why rely on them for anything? Their boss is appointed by Bush.
Posted by T2 at April 13, 2007 11:57 AMCue the outrage by NRA members and Democrats wanting to cave to those nutjobs in 3 . . 2 . . 1 . .
Posted by idiosynchronic at April 13, 2007 11:58 AMWasn't it Karl Rove who bragged the NRA would have an office in the Bush White House?
Curious that now Mitt "Wilbur" Romney is touting his shoot-em-up-bang-bang prowess to appeal to this demographic.
The USA is a strange country.
Posted by Christopher at April 13, 2007 12:21 PMNow I'm going to fufill my own snarking.
Essentially - the loophole exists because of 2 arguments; Because you can't conceal a shotgun easily, the element of surprise essential to get to your target and take the time you require or desire is elusive. Someone's more likely to see you toting a gun to the destination (or afterwards) and call the cops. Second, the argument that a shotgun is legal and desired for legal means is greater because of its broader range of use.
Yes, even in a rural area, someone's gonna freak if you go walking down the road with a shotgun and a look in your eye. It's body language - the way you hold a gun when loaded and looking for a target, if you're wearing cammo or hunter orange, if you're responsive or friendly when you wave at them. There may be shotguns in the back window of a truck, but very few people tote them around town. Most owners are (believe it or not) too responsible to do something so stupid.
Getting to the real questions of Steve's post - the states depend on the FBI because it costs them only a minor defined amount both fiscally and if an applicant does what Mr. LaCalamita allegedly did. Let the FBI take the risk, and why increase your own state's responsibility and cost burden to setup and maintain a gun purchase database? Is it an immoral position? Probably, but until public opinion outweighs NRA blather, no state politician is going to stick their neck out unless they're a very liberal in a secure seat.
Posted by idiosynchronic at April 13, 2007 12:26 PM...until public opinion outweighs NRA blather, no state politician is going to stick their neck out unless they're a very liberal in a secure seat.
Great point Id.
I don't think it's the political fight that is worth fighting now. Currently, there are just so many more pressing issues.
The time will come, eventually.
For anyone familiar with an M-16, AK-47 or M-4, guns do kill people, and in a horrible manner.
Posted by tempus at April 13, 2007 12:47 PMLike I'm going to argue with that, tempus.
What I think escapes these arguments about gun registration and background checks is that while these auto and semi-auto guns fire copious amounts of bullets, most people can't pick one up and defend themselves with one. They miss - and the results can be gruesome.
I've done only a little reading, interested in why you'd buy a handgun for home protection, and came became convinced that most people should buy a shotgun. Or a medium-sized dog or larger.
Posted by idiosynchronic at April 13, 2007 01:23 PMShotguns don't kill people.(unless used as a club or colonoscope)
Shotgun pellets kill people.
Shotguns are great for home invasion defense and watchtower sales prevention.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 13, 2007 01:28 PMLet me just say that I completely disagree with the way the 2nd Amendment has traditionally been interpreted.
The fact that we have a massive standing military and an extensive National Guard completely renders moot the justification given in the amendment for the need for the people to not be prevented from bearing arms.
But I agree with those who say it's not a battle worth fighting right now.
Posted by snark at April 13, 2007 02:34 PMLike I'm going to argue with that, tempus.
Some people do, Idio. Don't ask me why...
I thought the argument for homo marriage was that so called "constitutional rights" outwiegh the opinions of the majority?
Oh wait.....
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 13, 2007 06:40 PMlordtyranus2, I may be damaged from other duels, but I will take you one any time, you bastard. And you will go down very hard. Bring your dog.
Posted by tempus at April 13, 2007 07:59 PMI thought the argument for homo marriage was that so called "constitutional rights" outwiegh the opinions of the majority?
Is there a point in there? Or just an opportunity to showcase your fear of homosexuals?
Posted by snark at April 13, 2007 08:20 PMLordtyanus2? Snark, you tell me.
Posted by Judith at April 14, 2007 05:04 AMI'm very sorry Judith. I have a great respect for you. I simply got annoyed. Please forgive me, if you can...
Posted by tempus at April 14, 2007 07:38 AMI thought the argument for homo marriage was that so called "constitutional rights" outwiegh the opinions of the majority?
Do you keep a homo around for home defense?
The Constitution: Only for some people.
Posted by phidipides at April 14, 2007 08:31 AMI'm very sorry Judith. I have a great respect for you. I simply got annoyed. Please forgive me, if you can...
Tempus, for what? For a second there, I thought the post was from God of War.( tee hee)
Posted by Judith at April 14, 2007 08:40 AM"The Constitution: Only for some people."
According to the left and their "collective rights" model, that's absolutely true.
Kind of a similar attitude to the 3rd reich...
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 14, 2007 08:54 AMNo one says you shouldn't own guns. However, they should be registered and the owner should have to take a course on gun safety, and the law should apply uniformly across the Country.
Posted by Judith at April 14, 2007 09:15 AM"Kind of a similar attitude to the 3rd reich..."
HAHAHAHAHAHA - I spit my coffee out on that one. Pot meet kettle. If you look in the dictionary at the word 'fascist' or 'reich', your party's name comes up.
Posted by Judith at April 14, 2007 09:18 AMstv, th FB hs dgnrtd t crp f dsstr. Ths s s bcs th pwr lt dsrs pltcs vr rl f lw. Fr nstnc, whn ws n th S Mrshls, ths gys rtnly llwd wk ppl t cntn th cdmy, nd grdt, vn whn thy ftn fld prctcl sttns, .., ccdntlly shtng t lghts n th rng, r shtng rnd ff t f nrvsnss. Sm fld t drv.
Why wr th bv llwd t prcd? vry lst n wr mmbrs f n f thr grps: blcks, wmn, r, n th cs f flng t drv, sns.
Jst s r dctnl systm hs bn ndrmnd, systmtclly, fr pltcl cntrl, th sm wth lw nfrcmnt t ll lvls.
Th bv s th trth, 'm nt lyng, nd knw tht t's nt wht y wnt t hr; th trth s hrd.
[Editor: ignore=off]"No one says you shouldn't own guns. However, they should be registered and the owner should have to take a course on gun safety, and the law should apply uniformly across the Country. "
So what was that DC gun ban? Political grandstanding?
People should note the similarity between Heinrich Himmler's quote above and Wesley Clark:
"You like to fire assault weapons? I have a place for you. It's not in the homes and streets of America. It's called the Army, and you can join any time!"
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 14, 2007 05:31 PMGee.
I wonder if Hitler ever said he favored lower taxes?
Posted by snark at April 14, 2007 07:01 PMsnrky, yh, fr hs crp lrd frnds nly.
[Editor: ignore=off]d, yr pnts wr crrct; t fr M-16/zs, tc. r dffclt fr nvcs. Rmngtn 870 shtgn s gd fr hm prtctr gnst dtrmnd ttckr. nly n xcllnt mlns r shphrd, trnd t bt/fght cn b cntd pn.
'v lglly crrd fr yrs, nd nvr hd t vn pll th wpn. Nvrthlss, wld fl fr sfr f vry lw bdng ctzn nt nly wnd pstl, bt crrd. Trst m, w wld hv lmst zr crm, nd ys, sm ccdnts.
Th Stt shld smply qlfy ctzns FR tms yr t crry. Ths wld ntl qlfyng crs nd bsc sfty, tc.
[Editor: ignore=off]You urban sophisticates should have a look at Canada's experience with a long-gun registration system. It cost billions and continues to cost $$$ every year, and of course, like all attempts to 'control guns', it does absolutely nothing but make soccer moms 'feel safer'. No impact on public safety, no impact on crime, no impact on the ability of evil men to get guns.
I'm a wacko lefty BTW, voted for Nader the last two presidential elections and I'm looking forward to voting for Obama this time around. I'm also a member of the ACLU. The key is to remember that the WHOLE bill of rights is important, not just those parts that you personally find palatable.
Posted by AminCan at April 14, 2007 09:02 PM