• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Bernie Sanders Blames Guns for Orlando Nightclub Massacre

Gun Flag

Erstwhile contender for the Democratic nomination Bernie Sanders had this to say about Sunday’s massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando:

“I believe that in this country, we should not be selling automatic weapons which are designed to kill people,” Sanders said, according to an emailed statement from NBC. “We have got to do everything that we can on top of that to make sure that guns do not fall into the hands of people who should not have them, criminals, people who are mentally ill.”

The Vermont senator called the shooting “horrific” and “unthinkable,” adding that he believes there to exist “a very broad consensus in this country” between most, but not all, gun owners who believe “we have got to do everything that we can to prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who should not have them. That means expanding the instant background checks, it means doing away with the gun show loophole, it means addressing the straw man provision.”

Sanders is absolutely right that we should do more to make it harder for criminals and the insane to get access to weapons. Instant background checks, already the law in commercial sales, certainly make sense. Gun shows should get no special dispensations. [UPDATE:  And they don’t.]

But nothing Sanders is proposing here would have stopped yesterday’s outrage.

It has been illegal for Americans to privately possess automatic weapons—which continue firing while the trigger is depressed and ammunition being fed—for nearly a century now. [UPDATE: It’s more complicated than that; but it’s exceedingly difficult for a private individual to purchase and possess an automatic weapon legally.]  Yesterday’s spree was carried out using semi-automatic weapons, which fire one round every time the trigger is pulled. That’s true of AR-15-type “assault rifles” but also most pistols as well.

While there were all manner of clues that the shooter was hot-tempered and loathsome, he was neither a convicted criminal nor certified insane. He has been “on the radar” of the FBI but they had not found evidence with which to charge him with a crime.

There are now allegations, which I believe, that he battered his ex-wife. But we can not take away citizens’ fundamental rights on mere allegation.

Based on what we know now, he purchased the weapons used in the crime legally. Presumably, he was subjected to a background check. Regardless, he would have passed it given the aforementioned lack of a record. He didn’t buy the guns from a gun show. But, again, he would have passed a check there, too. He bought only two weapons and bought them directly; the straw man provision** doesn’t apply here.

None of that’s to say we shouldn’t change the law. The proposals are indeed “common sense” and ones I’ve supported in the past. They’re likely to make it slightly more difficult for the most incompetent criminals to get guns and to help us keep tabs of large stashes of them.  But the victims at Pulse would still be lost had we done everything Sanders is asking for.

_____________
*But nor do I think they should face additional burdens. A commercial dealer of guns ought face the same strictures at a show as he would in his shop. At the same time, a private individual, whether a collector or an enthusiast, ought be able to sell or trade his guns in the same manner at a show as he would in his home. [UPDATE:  It turns out that this is exactly what the law has said since 1998. The “gun show loophole” doesn’t exist per se. Dealers have been required to conduct background checks since 1998, regardless of venue. Private citizens who occasionally sell guns have never been required to do so, regardless of venue. The “loophole” is that it’s theoretically possible for someone to routinely sell guns, regardless of venue, without becoming a licensed dealer and that gun shows make a convenient venue.]

**It seems obvious that one shouldn’t be allowed to buy guns and resell them with the express purpose of skirting the law, whether to avoid criminal background checks or restrictions on the quantity purchased. At the same time, people ought to be able to buy a weapon as a gift for a friend or with the intent to sell it for a profit later, taking reasonable measures to ensure they’re not transferring said weapons to those not legally eligible to possess them.

Related Posts:

About James Joyner
James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway, an associate professor of security studies at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. He earned a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter.

Comments

  1. steve s says:

    People in Belgium, France, Canada, Japan, etc, for some reason don’t feel the need to post those “It’s Not The Guns It’s _____” memes every few days. I wonder why. Surely they also have angry people, and poverty, and maladjusted males….

    …it’s almost like there’s one big thing that we have, that makes all this tragedy possible…..

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 5

  2. steve s says:

    I’m of two minds on this. Part of me thinks millennials will at some point say “Why are you elderly idiots even Having this conversation?” and figure out how to ban the shit out of guns, and it’ll be over.

    Or the constitution will prove too much of an obstacle, and we’ll just have 30,000 gun deaths a year indefinitely. That’s not an existential threat. We haven’t banned cigarettes, and they kill 10x as many people every year.

    Third option, some more liberal SCOTUS justices reestablish the previous interpretation of the 2nd amendment as not conveying an individual right, and then a few liability statutes make guns enough of a headache that access goes way down.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7

  3. pylon says:

    The sheer number of victims indicates that he may have been using high volume magazines. Surely there can be limits on that sort of thing, which are not necessary for sport, target or defensive shooting.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2

  4. pylon says:

    The sheer number of victims indicates that he may have been using high volume magazines. Surely there can be limits on that sort of thing, which are not necessary for sport, target or defensive shooting.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  5. michael reynolds says:

    How about we start with some easy things:

    1) Large capacity clips. There is absolutely no legitimate use for a 30 round magazine.

    2) Stop Congress blocking research into gun safety and gun deaths.

    3) Stop exempting gun manufacturers from ordinary consumer protections.

    4) Anyone on the terrorist watch list or the no-fly list should be stopped from buying a gun.

    There is no rational argument against any of these points. None impinges in any way on the 2d amendment. To the extent the NRA opposes these measures, it does so not for the good of gun owners, but from their real masters, the gun makers who profit directly from massacres like that in Orlando.

    These are helpful but obviously not sufficient. Long-term we have to change the gun culture in this country. In the end we need gun owners to voluntarily choose a better path and to stop enabling terrorists and assorted murderers and suicides.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 6

  6. Raoul says:

    It is not complicated:the sale of assault weapons needs to be banned. Quick trigger guns (10 bullets a second) are assault weapons. More complicated- whether we should develop a “no guns” list after some kind of proceeding.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

  7. steve s says:

    In the end we need gun owners to voluntarily choose a better path and to stop enabling terrorists and assorted murderers and suicides.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4

  8. michael reynolds says:

    @steve s:

    You’re wrong to laugh. Minds can be changed, they are in fact being changed generationally. We need to move to stigmatize gun owners the way we stigmatize everyone from litterers to pedophiles.

    I have a specific mechanism in mind: as a parent, I should know whether my kids are playing at a house where a gun is present. I should know whether students have access to guns. My rights to protect my children are as important as some other person’s right to own a gun. I think we should require disclosure of any home where guns are present.

    Now, gun owners will of course lie, but if they do they should be held civilly liable for any subsequent gun accident or crime.

    No need for new laws, no need for government action, a school board could lay down the requirement, just as they require certain inoculations, or anti-lice protocols, just as they require emergency contact numbers, etc… Demand disclosure. Those without guns will comply easily, some of those with guns will comply, and those who don’t comply have self-identified by process of elimination. That’s how you stigmatize.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5

  9. gVOR08 says:

    I haven’t seen the primary weapon used in Orlando identified beyond “assault style rifle”. I expect the assault weapons ban in force from 1994 to 2004, which included a large magazine ban, would have made this shooting a lot more difficult. I’m not sure how the Robert’s Court, with Scalia, would have ruled on any challenge, but the ban survived challenge while in force. It died because it had a ten year sunset and the political climate in ’04 wouldn’t allow renewal.

    While the ban was in force I believe it was possible to buy perfectly suitable target and hunting rifles. Such a ban runs afoul of “You’re not the boss of me.”, but it’s hard to see how an inability to buy pretend assault rifles is a real hardship.

    I say this to underline the point that yes, there are common sense things we can do. They won’t solve the whole problem, but they’d be a step and the cost/benefit would be good.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  10. gVOR08 says:

    At the same time, a private individual, whether a collector or an enthusiast, ought be able to sell or trade his guns in the same manner at a show as he would in his home.

    I would think it reasonable to treat it like a private sale, trade, or gift of a car. A title has to be transferred through a state agency, which would conduct the background check. But then I’m a fanatic who would also support mandatory insurance.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1

  11. Hal_10000 says:

    3) Stop exempting gun manufacturers from ordinary consumer protections.

    They aren’t. If they make a defective produce or break the law, they can be sued or prosecuted by the government. What they can not be sued for is someone using a legal product to do bad things. It’s the same reason you can’t sue Chevy if they someone crashes into you unless the car was defective in some way.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

  12. Jenos Idanian says:

    But nor do I think they should face additional burdens. A commercial dealer of guns ought face the same strictures at a show as he would in his shop. At the same time, a private individual, whether a collector or an enthusiast, ought be able to sell or trade his guns in the same manner at a show as he would in his home.

    Congratulations, you’ve just described the state of the law as it exists right now. The “gun show loophole” is a complete myth, pushed by people who have been told it’s a fraud, had it explained how it’s a fraud, and refuse to accept reality.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8

  13. Mu says:

    James, please don’t post about stuff you have no clue about.
    Automatic weapons are not illegal to possess. There are tons of them out there in private hands.
    In 1932 the federal government tried to regulate them, but, as guns were state controlled, had to find a legal way to do it. So they decided to introduce a tax stamp required for transfer. They set the tax at $200, and also made it apply to short barrelled rifles and shotguns, as well as silencers. As most weapons at the time cast a fraction of that $200 this made commercial production and sales unprofitable due to greatly reduced volumes.
    In 1968 the NRA made registration of these weapons mandatory even if they hadn’t been yet subject to the transfer stamp. This included an amnesty for weapons brought in from wars etc. Still, the only requirement legally was the tax stamp, and the general eligibility to buy a gun. There was also a requirement to get “chief of law enforcement” approval what led to a silent prohibition in some areas as sheriffs and chiefs of police refused to sign. This in turn was overcome by starting trust funds to hold the weapons, as companies were not required to get the approval.
    The big hammer came down in 1986 when, again via an administrative fiat, no more new automatic weapons were added to the register. This lead to a tightening supply of guns, and resulted in a great increase in price. A freely transferable (pre-May 1986) M16 goes for $20,000 and more while the same weapon without that transfer right is worth $2000.
    Nevertheless, if you have the money you can buy a 50 cal M2 machine gun or a M134 minigun (the 6000 rpm Gatling gun seen in many movies) as a civilian; so transfer approval takes months.
    Oddly enough, since the weapons are so valuable they hardly show up in crime statistics, one recent article claimed only a single known murder committed with a registered class III gun since 1990.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

  14. Deserttrek says:

    @Mu: thank for sanity in an insane place

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

  15. michael reynolds says:

    @Hal_10000:

    Ordinary consumer protections also allow the government to insist on safety equipment, like seat belts in cars. We require seatbelts to be installed and require them to be used. Why can’t we do the same with trigger locks or gun safes?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

  16. R. Dave says:

    @michael reynolds: 4) Anyone on the terrorist watch list or the no-fly list should be stopped from buying a gun.

    I think there’s a very rationale reason to oppose this one – the terrorst watch list and no-fly list are almost completely opaque, secretive processes, and the right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated Constitutional right, so using the former to strip people of the latter is a gross violation of due process. In the long run, normalizing secretive violations of due process (which is already happening, as evidenced by the fact that the same liberals who opposed the no-fly list on civil rights grounds are now advocating to expand it’s use) is a far greater danger to this country than guns.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  17. JKB says:

    What do the Paris attack and the Orlando attack have in common?

    a) Radical Islam

    b) anti-gay/homophobia

    c) American gun rights

    d) nothing, they were totally different

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6

  18. JKB says:

    @R. Dave:

    Using the no-fly and terrorist lists would either eviscerate the Constitution (a Progressive goal, see Woodrow Wilson)

    or it would open the lists up to not only revealing someone was on the list, but also the placement and reasoning for placing up for judicial review and challenge by the named individual. (something the US intelligence, FBI and Homeland Security oppose)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  19. Bob@Youngstown says:

    @Mu:

    Automatic weapons are not illegal to possess.

    Agreed, but they are highly regulated

    The AR-15 (legally) modified that PERFORMS the same as a fully automatic weapon….. not regulated any more than a single shot .22 rifle.

    In case you missed it here’s how.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  20. JKB says:

    *But nor do I think they should face additional burdens. A commercial dealer of guns ought face the same strictures at a show as he would in his shop. At the same time, a private individual, whether a collector or an enthusiast, ought be able to sell or trade his guns in the same manner at a show as he would in his home.

    That is the current law. FFL commercial dealers must already follow all the same procedures at gun show venue as required in their shop.

    Less than 1.5% of all firearms in the possession of those incarcerated at the time of their arrest were obtained via gun shows or flea markets. (No indication as to their lawful purchase status when they obtained their firearms at the gun show or flea market)

    And that is just possession, with no indication that the crime the caused their incarceration involved gun use.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  21. gVOR08 says:

    @Mu: So what you’re saying is that while it’s not illegal, as a matter of practicality, private citizens can’t purchase automatic weapons. Well, that makes all the difference. How could James have made such a gross error?

    @R. Dave: Isn’t the real problem the lack of due process and transparency of the no-fly list? I was on it for awhile. Apparently someone with my very common name did something, somewhere. Eventually an airline agent told me to check in at the counter with my passport and I had no further trouble, (Remember when they had a row of nice people at a counter at the entrance to help you?) Eventually they did improve the system and the issue went away.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  22. Mu says:

    @Bob@Youngstown: Bob, I’m no longer getting in pro-or con arguments on this site when it comes to guns. I was just trying to set the record straight on the myth of illegal automatic weapons. As for the conversion, the legal difference between an AR 15 and a M 16 receiver is a single pin-hole for the trigger group. And you can buy conversion kits for M1 carbines legally (as long as you don’t have a M1, that would be construed as constructive possession).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  23. Bob@Youngstown says:

    @JKB:

    FFL commercial dealers must already follow all the same procedures at gun show venue

    If ALL gun sales at a gun show event were FFL dealers…..but when show promoters permit (or avert their eyes) to non-FFL sales…. then it creates a problem

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  24. Mu says:

    @gVOR08:
    http://www.gunbroker.com/Machine-Guns/BI.aspx
    And the paperwork takes about 20 min. It’s strictly the waiting for the ATF to send their approval that’s the hold-up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. OzarkHillbilly says:

    Ban assault weapons. Ban expanded round magazines. Hell, ban detachable magazines and limit the # of rounds a gun can hold. NOBODY needs one of these weapons of war. Unless they are planning on killing a whole bunch of people.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

  26. michael reynolds says:

    @R. Dave:

    It’s a far greater danger to stop people buying guns than allowing them to? By what twisted logic? There is quite literally no down side, zero, to stopping anyone buying a gun since the research shows quite clearly that possessing a gun greatly increases your odds of ending up dead from suicide, accident or murder.

    So, no, there is no rational reason to stop being on a no-fly or terrorist list. They can follow the procedures to get themselves off the list.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  27. stonetools says:

    James is a Persian Gulf War veteran, so maybe he might know a little something about automatic weapons.
    @Mu:

    Oddly enough, since the weapons are so valuable they hardly show up in crime statistics, one recent article claimed only a single known murder committed with a registered class III gun since 1990.

    So strict regulation of automatic weapons was and is effective in lowering the homicide rate with those weapons. Glad we laid the myth that regulation doesn’t work to rest

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  28. Bob@Youngstown says:

    @Mu:

    I’m no longer getting in pro-or con arguments on this site when it comes to guns.

    Appreciate that.

    My point is that the distinction between semi-auto and auto fire OUGHT to include functionality and not to be defined solely on mechanics or label.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  29. michael reynolds says:

    @JKB:

    You’re right, they don’t get guns as often through the gun show loophole as they do through straw man buyers or private sales or theft from a legal owner.

    The disease has many vectors, all of which you wish to keep open on the paranoid expectation that some day you’ll be involved in a shootout with the government or else a race war. You and your cult are incapable of seeing the unmistakable havoc you and your cult wreak on American life. Or else you just don’t care that 49 people are dead and 50 more are in the hospital.

    You want me to condemn radical islamic terrorism? I do. You want me to agree that a lot of these people are mentally unbalanced? I do. So why in the name of God do idiots like you insist on arming those radical Islamic terrorists and mentally ill people?

    You’re the nut. You’re the crazy person. You are actively aiding the cause of radical Islamic terror, as well as enabling toddlers to shoot their friends, teenagers to shoot themselves, men to shoot women. That’s what you fight for.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 4

  30. stonetools says:

    None of that’s to say we shouldn’t change the law.

    James, there are many changes to the law that have worked to sharply lower the rate of mass killings in other countries. I like the Canadian scheme best but there are others. In particular, the waiting period required by Canada may have given this nut job time to cool off. The requirement that he pass a safety training course may have screened him out as well. An instructor may have decided after examining him, that he was just too unstable to be trusted with semi-automatic weapons.
    The point is that better laws can help, and that the gun lobby and the Republicans oppose better laws on principle.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  31. Jack says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Ordinary consumer protections also allow the government to insist on safety equipment, like seat belts in cars. We require seatbelts to be installed and require them to be used. Why can’t we do the same with trigger locks or gun safes?

    A seat belt does not prevent use of the vehicle.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

  32. Jack says:

    @stonetools:

    So strict regulation of automatic weapons was and is effective in lowering the homicide rate with those weapons. Glad we laid the myth that regulation doesn’t work to rest

    No. The outrageous cost of a fully automatic firearm has prevented their use in crimes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  33. stonetools says:

    @R. Dave:

    I think there’s a very rationale reason to oppose this one – the terrorst watch list and no-fly list are almost completely opaque, secretive processes, and the right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated Constitutional right, so using the former to strip people of the latter is a gross violation of due process.

    A great argument for a better watch list, with due process requirements added.

    Not an argument for never using such lists at well.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  34. Jack says:

    @stonetools:

    In particular, the waiting period required by Canada may have given this nut job time to cool off. The requirement that he pass a safety training course may have screened him out as well. An instructor may have decided after examining him, that he was just too unstable to be trusted with semi-automatic weapons.

    Jane you ignorant slut.

    1. He was a licensed security guard, working for a firm that provides security for nuclear facilities. So he passed some very tight background checks, and had a status that would have exempted him from most gun laws. (Even in DC, licensed security guards can carry. The peasants are to be trusted when they protect the nobleman’s property).

    2. He attacked (as seems to always be the case) in a gun-free zone. He must not have read the law. And this being Florida, home of “shall issue” concealed carry permits, gun free zones are about the only place where mass murder is feasible.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13

  35. Jack says:

    So a Moslem attacks unarmed American citizens in the name of his death cult, attempting to change a lifestyle he does not agree with and in Bernie’s opinion, the answer is to strip the rights of millions of other American citizens whom you do not agree with, who did not commit an atrocious act, of their freedoms on the altar of “gun safety”?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 13

  36. steve s says:

    I hope Jack’s still alive when we finally decide to take his guns. Watching him chicken out will be hilarious.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

  37. Mu says:

    @stonetools: I know next to nothing about automatic weapons use At $20 for 3 sec it’s a way overrated fun. I did research the legal aspects for a collectible. James hopefully knows a lot about the use. He just didn’t bother to look at the legal aspects.
    And I agree that reasonable regulations would do a lot in regards to gun safety. Unfortunately “reasonable” has never been the strong suit of US politicians. Whether guns or abortion, it can only be all out victory, not a compromise.
    I’ve been proposing a gun buyers card for years, something everybody can get, and that can be instantly verified online or via a phone.
    But it doesn’t establish traceability, what is the real goal of most “gun control” initiatives from the left. And we all know what the NRA will say.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  38. Jc says:

    Something tells me had there been a weapon that could fire 30 successive rounds back in the post revolutionary war period, that the old founding fathers would have been sympathetic to the idea of creating laws to restrict certain residents with known sympathies towards the British, Native Americans etc…from owning said firearm, nevermind two, three or four – but then I forget they used to have community gun sales, would open carry to their local pub or markets, would have fun at their local shooting range or gun club, started associations to promote gun ownership…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  39. Jack says:

    @steve s: I hope you are front and center when they try.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  40. Jc says:

    @Jack: “Orlando Police Chief John Mina said an off-duty police officer working security at the club in uniform traded gunfire with the attacker.” Man, if only that off duty armed officer was “Jack” – Unfortunately great shots and heroes like “Jack” are rare superheroes indeed. After his coffee, Fox morning news and his morning meds, Jack is ready!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1

  41. R. Dave says:

    @michael reynolds: The downside is undermining due process norms. Casually saying they can just follow the process for getting off the list is an example of exactly that. It’s virtually impossible to get off the list once you’re on. In fact, it’s virtually impossible to even find out whether you’re on the list in the first place prior to being turned away at the airport (or, in this case, at the gun store), and once you do find out, it’s virtually impossible to find out why you’re on the list so you can challenge those reasons. And again, think about what you’re saying constitutes “due process” – the government makes a secret decision to put you on a list based on secret evidence, being on that list results in the loss of Constitutional rights, and the accused has the burden of proof to demonstrate their innocence in order to get off the list and recover their rights. It’s a complete reversal of how due process works!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  42. R. Dave says:

    @stonetools wrote: A great argument for a better watch list, with due process requirements added.

    Sure, and when that’s been taken care of, we can talk about expanding the use of the lists. Until then, this entire conversation reflects the erosion of Constitutional norms that the “War on Terror” (and the “War on Drugs” before it) has wrought.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  43. PJ says:

    @pylon:

    Surely there can be limits on that sort of thing, which are not necessary for sport, target or defensive shooting.

    You have clearly never been attacked by dozens of rabid opossums.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  44. michael reynolds says:

    @Jack:

    Trigger locks and gun safes also don’t prevent the use of a gun by the person with they key or the combination. It does however help to keep a three year-old from picking up a gun and blowing a hole in his sister and spending the rest of his life living with the consequences.

    But of course you don’t care about that. Because you don’t care about anything but guns, guns, guns, guns. You’re like a person with tuberculosis complaining that Kleenex stop him from sneezing his disease onto healthy people. It’s all just about you, your needs, your hero fantasies, the nonsense that clogs your little brain.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2

  45. steve s says:

    @Jack: Yeah, the Bundys used to talk big too.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  46. Bob@Youngstown says:

    @Jack:

    The outrageous cost of a fully automatic firearm has prevented their use in crimes.

    So now that the cost of a weapon that performs as a fully automatic weapon is much more affordable to the garden-variety crazy…. we see that becoming the weapon of choice for mass killings.

    Got it !

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  47. steve s says:

    I shouldn’t compare Jack to the Bundys. They had the tiniest bit of guts.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  48. michael reynolds says:

    @R. Dave:

    I’d be worried about due process except for the obvious fact that you have no need of a gun in the first place, and your insistence on owning one ipso facto makes you a danger to the public. The public good outweighs your need to own an arsenal.

    Complaining that it’s a burden getting off the list is like complaining that the DMV is slow. Yes: so what? So it takes you two weeks to get clearance to buy a gun you don’t need and which presents a danger to innocent people. Good.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

  49. Tony W says:

    @R. Dave: But, then, your argument is with the secrecy of the no-fly list. Not its use in firearm restrictions.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  50. Tony W says:

    @michael reynolds: “Two weeks? But I’m angry now!”

    paraphrased Homer Simpson

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  51. Bob@Youngstown says:

    @Jack:
    Is your convention in Cleveland going to be a gun-free zone?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  52. grumpy realist says:

    I wonder how people like Jack think that we can have regulations that “keep guns out of the hands of the Muslim terrorists” without a) being implemented against everyone else as well, or b) be found unconstitutional.

    I mean, you’re not demanding that Muslims be treated unequally from non-Muslims under law, are you?

    So what’s your solution? (Good luck at getting rid of the First Amendment, by the way. I think the average American is more likely to vote to repeal the Second Amendment first.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  53. Jack says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Trigger locks and gun safes also don’t prevent the use of a gun by the person with they key or the combination.

    It certainly does prevent my use of the gun. Do you really suggest I ask a burglar to wait a minute while I remove my trigger lock or get my gun from the safe?

    Yes, it is about my needs. They are my guns. I don’t need to worry about anyone else’s needs when it comes to my guns. There are no kids in my house.

    Besides, right after they make that law and someone dies anyway you will suggest that police do warrantless searches to make sure people are using them. What a great liberal you are.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

  54. Jack says:

    @steve s: If you recall, the Federal government backed down from the Bundy’s, cupcake.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

  55. Jack says:

    @michael reynolds:

    you have no need of a gun in the first place

    It’s called a Bill of Rights. Not a Bill of Needs.

    You have no need for your big house. You have no need of your fast car. You have no need for all of the things your wealth affords you. See how that works out?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

  56. Jack says:

    @grumpy realist:

    keep guns out of the hands of the Muslim terrorists

    This guy was a known quantity and should have had his firearms removed after the domestic violence incidents.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  57. Jack says:

    @Bob@Youngstown: Why are you asking a question for which you already know the answer. The Secret Service is in charge of the security in Cleveland and they say no guns. I don’t know why they have that authority, but apparently they do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  58. steve s says:

    Jack’s a Bundy who imagines himself a Finicum.

    That’s fine, we know how to deal with both. 😀

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  59. Jc says:

    @Jack: “”Do you really suggest I ask a burglar to wait a minute while I remove my trigger lock or get my gun from the safe?” Please Jack, we know for you one is always within arms reach, probably sitting right near the computer mouse calling out to you as your temple is pulsing reading innerweb threads…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  60. Jack says:

    @steve s:

    we know how to deal with both

    Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Who is this we?

    What you are suggesting is sending armed agents of the government to retrieve my guns. Please, show up yourself, cupcake.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  61. michael reynolds says:

    @Jack:

    My house kills children?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  62. Jack says:

    @Jc: I work on a military installation. So, yeah. You are wrong again.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  63. steve s says:

    In reality, we should be optimistic. Another 2-3 SCOTUS justices appointed by Hillary, and they’ll focus on the first 13 words of the 2nd Amendment, and it’ll all be over but the gun fondlers’ whining.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  64. Scott F. says:

    @michael reynolds:

    If the death of 20 elementary school children doesn’t move the needle on stigmatizing gun fetishism, then I have little reason to hope that 53 dead LGTB will do the trick.

    I have no problem with the mechanism you describe to improve disclosure of gun owners. I think the recent Ninth Circuit ruling on Concealed Carry could also benefit in that area, as Open Carry at least helps the casual bystander know who feels it’s important to pack heat at the grocery store on a Tuesday afternoon.

    But, it’s going to be a very long and bloody slog to reach a critical mass of gun owners choosing restrictions on their “freedom” in order to curb the proliferation of guns in the US. The absolutist gun loving faction is much louder if not any bigger than the forces for reasonable gun ownership and even the reasonable gun owners have bought into the slippery slope arguments of the NRA where even the tiniest concession ends with gun confiscation.

    The hearts and minds path may be the only way to an end of all the gun deaths in this country, but it will be a very long time in coming and many more will die before that day comes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  65. Jack says:

    @steve s:

    In reality, we should be optimistic. Another 2-3 SCOTUS justices appointed by Hillary, and they’ll focus on the first 13 words of the 2nd Amendment, and it’ll all be over but the gun fondlers’ whining.

    “The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” US v. Cruikshank

    Decided way back in 1875, cupcake.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

  66. R. Dave says:

    @michael reynolds wrote: I’d be worried about due process except for the obvious fact that you have no need of a gun in the first place….

    Perhaps, but like it or not, it’s listed right there next to all the other fundamental rights, so undermining one necessarily undermines them all. If there’s a compelling reason to restrict gun rights as severely as the No-Buy List (TM) would – i.e., by putting the burden on the citizen to prove their innocence – then fine, but we should do so by amending the Constitution to remove or revise the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise, we’re just doing an end-run around due process in order to restrict an enumerated right, and that precedent, and the norm it represents, is hugely worrisome.

    I mean hell, we’re living in a world where there’s a bipartisan consensus that a future President Trump can reinstate the use of torture on day one with the stroke of a pen, permanently imprison non-citizens without a trial, order the execution of American citizens on foreign soil on the basis of secret evidence and secret legal analysis, gather massive amounts of private information about everyone everywhere, etc., etc. We are not in a good place right now when it comes to norms about the balance between arbitrary use of government power and individual rights.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  67. Jack says:

    @Scott F.:

    the casual bystander know who feels it’s important to pack heat at the grocery store on a Tuesday afternoon.

    20 May 2016: Grocery store stabbing video released; mother, daughter recovering

    http://wsvn.com/news/local/video-released-of-grocery-store-stabbing-that-injured-mother-daughter/

    You really are clueless.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  68. steve s says:

    You’ll be yelling about US v Cruikshank while you impotently text your buddies, while the nice young men from the government secure your illegal weapons.

    Have a nice day!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  69. James Joyner says:

    @steve s: But Sanders isn’t talking about banning guns, which is simply a non-starter here. I think his measures make sense independently of this case but that the case does nothing to illustrate their value.

    @michael reynolds: I’m sellable on all of those measures; I’m just not sure they would do much good. There are so many 30-round magazines out there that someone intent on shooting up a nightclub can surely find some. Murdering people is already against the law and spree killers like this mostly figure on going out in a blaze of glory.

    @Mu: Ah, my mistake. I knew about the 1932 law (which I thought was even older). I know lots of people who own “assault rifles” of the AR-15 or AK-47 variety and none who own belt-fed machine guns.

    @Raoul: I’m honestly not sure what the difference is practically between an “assault rifle” and a high caliber pistol with a large magazine in terms of criminal use. On a battlefield, the rifle is superior because it can shoot effectively for longer distances and tends to be able to fire more rounds between servicing. But if you’re just trying to shoot unarmed innocents in a nightclub, a 9MM or 45 caliber pistol with a 15 round clip and a couple more in reserve would strike me as not only more effective but with the advantage of easy concealment.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  70. Jack says:

    @michael reynolds: My gun kills children???

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  71. Jc says:

    @Jack: Someone needs to do a floor check – where are you charging this time!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  72. Jack says:

    @steve s: And you will be pissing in your pants while you wait 11 minutes for the police to arrive after calling 911.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  73. Jack says:

    @Jc: Overhead.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  74. Jc says:

    @Jack: lmao – for shame

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  75. jewelbomb says:

    @Jack:

    They are my guns. I don’t need to worry about anyone else’s needs when it comes to my guns.

    Spoken like a true maniac. Seriously…who thinks like this? You do recognize that, like it or not, you exist in a society where your need to, um, feel like a tough guy, might be outweighed by other people’s right to live in relative safety. Seriously, your argument sounds like something my toddler would say when I take his toys away because it’s bedtime.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  76. steve s says:

    why would i do that? You’re not making any sense.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  77. Jack says:

    @Jc: You suggest I cannot do my job and respond to this post. It’s called multi-tasking. It’s like when you pick your nose while talking to people.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  78. Jack says:

    @jewelbomb:

    feel like a tough guy, might be outweighed by other people’s right to live in relative safety

    First, I don’t need to feel like a tough guy. I have guns to DEFEND myself and my wife.

    Second, there is no right to live in relative safety.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

  79. steve s says:

    Seriously, your argument sounds like something my toddler would say when I take his toys away because its bedtime.

    your toddler probably puts up more of a fight than Jack would. Jack is compensating.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  80. Guarneri says:

    “There is quite literally no down side, zero, to stopping anyone buying a gun since the research shows quite clearly that possessing a gun greatly increases your odds of ending up dead from suicide, accident or murder.”

    Why lie? Aggregating statistics is one of the oldest acts of deception in the book. Two thirds of those deaths are from suicide and accident, and the vast majority of those are suicide. Don’t protect people from themselves.

    You want to stop murders, acts of aggression by one party against another. Fine. But the strong majority of those are gang, and therefore drug, related.

    If you really want to make headway focus on drug laws and stop this inane refusal to acknowledge real threats like radical Islam. Else this is just ghoulish political opportunism to hide the real agenda.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  81. gVOR08 says:

    @michael reynolds:

    ,,,as well as enabling toddlers to shoot their friends, teenagers to shoot themselves, men to shoot women.

    And anybody to shoot themselves, wives to shoot husbands (albeit rarer), and my favorite, Florida man to fatally shoot self by accident after threatening to shoot wife’s dog. (Pro tip – If you cock the thing and don’t fire it, don’t let it roll up and point at your head as you let the hammer down.) The toddler shoots somebody thing happens about once a week fergawdsake.

    I don’t know how people get around the fact that the thing is useless for home defense if it’s locked up, but if it isn’t, it’s a far greater threat to you and yours than some hypothetical home invader.(Rhetorical question – motivated reasoning.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  82. Bob@Youngstown says:

    @Jack: Why am I asking ? Because sooo many of the gun advocates (including Trump) seem to think that these zones attract mass shooters, like bees to honey.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  83. jewelbomb says:

    @Jack:

    First, I don’t need to feel like a tough guy. I have guns to DEFEND myself and my wife.

    Seriously, rational people don’t think like this. Despite the visibility of recent attacks, we’re actually a very safe country and, as has been pointed out before, you’re more likely to injure yourself, a friend, or your wife with your own firearm than you are to stop a scary, scary intruder. In short, you have guns because it makes you feel better, not because they are actually effective in self-defense.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  84. gVOR08 says:

    @Guarneri:

    Don’t protect people from themselves.

    You want to stop murders, acts of aggression by one party against another. Fine. But the strong majority of those are gang, and therefore drug, related.

    Why don’t I want to protect people from themselves? Reducing the ready availability of guns reduces suicides. And I also want to protect people from accidentally shooting themselves, as well as their family members, friends, parents, passers by, neighbors, and pets. I find it characteristically conservative to feel that suicides and accidents somehow don’t really count.

    I also see no practical and constitutional way to prevent gang bangers from getting guns without making it harder for other people to get guns. And yes, ending the War on Drugs would be the easiest way to reduce inner city violence.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  85. Tony W says:

    @gVOR08:

    I also see no practical and constitutional way to prevent gang bangers from getting guns without making it harder for other people to get guns.

    Yep, and the “do nothing, because what you want to do wouldn’t have prevented xxxx” crowd keeps on winning.

    At some point we need to do something.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  86. Lit3Bolt says:

    Deadliest terrorist attack since 9/11.

    Conservative response: “He used a gun. Nothing can be done about that.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  87. michael reynolds says:

    @Jack:

    So you admit that you store your gun in an unsafe way. Right where a burglar can steal it. Right where you can grab it and shoot your wife. Right where your kids can get it and shoot themselves.

    You’ve just put the lie to all the NRA crapola about safe, responsible gun owners. You are neither. You’re a nut with a gun, a danger to your neighbors and society at large. Thank you for confirming what we all knew.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  88. michael reynolds says:

    @Guarneri:

    Don’t protect people from themselves.

    Don’t stop a depressed 15 year-old from killing herself?

    Creep.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2

  89. steve s says:

    And yes, ending the War on Drugs would be the easiest way to reduce inner city violence.

    Inner city violence has gone way down since the early 90’s. Long story short, first we brain-damaged millions of inner-city babies with tetraethyl lead (because inside cities is where the pollution was concentrated), then we spent decades profiling, arresting, and incarcerating them once they grew up and had (duh) behavior problems.

    America has never stopped hurting minority citizens.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  90. Andre Kenji says:

    “Common sense measures” would make very little difference. You´d have do completely ban automatic rifles and pistols(Not ban “assault rifles”, ban all kinds automatic firearms) and require gun owners to have a license(That could be taken away, like a driver license). Yes, you´d have to take away guns from most people.

    There is no political climate for that.

    Anyone with an automatic rifle can kill lots of people in a school or anywhere where there are people concentrated, Take the infamous 1986 Miami-FBI shootout, where two bank robbers managed to kill two FBI agents and to wound five with an automatic rifle, even being outnumbered 4 to 1.

    You can´t stop every single loser that wants to buy an automatic rifle and kill dozens of people at a nightclub, school or a church.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  91. gVOR08 says:

    @Andre Kenji: Before the gun language parsers get on you, I assume you are using “automatic” in the common vernacular usage to describe semi-automatic weapons.

    In terms of traditional usage: hunting, target shooting, even protection, there are perfectly adequate revolvers, pump shot guns, and bolt action rifles. The German, Japanese, British, and Russian armies got through most of WWII with bolt action rifles. You’re right, politically we aren’t at a point to allow a ban on semi-auto. But over time revulsion over 30,000 shot dead every year may trump even the NRA. I was going to say “trump 2nd amendment absolutism”, but this really revolves around politically driven court decisions, not the amendment itself. The Supremes were OK with a collective right for 200 years.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  92. Scott F. says:

    @Jack:

    You’re absolutely right, Jack. That situation would have resolved much more calmly had the mother been carrying an AR-17.

    Hey, Jack. I’m cool with you packing heat at the grocery store if you’re so inclined. I’ve been to dozens of different grocery stores hundreds of different times without incident, but I probably lack your keen awareness of imminent danger, so knock yourself out. All I’m asking is that you wear your gun proudly, so I and others in the store can see you coming from far away and treat you will the appropriate awe and admiration.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  93. stonetools says:

    @Jack:

    Jane you ignorant slut.

    Why thanks for that rational, considered start. The ad hominem is a sure tell the rest of the argument is bullsh#t.

    1. He was a licensed security guard, working for a firm that provides security for nuclear facilities. So he passed some very tight background checks, and had a status that would have exempted him from most gun laws. (Even in DC, licensed security guards can carry. The peasants are to be trusted when they protect the nobleman’s property).

    You and I both know you don’t know anything about what his background checks were. I suspect they weren’t much, since they missed his domestic violence and his unstable character. But thanks for speculating.

    2. He attacked (as seems to always be the case) in a gun-free zone. He must not have read the law. And this being Florida, home of “shall issue” concealed carry permits, gun free zones are about the only place where mass murder is feasible.

    Proven wrong. An armed guard was there. Strangely enough, the good guy with a gun did not stop the bad guy with a gun shooting 100 people. The only good thing to come out of this tragedy is that this piece of mythology has been shown to be nonsense in the clearest possible way, along with “The police are minutes away, when seconds count” canard. So two of the NRA’s favorite arguments were blown to smithereens by this incident.
    I remember the NRA also arguing that in a “shall issue” state, the more people going around legally armed, the safer the state would be. That argument was also destroyed by this incident.

    Oh well, thanks for playing.You can pick up a door prize on the way out.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  94. stonetools says:

    @James Joyner:

    I maintain that the the best way to stop unstable people from getting semi-automatic weapons is to have a requirement that anyone purchasing such a weapon pass a safety training course given by an instructor trained to spot “lone wacko types”. Canada has such a regime, and as a result, there are very few mass shootings in Canada. Generally, the “lone wacko” is not going to get past the trained human observer, although it can happen.
    Another way to screen out the lone wacko is to have a requirement that three people vouch in writing. for his good character. I have a feeling that this guy would have a hard time finding three people to vouch for his fitness to own an AR 15. Also, its possible that with a mandatory waiting period, the guy might have reconsidered.
    Now, none of these things are sure shot solutions that will catch every wacko. But they’ll do a lot better than the present laws, which are clearly set up to allow any gun fancier to buy any weapon , in any quantity, at any time, without fear of inconvenience. That’s not a sensible and sustainable regime in an era of international terrorism and powerful firearms that enable one person to shoot 100 people. It just ain’t, no matter how much privileged gun nuts want to stamp their feet and bloviate about their “rights.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  95. An Interested Party says:

    You can pick up a door prize on the way out.

    Does he have a choice? He’d prefer yet another gun…after all, you can never be too “safe”…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  96. stonetools says:

    @Lit3Bolt:

    Deadliest terrorist attack since 9/11.

    Conservative response: “He used a gun. Nothing can be done about that.”

    The truth is far more people have been killed with guns this year than died in 9/11. This incident is just one prominent example of an ongoing mass slaughter. The response of all the gun worshippers here to all this is that “nothing can be done, because any new law will interfere with my ability to buy & play with my toys.”

    Generations yet unborn will wonder why we let a bunch of entitled sociopaths with masculinity issues drive the bus on a major issue of public safety. I’m not sure we will ever be able to explain it to them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  97. Gustopher says:

    There is really no reason to have a gun that accepts more than a handful of bullets, or that can be reloaded in three seconds.

    I get that many people in this country want to have the ability to kill and maim people quickly and easily, but shouldn’t there be some reasonable upper bound to the number of people you can kill and maim?

    I don’t see why that number has to hit double digits, let alone triple digits.

    You don’t need to shoot 100 people for self-defense. You don’t even need to shoot one person 100 times for self-defense.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  98. Jenos Idanian says:

    @jewelbomb: You do recognize that, like it or not, you exist in a society where your need to, um, feel like a tough guy, might be outweighed by other people’s right to live in relative safety. Seriously, your argument sounds like something my toddler would say when I take his toys away because it’s bedtime.

    My Constitutional rights — or anyone else’s — are not subject to your approval. We have no need to explain why we choose to exercise our rights, or get your permission beforehand. “Because you make me feel scared” is not our problem, it’s yours.

    But if you like, I’ll start a GoFundMe page so you can buy some Depends. I’ll even pledge the first nickel.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  99. Jenos Idanian says:

    @stonetools: I don’t really want to defend Jack, but in this case he’s quoting a very old Saturday Night Live bit.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  100. Jenos Idanian says:

    One more reminder: gun control grew out of the desire of Southern Democrats to keep newly-freed blacks disarmed and intimidated, and it was most rigorously enforced by the Democratic Party’s militant wing, the Ku Klux Klan.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  101. An Interested Party says:

    But if you like, I’ll start a GoFundMe page so you can buy some Depends. I’ll even pledge the first nickel.

    Considering what you have written about Islam and Muslims, you’d definitely be helping yourself with that donation…I’m sure that jewelbomb would be willing to donate those undergarments to you…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  102. An Interested Party says:

    …gun control grew out of the desire of Southern Democrats to keep newly-freed blacks disarmed and intimidated, and it was most rigorously enforced by the Democratic Party’s militant wing, the Ku Klux Klan.

    Indeed…and the descendants of those Southern Democrats became Republicans and that grew out of Nixon’s Southern Strategy as well as the GOP’s open embrace of such people and their noxious ideas about race…how perfect is it that Southern Democrats back then used Jim Crow to deny blacks the right to vote and now, their Republican descendants use voter I.D. laws to continue their ancestors’ repression tactics…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  103. Boyd says:

    @michael reynolds: We disagree on guns, but I think we should endeavor to agree on facts. The earlier mentions about the current background check law as it regards gun shows is accurate: the requirements for background checks for gun sales at gun shows are identical to the requirements for gun sales anywhere. This is true even if it’s stated by people you hate. If it helps, apply the “stopped clock is right twice a day” principle.

    Licensed dealers are required to call into NICS for background checks at gun shows, just as they’re required to do at their own brick & mortar stores (or anywhere they may be conducting business). Private sales by non-dealers at gun shows don’t require NICS checks at gun shows or anywhere else.

    Certainly, let’s disagree and discuss the merits and deficiencies of our laws regarding gun sales. But at the very least, let’s agree on the facts of the law, which are easily confirmed.

    As indicated in the link I provided above, there’s no exemption for a federal firearms licensee to bypass a NICS check at a gun show. At the very least, let’s disagree based on facts, can we?

    And James, please follow the link to find that you’re flat-out wrong about the law regarding gun shows. Please trust our long-term relationship enough to at least confirm that I’m telling you the truth here. You’re propagating…erm…inaccuracies peddled by the gun control crowd.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  104. James Joyner says:

    @Tony W:

    Yep, and the “do nothing, because what you want to do wouldn’t have prevented xxxx” crowd keeps on winning.

    At some point we need to do something.

    I agree with this. But “what you want to do wouldn’t have prevented xxxx” remains an important point. Spree shootings are what get our attention. But the main thing that “common sense gun control measures” would do is prevent accidental shootings, moment of rage killings, and suicides. That’s good! They’re just unlikely to stop a motivated psychopath from shooting up a theater or nightclub.

    @Boyd: Thanks for the clarification. It turns out that my preferred gun show rules are in fact the rules and have been for 18 years now. The “loophole” has nothing to do with gun shows and I’m not sure how we’d close it. I’ve updated the post accordingly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  105. Mu says:

    BTW closing the gun show, or better, the private transfer loop hole is probably the most difficult of all possible regulations on a federal basis. It goes straight to the heart of the constitution and state vs federal powers.Gun ownership regulations have always been state powers, and for the feds to get into regulating private non-commercial in-state transactions would take another huge leap in extending the commerce clause.
    Individual states have long outlawed all private transfers and not lost in courts on that, but it’s wide open how federal courts will look at that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  106. Pch101 says:

    @James Joyner:

    But the main thing that “common sense gun control measures” would do is prevent accidental shootings, moment of rage killings, and suicides. That’s good! They’re just unlikely to stop a motivated psychopath from shooting up a theater or nightclub.

    If guns weren’t readily available, a guy like this probably wouldn’t have been able to perpetrate his crime or inflict nearly that much damage.

    We can’t fix his attitude problem but we can make people like this less lethal. There will be the occasional exception who will be able to use a Swiss Army Knife to kill dozens or who will be able to make an accurate reliable machine gun out of common parts available at Home Depot, but such people are few and far between.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  107. stonetools says:

    @James Joyner:

    The “loophole” is that it’s theoretically possible for someone to routinely sell guns, regardless of venue, without becoming a licensed dealer and that gun shows make a convenient venue.

    James, you aren’t an ideologue, like Boyd or Mu. You should be able to see that this is a huge national security problem which terrorist groups WILL exploit at some point.

    The “loophole” has nothing to do with gun shows and I’m not sure how we’d close it.

    Swiss gun laws:

    In order to purchase most weapons, the purchaser must obtain a weapon acquisition permit (Art. 8 WG). Swiss citizens and foreigners with a C permit over the age of 18 who are not psychiatrically disqualified nor identified as posing security problems, and who have a clean criminal record can request such a permit…The following information must be provided to the cantonal weapon bureau together with the weapon application form:

    valid official identification or passport copy
    residence address
    criminal record copy not older than 3 months
    For each transfer of a weapon or an essential weapon component without weapons acquisition permit (Art. 10 WG), a written contract must be concluded. Each Party shall keep them at least ten years. The contract must include the following information (Art. 11 WG):

    Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who sells the weapon or essential weapon component
    Family name, first name, birth date, residence address and signature of the person who purchases the weapon or an essential weapon component
    Kind of weapon, manufacturer or producer, label, caliber, weapon number, and date and place of transfer;
    Type and number of official identification of the person who acquires the weapon or the essential weapon component
    and an indication of the processing of personal data in connection with the contract in accordance with the privacy policy of the Federation or the cantons, if firearms are transmitted.
    This information must be sent within 30 days to the cantonal weapon registration bureau, where the weapon holders are registered (Art. 9 WG

    Glad to be of service.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  108. al-Alameda says:

    @stonetools:

    In order to purchase most weapons, the purchaser must obtain a weapon acquisition permit (Art. 8 WG). Swiss citizens and foreigners with a C permit over the age of 18 who are not psychiatrically disqualified nor identified as posing security problems, and who have a clean criminal record can request such a permit…

    Half of Americans would never submit to a Swiss Communist system of gun control.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  109. stonetools says:

    @al-Alameda:

    Oh, I don’t know.IMO, we are at just the start of ISIS inspired mass shootings- and we haven’t even seen the real professionals show up yet. A team of ISIS fighters could fly into Dulles from Europe on Monday, order body armor over the Internet for two day delivery on Tuesday, buy 10,000 rounds of ammo from Walmart on Wednesday, buy half a dozen AR 15s from private sellers at a gun show on Friday, and launch an attack on any of a dozen soft targets in the DC area that weekend.

    That might seem like a movie script, but it certainly could happen. A few of those, and I expect attitudes on the sacredness of private gun sales would change

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  110. mannning says:

    From a number of sources, there has been the prediction of a massive credit and dollar crunch running to perhaps an 80% downturn in the market within this year. With zero credit and severely limited dollars available our economy is predicted to come apart. Then the predictions are that we will not have electricity, natural gas, gasoline, or even city water after the onset settles in. Food in stores will be nonexistent, and both city and suburban dwellers will be in desperate shape.
    The prospect of rioting in the streets, roaming bands of armed men looking for food anywhere they can find it, or even lone men desperate to make a score on other people’s stores of food, are very much before us should the predictions come true. (If they do not, then it is very little loss for the possible gain.)

    For me, this is quite sufficient reason to hold some weapons at the ready to defend the wife and myself and our city home as best we can; or, of course, to fail trying. Doing nothing for defense is no option, as far as I am concerned, and automatic weapons with large magazines just might be the best choice for home defense against one or more well-armed banditos. The AR-15 has characteristics that recommend it for my wife: it has manageable recoil, is easy to operate, and had a lot of rounds to spend when needed against intruders. She can use it to good effect, as can I. With a bit of jiggery, it can go auto, also.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  111. al-Alameda says:

    @mannning:

    From a number of sources, there has been the prediction of a massive credit and dollar crunch running to perhaps an 80% downturn in the market within this year. With zero credit and severely limited dollars available our economy is predicted to come apart. Then the predictions are that we will not have electricity, natural gas, gasoline, or even city water after the onset settles in. Food in stores will be nonexistent, and both city and suburban dwellers will be in desperate shape.

    I’ve got to ask: “number of sources” =

    __________________________

    __________________________

    __________________________

    and are any of said sources reputable?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  112. Pch101 says:

    @mannning:

    It’s difficult to read your post and to come away from it thinking, “Gee, I’m sure glad that this guy owns guns.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  113. brerrabit says:

    The guy that wrote this article is an idiot with an agenda. The U.S. Government is a 100% corrupt, Totalitarian, Police-State, that is oppressing, impoverishing, and murdering humanity every second it is allowed to exist. It has a war going on in almost every country in the world. It passes a law or a rule every other day to violate or restrict the inalieable rights of human beings. It has killed 60 million people since the end of WWII, many innocent women and children. It is owned and ran in the best interest of a handful of rich crooks to the detriment of everyone else. Citizens of the US as a result should not only possess rifles, shotguns, and pistols, but surface-to-air-missles, tanks, attack helicopters, smart-bombs, limited-nuclear weapons, etc. Why? They need to destroy this Government-the most heinous, cancerous-blight on humanity in the history of the planet.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

  114. brerrabit says:

    @Gustopher: A two-bit opinion about what others should and should not orbe able to do when they live in a 100% corrupt, Totalitarian, Police-State that has killed 60 million people since the end of WWII as a result of it’s foreign policy for a handful of crooks who own and control this government to the detriment of everybody else on the planet.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  115. bill says:

    so what we have done if that other muslim in seattle was successful in burning down a gay bar on nye a few years back? luckily the fire was doused quickly and there were no deaths, but there were 750 ppl in the club and he started the fire at the entrance….
    oh, he got 10 yrs during a plea bargain- for trying to kill gays en masse.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  116. anjin-san says:

    @mannning:

    For a guy who tries to pass himself off as wise in the ways of the world, you sure sound like a rube:

    Economic Collapse Coming – September 2015?

    Crash of 2014: Like 1929, you’ll never hear it coming

    I could go on like this pretty much forever.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  117. anjin-san says:

    @mannning:

    You do realize that that is exactly what gun manufactures want you to think, no? There is probably at least one gun for every person in the country. That’s a lot of guns. But the only way for gun manufactures to stay in business, much less make a profit, is to keep selling new guns.

    So they thank you for being fearful.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  118. mannning says:

    @al-Alameda:

    Bill Bonner, Porter Stansburry, Jim Rickards, Peter Theil, Tom Bauman, and several others I don’t recall at the moment, have cast their resources into the preparations for a massive downturn. I look at it this way: for a few thousand dollars, I have bought an insurance policy against a possible downturn and chaos in the streets, sooner or later, and their reasoning is compelling. It is certainly understandable if many people do not buy into this prediction, just as many had not bought into ’29, ’73, ’08, etc. There is a name for it, something like the “normative expectation,” or things in the future will be about as they are now–except a-periodically they haven’t been about the same.

    They all agree that there will be a credit crunch, that the velocity of money is falling fast and deeply, and that the Federal Reserve is now powerless to stem the tide, They cannot throw quantitative easing of any significant amount at the problem after already creating 4.7 Trillion dollars for it, and our dollar value is eroded, plus the hoped for small inflation rise has not occurred. We conduct our business largely on credit, there being only an estimated $250 Billion actual dollars in circulation.

    Thus any adverse event may be the trigger for the crash. I intend to survive, and to survive my family too, and all of my insurances have not been costly to do, and it is essentially permanent insurance, so long as I maintain things properly and defend them. I will very gratefully welcome the next few years if they don’t involve a crash, and it is business as usual.
    It is preposterous that my purchase of a few weapons has any real effect on the fortunes of the gun manufacturers, but it has a very positive effect on my capabilities…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  119. anjin-san says:

    Here’s some interesting information on Porter Stansburry from US News & World Report:

    In 2007, Porter Stansberry was sued by the SEC and fined $1.5 million for security fraud.

    Financial Publisher Who Defrauded Public Investors Is Back With Another Ominous Video

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  120. mannning says:

    Of course, businesses, banks, financial institutions, investors, manufacturer, and the US government want you to believe that it will be business as usual

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  121. mannning says:

    Here is a revised list of economic analysts that are predicting a crash in 2016:

    Harry Dent, Bill Bonner, Tom Bauman, Jim Rickards, James Dale Davidson, Martin Weiss, Peter Schiff, Albert Edwards, Jeremy Grantham, and others, including Porter Stansberry, who is still considered a prescient analyst by the community.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0