posted by: Danny at January 07, 2013 05:02 PM (qMpC0)



.......fine now get down and give me 20 double spaces.

Posted by: Sgt Moron at January 07, 2013 05:11 PM (aZ6ew)

454 >>>"In a time of darkness in America, you are being feted by Hollywood, and hailed by major media...."

This sounds like the "crawl" to a Star Wars movie.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at January 07, 2013 05:17 PM (oKVrA)

455 453>>>aye aye sir!!!






Oh wait, it's no longer bootcamp Point taken though, my commenting style is quite "rambly."

Posted by: Danny at January 07, 2013 05:21 PM (qMpC0)

456
Does this "Ace" guy live in New York? Cause he sounds like a RINO.... or a commie.

Just joshin' ya Ace.

But seriously.... if someone is willing to commit murder, which is a very very serious violation of our laws, what in God's name makes anyone think that some kind of law restricting the criminalsuse of a firearm or their purchase of a firearmis somehow going to bring said murderer to their senses.
The f*cking criminals know that murder is against the law..... how they do it is immaterial..... they do it anyway, no matter the amount of laws passed by the State against it.
All these other laws pushed by the left are for the law abiding citizens. To get to their ultimate leftist goal...

Posted by: Some Guy in Wisconsin (forced by state law to support the Pack) at January 07, 2013 05:26 PM (mAY6s)

457 @ 40

Ace, I think one of the concerns about requiring private gun sales to conform to a regulatory scheme that screens mental fitness is that it would unduly burden the right to freely alienate one's property, which is one of the sticks in the bundle of rights which defines 'property' both pragmatically and philosophically. Its not really your property if you can't freely sell it (alienate). To the extent your path to a selling is riddled with hurdles imposed by the State, your right to enjoy your property including alienating it for value has been infringed. Lots of things are regulated though, lots of hoops to jump through to sell, say widgets . . . but widgets also don't have their own dedicated Constitutional Amendment forbidding the State from infringing upon the individual's right to their property in firearms.

Maybe someone's already made this point, I only skimmed and didn't read each of the comments here.

Posted by: viking at January 07, 2013 05:29 PM (MGwmg)

458 After reading 'The giant, gaping hole in Sandy Hook reporting' there seems to be a GIANT 14,000 pound elephant in the room that the MSM chooses to ignore... modern drug therapy.

Anyone who has listened to a 60 second commercial which then takes another 60 seconds to reveal the side effects of 'modern medicine' will recognize what I'm talking about.

To my knuckle-dragging Neanderthal thought processes, the side effects of some of these drugs are one helluva lot worse then the initial problem. I realize that due to my age, a diagnosis of certain conditions will preclude my ever driving an automobile on public highways again -- because public safety. Why is it so tough to keep guns out of the hands of people who are under the influence of drugs with side effects that include... “mania,” “insomnia,” “anxiety,” “agitation,” “confusion,” “amnesia,” “depression,” “paranoid reaction,” “psychosis,” “hostility,” “delirium,” “hallucinations,” “abnormal thinking,” “depersonalization” and “lack of emotion”, to name a few? Drugs with side effects that were common to all the recent school shooters.

You don't suppose the drug companies are big contributors to (D)'s? Because I could code an app that provided that information to gun dealers in a single afternoon. On a bad day. Or one that at least kicked the applicant into a longer four week application period, so that a more reasoned thought process was involved, with 'sign-offs' from the so-called professionals/drug companies.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at January 07, 2013 05:35 PM (feFL6)

459 Again, for the front rows as well as the cheap seats, National Socialism is a Left-wing conceit.

Posted by: BuddyPC at January 07, 2013 05:41 PM (jfUIE)

460 #40

It's really simple. A free nation doesn't need to know who owns a gun.

I, lacking criminal intent, should no more be required to register a gun with the government than I should need to register a vehicle that won't be used on public roads.

Posted by: epobirs at January 07, 2013 06:21 PM (UxQQH)

461 "Zero Dark Thirty" is raaaaacist!

Posted by: NYC Parent at January 07, 2013 06:31 PM (8GA+4)

462 Eh, I'm late on this but I think ace makes perfect sense. It's already illegal to knowingly sell to a criminal, this just extends that a perfectly reasonable amount---take some measure to check and see if the person you're selling to is a criminal.

Someone mentioned "do I have to run a background check before I sell my car?" and the answer is pretty simple---you don't have to run a background check but you do need to take some measure and check and see if the person you're selling to is able to drive. If you sell a car to a person without a license, even as a private party, or if you make your car available to someone without a license, you are up a creek. It's a reasonable deterrent that law-abiding people deal with. No, it doesn't prevent every single idiot from selling cars to people without licenses, but it prevents some. The government doesn't sit on craigslist setting up stings with car sales, but if an unlicensed driver kills somebody or causes accidents, they (and insurance companies) absolutely do figure out who made the car available. Sure, if you really believe your unlicensed brother, or the guy from craigslist who may or may not have a license (what do you know, you didn't check?), that he won't drive the car on public roads, scout's honor, you can take that risk and the government isn't likely to stop you---but if you're wrong, and he runs the car into a playground, they're gonna find you.

In the case of a gun, it doesn't need to be a license, but proof of a background check conducted by a licensed firearms dealer or some comparable source within a certain amount of time. If you want to take the risk and sell to your neighbor or a stranger, fine, do that. Just be prepared to face some consequence if that perfectly nice guy turns out to have something on his record that you could've been aware of.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 07, 2013 06:41 PM (b+8h9)

463 Naomi Wolf; Wow, a blast from the culturally-irrelevant past.

Love to ask her if she knows 'Naomi' is 'I moan' backwards.

Posted by: Uriah Heep at January 07, 2013 07:47 PM (jhI6f)

464 Bin Laden is buried in Saudi Arabia. He died in 2003. The movie is pure propaganda.

Posted by: HMSBounty at January 07, 2013 08:40 PM (fBhH/)

465 EC, #20: "If Bigelow is Leni Riefenstahl, then what is Obama?"

Great line!

Posted by: shoeless hunter at January 09, 2013 02:48 PM (9196u)






Processing 0.09, elapsed 0.1004 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0361 seconds, 474 records returned.
Page size 260 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat