[03_StangGuy]

Im all for gun rights, but anyone buying a gun in parking lot is a lil troubling.

Rossen Reports: Anyone can buy guns, no questions asked - TODAY Rossen Reports - TODAY.com

[brought_pain]

I've never bought a gun online, but I thought it had to go through a ffl dealer and you had to fill out a 4473 before you could get it.

[1FastFox]

Originally Posted by brought_pain I've never bought a gun online, but I thought it had to go through a ffl dealer and you had to fill out a 4473 before you could get it.

Nope. Private party sales dont require any checking at all.

Funny enough, this type of transaction was in my local news yesterday because they busted an illegal alien that was tracked purchasing 20 guns and shipping them back to Honduras.


I understand the need to hype media up to draw interest but it bugs me reading points made by non-gun people saying things like "we bought a Glock-23 with hollow-point bullets, made to inflict serious internal damage", do they not know that you can go get that ammo practically anywhere and is very common?

And like "along with an easy-to-conceal pistol", do they not know how many US citizens carry "easy to conceal pistols"?

[03_StangGuy]

Originally Posted by brought_pain I've never bought a gun online, but I thought it had to go through a ffl dealer and you had to fill out a 4473 before you could get it.

Sounds like your thinking of buying a gun from a online dealer, which is true. This is talking about private second party sales.

Originally Posted by 1FastFox Nope. Private party sales dont require any checking at all. Funny enough, this type of transaction was in my local news yesterday because they busted an illegal alien that was tracked purchasing 20 guns and shipping them back to Honduras. I understand the need to hype media up to draw interest but it bugs me reading points made by non-gun people saying things like "we bought a Glock-23 with hollow-point bullets, made to inflict serious internal damage", do they not know that you can go get that ammo practically anywhere and is very common? And like "along with an easy-to-conceal pistol", do they not know how many US citizens carry "easy to conceal pistols"?

I agree their emphasis is a misleading. After all any bullet is gonna do damage. But regardless of how many citizens LEGALLY have concealable pistols, their point, which i agree with, was that anyone, specifically those who wouldnt be able to buy a gun regularly can purchase one relatively easily.

Im all for guns, I think they are great, but not everyone should be entitled to them.

[brought_pain]

Originally Posted by 1FastFox Nope. Private party sales dont require any checking at all. Funny enough, this type of transaction was in my local news yesterday because they busted an illegal alien that was tracked purchasing 20 guns and shipping them back to Honduras. I understand the need to hype media up to draw interest but it bugs me reading points made by non-gun people saying things like "we bought a Glock-23 with hollow-point bullets, made to inflict serious internal damage", do they not know that you can go get that ammo practically anywhere and is very common? And like "along with an easy-to-conceal pistol", do they not know how many US citizens carry "easy to conceal pistols"?

Seriously?! Even if its new and through a dealer?

That "extremely dangerous" and "can be easily hidden" shit bugs me some times. The misnomers and misinformation is what bothers me most. It causes fear to the point reason and logic go bye bye.

...they caught the guy trying to buy jaun more gun huh...

[1FastFox]

No, dealers still require checks. But I could sell anyone of my guns tomorrow to someone in a parking lot without even knowing their name. Im talking person to person transactions.

But the thing about the illegal that really gets me is that they are locking him up to be put on the taxpayers tab. This is the second time the same guy has been caught here illegally ( first time deported ). Good thing Obama is all over the border security issue!

[00vabchgt]

Wow, that article is extremely misleading. Another example of the liberal media attempting to demonize firearms. I love how they have to point out that hollow points cause serious internal damage. Shit, if that's the case, I'm thankful I never had to shoot anyone while I was active duty; we only carried fmj rounds, which apparently do not cause serious internal damage. The article keeps talking about "online" purchases, but what they describe happening are face to face meetings between a private seller and a private buyer. As it stands now, there is no law in place requiring background checks for those types of purchases. Now, I've bought firearms online before (truly online, not what the article describes). Before you even pay for the firearm, you have to submit the information for the FFL you'll be using. They ship to the dealer and you go pick it up at which point you will be subjected to a background check. In the situations the article describes, it sounds more like they searched online want ads, not legitimate online businesses but failed to differentiate...

[03_StangGuy]

Originally Posted by 00vabchgt Wow, that article is extremely misleading. Another example of the liberal media attempting to demonize firearms. I love how they have to point out that hollow points cause serious internal damage. Shit, if that's the case, I'm thankful I never had to shoot anyone while I was active duty; we only carried fmj rounds, which apparently do not cause serious internal damage. The article keeps talking about "online" purchases, but what they describe happening are face to face meetings between a private seller and a private buyer. As it stands now, there is no law in place requiring background checks for those types of purchases. Now, I've bought firearms online before (truly online, not what the article describes). Before you even pay for the firearm, you have to submit the information for the FFL you'll be using. They ship to the dealer and you go pick it up at which point you will be subjected to a background check. In the situations the article describes, it sounds more like they searched online want ads, not legitimate online businesses but failed to differentiate...

I think your a lil over critical. Nothing they said was untrue. Exaggerated a bit yes, but anytime you want to make a point over anything you talk up your side a bit more.

I thought it was pretty clear that they were talking about. They said they found the guns online and set up face to face meeting. In the video they show them scrolling through Craigslist type listing. They clearly mention that gun stores require checks. When you do buy a gun online from a legitimate store dont you have to go to the store to pick it up? They dont ship them your your door do they?

They point of the article is to point out how easily guns can be found online and purchased buy any without a background check. Seems like they hit that pretty well, without straying too far from their core concept.

[00vabchgt]

Originally Posted by 03_StangGuy I think your a lil over critical. Nothing they said was untrue. Exaggerated a bit yes, but anytime you want to make a point over anything you talk up your side a bit more. I thought it was pretty clear that they were talking about. They said they found the guns online and set up face to face meeting. In the video they show them scrolling through Craigslist type listing. They clearly mention that gun stores require checks. When you do buy a gun online from a legitimate store dont you have to go to the store to pick it up? They dont ship them your your door do they? They point of the article is to point out how easily guns can be found online and purchased buy any without a background check. Seems like they hit that pretty well, without straying too far from their core concept.

I didn't watch the video (I'm at work), so I was going solely off the actual article. I agree that there's a huge hole in accountability when it comes to buying/ selling firearms privately. The firearms I've bought online were shipped to the FFL. The FFL holds it until I come in and pass my background check. Only then is it released to me. I understand the point of the article, and maybe I overreacted a little, but the material could have been presented in a way that stuck to exposing the issue without having to rely on sensationalism. Sell me the steak, not the sizzle...

[03_StangGuy]

Originally Posted by 00vabchgt I understand the point of the article, and maybe I overreacted a little, but the material could have been presented in a way that stuck to exposing the issue without having to rely on sensationalism. Sell me the steak, not the sizzle...

It wouldnt be the media if they didnt fluff up their idea. At least they are tackling a viable issue involving guns.

[brought_pain]

The article and video are very deceptive. The "online purchases" aren't online purchases. Nothing was paid for online, nothing was shipped, nothing about the purchases except the ads was online. It was all face to face. They demonized guns and ammunition, Saying a 50 cal is what drug cartels like and HP made to inflict serious internal damage with a negative context. Saying somebody that isn't a US citizen wouldn't be sold a gun at a gun store in the US is a lie.

I sold guns a few years back. I've sold guns to people from other countries(4473 filled out and back ground check passed). Saying face to face sales were online sales is why I wasn't clear on how a background check wasn't performed prior to taking possession(I also didn't read the whole article or watch the video).

What's seriously fucked up is I sold guns to people from Mexico and China after a phone call but I couldn't sell a gun to somebody from California....

[101fng]

Fucking stupid. Let's say they do adopt regulations to require background checks for private party friend to friend sales, what exactly is going to stop someone from actually selling a gun to someone without a background check? Will we have to annually register our firearms? Why? The constitution says I'm entitled to own a firearm. It doesn't say I have to pass a background check or a psychological evaluation. It says it's an inalienable right for me to have a firearm. The media can demonize guns all they want but they can't rewrite our constitution for us.

[03_StangGuy]

Originally Posted by brought_pain The article and video are very deceptive. The "online purchases" aren't online purchases. Nothing was paid for online, nothing was shipped, nothing about the purchases except the ads was online. It was all face to face. They demonized guns and ammunition, Saying a 50 cal is what drug cartels like and HP made to inflict serious internal damage with a negative context. Saying somebody that isn't a US citizen wouldn't be sold a gun at a gun store in the US is a lie. I sold guns a few years back. I've sold guns to people from other countries(4473 filled out and back ground check passed). Saying face to face sales were online sales is why I wasn't clear on how a background check wasn't performed prior to taking possession(I also didn't read the whole article or watch the video). What's seriously fucked up is I sold guns to people from Mexico and China after a phone call but I couldn't sell a gun to somebody from California....

Can any guns be bought on line and shipped to your door? I know in NY they have to be shipped to a dealer and you have to pick them up. Whether the money is transfer online or in person the sale is initiated online and a back ground check is never done.

Demonizing guns and ammo really? Id love to have the money yo own an .50 cali rifle to play with, but you say there is any need for one. And please explain to me how serious internal damage isnt negative?

Sounds like your just arguing with the facts they use to justify thats its easy for anyone even criminals to find a gun.

Originally Posted by 101fng Fucking stupid. Let's say they do adopt regulations to require background checks for private party friend to friend sales, what exactly is going to stop someone from actually selling a gun to someone without a background check? Will we have to annually register our firearms? Why? The constitution says I'm entitled to own a firearm. It doesn't say I have to pass a background check or a psychological evaluation. It says it's an inalienable right for me to have a firearm. The media can demonize guns all they want but they can't rewrite our constitution for us.

There isnt anything in the constitution that says your owning a gun doesnt have to require a back ground check or sound mind either. Just like driving, even though ever can, everyone shouldnt and/or is capable of owning a gun.

Times change and Im sure the founding fathers didnt have to consider these things when they wrote the consitution. Just like people need to exercise good judgement when operating a gun for safety, good judgement should be used when selling a gun.

[brought_pain]

Originally Posted by 101fng Fucking stupid. Let's say they do adopt regulations to require background checks for private party friend to friend sales, what exactly is going to stop someone from actually selling a gun to someone without a background check? Will we have to annually register our firearms? Why? The constitution says I'm entitled to own a firearm. It doesn't say I have to pass a background check or a psychological evaluation. It says it's an inalienable right for me to have a firearm. The media can demonize guns all they want but they can't rewrite our constitution for us.

EXCELLENT POINTS!

MSNBC should do a news story about how criminals steal guns to commit crimes with and violent crimes don't increase when the population increases and in some places has declined with more people owning firearms.

...that should atleast help gun sales, maybe even help loosen some restrictions.

[03_StangGuy]

Originally Posted by 101fng what exactly is going to stop someone from actually selling a gun to someone without a background check? Will we have to annually register our firearms?

I read this again reading Brought's response. If your gun is registered when you buy it, like it is in NY, when you sell it your gonna want ownership transfer so the gun isnt in your name if the new owner uses it to commit a crime.

I know some people will freak out cuz the government knows they have a gun, but i dont see a problem with it. Like i said before times change and in order to prevent crimes somethings need to be done to allow that. THIS CAN BE DOWN WITHOUT INFRINGING ON GUN OWNERSHIP!

Originally Posted by brought_pain EXCELLENT POINTS! MSNBC should do a news story about how criminals steal guns to commit crimes with and violent crimes don't increase when the population increases and in some places has declined with more people owning firearms. ...that should atleast help gun sales, maybe even help loosen some restrictions.

Your not gonna stop criminal from doing illegal acts but preventing them from legally obtaining a gun will at the least make it harder for them. And your right crime has gone down in aome areas with people owning firearms, but what does that have to do with this? This article says nothing about keeping the average person from buying a gun. They are simple showing how easily guns can be bought by anyone, criminals including and preventing criminals from buying guns would help.

[brought_pain]

Originally Posted by 03_StangGuy Can any guns be bought on line and shipped to your door? I know in NY they have to be shipped to a dealer and you have to pick them up. Whether the money is transfer online or in person the sale is initiated online and a back ground check is never done. Demonizing guns and ammo really? Id love to have the money yo own an .50 cali rifle to play with, but you say there is any need for one. And please explain to me how serious internal damage isnt negative? Sounds like your just arguing with the facts they use to justify thats its easy for anyone even criminals to find a gun.

Okay...let's play...

You're construing different circumstances, but it doesn't matter. If an ffl dealer purchases the gun assuming you'll buy it from them, you have to fill out a 4473 since the firearm is being sold technically. If you pay for the gun using your visa or pay-pal, you still have to do a 4473, because its going through a dealer. If it were so easy as joe sending jack a check for his ar15 and jack sending the ar15 to a dealer of Joes choice and Joe simply walking in and getting it, it would be that way more.

Saying the damage caused by HP ammo is inherently negative is saying the police use inherently negative methods of stopping a deadly threat.

What did I say about the need of a 50 cal?

Sounds like I'm arguing facts? I'm criticizing methods and deceptions.
What and how are they justifying? Legal ownership or illegal ownership?

Sounds like you're pushing a conservative gun ownership opinion in the wrong forum. Don't bullshit unless you plan on standing in it alone, certainly don't bullshit me because I won't blossom into an anti-second amendment rose.

[101fng]

Originally Posted by 03_StangGuy There isnt anything in the constitution that says your owning a gun doesnt have to require a back ground check or sound mind either. Just like driving, even though ever can, everyone shouldnt and/or is capable of owning a gun. Times change and Im sure the founding fathers didnt have to consider these things when they wrote the consitution. Just like people need to exercise good judgement when operating a gun for safety, good judgement should be used when selling a gun.

so are you saying there weren't any criminals in the 1700's? because i can assure you, there were. and there was no shortage of violent criminals either. when it comes to home defense and keeping the peace, there have been ZERO fundamental changes in our situation from 1776 to present. what is it exactly that the founding fathers didn't have to consider back then? automatic weapons? because if i'm not mistaken, the use of fully automatic weapons contributes to a fraction of a percentage of violent crime. even if it were more, the article isn't debating the legality of owning automatic weapons, it's debating the legality of purchasing ANY weapons.

the purpose of more regulation is to reduce gun related crime, correct? fortunately, many different regulatory measures have already been tried in different states and other countries and surprisingly, they did nothing to reduce violent crime. the statistics are out there. if it doesn't work for one state or city or country, why the hell do we think it'll work here?

[brought_pain]

Originally Posted by 101fng the purpose of more regulation is to reduce gun related crime, correct? fortunately, many different regulatory measures have already been tried in different states and other countries and surprisingly, they did nothing to reduce violent crime. the statistics are out there. if it doesn't work for one state or city or country, why the hell do we think it'll work here?

There's a logical explanation for why gun control never worked, nor will it ever. It also is the reason welfare reform will never work, or any other regulatory means of controlling some aspect of society that gets abused.

The nature of "crime"(including wrongfully exploitating means intended for others deemed worthy) is to operate apart from or not subject to standards and means to stop or prevent it, and adapt as necessary to do so.

[03_StangGuy]

Originally Posted by brought_pain Okay...let's play... You're construing different circumstances, but it doesn't matter. If an ffl dealer purchases the gun assuming you'll buy it from them, you have to fill out a 4473 since the firearm is being sold technically. If you pay for the gun using your visa or pay-pal, you still have to do a 4473, because its going through a dealer. If it were so easy as joe sending jack a check for his ar15 and jack sending the ar15 to a dealer of Joes choice and Joe simply walking in and getting it, it would be that way more.

I feel like your nit-pickin on the term of sale. So the could have said private sales instead of inline.

Originally Posted by brought_pain Saying the damage caused by HP ammo is inherently negative is saying the police use inherently negative methods of stopping a deadly threat.

Maybe its just me but damage by any bullet is negative. Doesnt matter what is it. HP ammo is designed to cause more damage upon impact. In my mind its mute detail cuz ammo is as easy to buy as a gallon of milk

Originally Posted by brought_pain Sounds like I'm arguing facts? I'm criticizing methods and deceptions. What and how are they justifying? Legal ownership or illegal ownership? Sounds like you're pushing a conservative gun ownership opinion in the wrong forum. Don't bullshit unless you plan on standing in it alone, certainly don't bullshit me because I won't blossom into an anti-second amendment rose.

Its supporting a view point with facts not deception. Just like gun ownership has decreased violence, in SOME places. Its not a blanket to cover all situation and shouldnt be viewed as such

Im not saying anythin bout any legal law abiding citizen owning guns. Im all for it, i have a few and want many more! But I cant argue against making it harder for criminals to buy guns.

Originally Posted by 101fng so are you saying there weren't any criminals in the 1700's? because i can assure you, there were. and there was no shortage of violent criminals either. when it comes to home defense and keeping the peace, there have been ZERO fundamental changes in our situation from 1776 to present. what is it exactly that the founding fathers didn't have to consider back then? automatic weapons? because if i'm not mistaken, the use of fully automatic weapons contributes to a fraction of a percentage of violent crime. even if it were more, the article isn't debating the legality of owning automatic weapons, it's debating the legality of purchasing ANY weapons.

For the sake of argument obviously there was violence in 1700. But travel was much more limited and the transfer of guns wasnt as easy as it is today. I would also say that people today are much less diligent in with their actions and dont hold themselves accountable as much as the did in the past.

Originally Posted by 101fng the purpose of more regulation is to reduce gun related crime, correct? fortunately, many different regulatory measures have already been tried in different states and other countries and surprisingly, they did nothing to reduce violent crime. the statistics are out there. if it doesn't work for one state or city or country, why the hell do we think it'll work here?

So your saying that making it harder for criminals to buy a guy is bad? Im not stupid in thinking that a lil law on paper is gonna stop crime, but it sure cant hurt. If someone is determined enough they will commit the crime but are you not gonna lock your doors then so the can just walk right in and rob you? And while many measure have been tried, the sale of any goods via internet contacts is realtively new.

[03_StangGuy]

Originally Posted by brought_pain There's a logical explanation for why gun control never worked, nor will it ever. It also is the reason welfare reform will never work, or any other regulatory means of controlling some aspect of society that gets abused. The nature of "crime"(including wrongfully exploitating means intended for others deemed worthy) is to operate apart from or not subject to standards and means to stop or prevent it, and adapt as necessary to do so.

Like I said to 101's so we shouldnt try and make it a lil harder? Most people look their doors to try and prevent a crime from occuring. And yeah so they adapt, but maybe know it'll be more expensive and harder to find a gun for the crime and a few crimes wont happen cuz they cant find the means to enable them.