Democrat buys semiautomatic rifle at Va. gun show in under 10 minutes - Polidicks

Yes, as you see, that demonstrates that they are a part of the problem - rather than not being a part of the problem. Them being a part of the problem means they're at least partially responsible for what occurred as a result of the problem. They are not 'blameless' even if they are not directly responsible.

I've quoted you shifting the blame to the victims while continuing to argue that a Prohibition style ban on guns would be fine. It's clear where you stand on this issue.

They're not victims when they're firing tommy guns back at federal officers. They are both criminals in their own regards. I didn't say 'it would be fine if you were just financially compensated'. I said the government would be held accountable if it was repealed later. It's clear where you think I stand on this issue despite you constantly demonstrating that you don't know where I stand on this issue.

Prohibition agents shot and killed in the course of trying to violently enforce an illegal ban had it coming. Bitter truth. All Prohibition did was get innocent people killed and empower the mafia which had much further reaching implications than simple alcohol ever did. The government was never held accountable in any serious way for the amount of damage directly caused by Prohibition.

That's not a bitter truth. That's just straight up, cold blooded, 'someone deserves to die because I say so'. I agree that all prohibition did was get innocent people killed and empower the mafia. I don't agree that the government was not held accountable. I do think it wasn't held accountable enough -- but that was a line that was up to the citizens and they decided that was where they were satisfied pushing back against the Government.

No, because Prohibition didn't make it illegal to possess alcohol - only to manufacture and sell it. When agents raided the private citizens you're referencing, who were storing it for their own use, they were breaking the law, inflicting violence upon fellow Americans, and therefore deserved what they got when they got it.

So, in your opinion, literally every victim of violence during Prohibition 'got what was coming to them' because they were all similarly and evenly at fault for what occurred during it?

I think you are having a critical fault assignment failure here.

No, I'm trying to convince you that you're finding it difficult to assign fault at all to those who, despite being victims, created further victims. Simply fighting for what is right does not absolve you of guilt for what you did to fight for what's right. A man who kills a policeman to stop them from taking another man's weapon is not blameless for that officer's death, even if they're just trying to 'uphold the constitution'. That officer may not have had any choice in doing what they were doing; even thinking that 'they deserved it because they were against the citizens of the US in this matter' is a troubling view to hold. Fault belongs to those who earned it. Those who caused violence during prohibition own the fault of the violence they created. Absolving them of that violence because 'they were just trying to do what was right' does not erase the violence that occurred; it does not provide any aid, comfort, or assistance to those who were impacted by each loss of life. Feeling that a police officer deserves death simply for upholding the law (without any further inspection into the reasoning or context or their feelings on the matter) is a feeling that should thoroughly examined - because I don't think you've done much examination of it to be stating it with such clarity and assuredness.

PERSONALLY I FIND THE USE OF TEXT FOR MATTING TO BE A VERY EFFECTIVE MEANS OF COMMUNICATING YOUR INTONATION AND inflection.

there's more to historic items than just the sticker price, there's for example, the actual history imbued within that specific object. The places it had been, the people who held it, etc... you can't replace that.

I didn't state it replaced it. I can't replace the sentimental value of the doorbolt on your front door that's been passed down your family for generations while executing a search warrant where I had to blow your front door off. What I can do is account for that loss the only real way a government can - through reforms and repayments. And, in fact, you should hold your government to do so. They may not be able to replace it - but they should be held accountable for its loss.

So maybe let's take measures to ensure the door doesn't get wrongfully blown off in the first place instead of going "oh well we can hold the government accountable later"??????????

I agree. Let's take measures to limit the amount of overall harm in the United States by reducing the amount of gun violence through tighter controls on gun sales and gun ownership; preferably through ensuring each gun owner is properly taught how to safely handle their firearm and keeps their firearm in good working order, kept in a secure location that only they have access to, and taking firearms out of the 'standard armament' of our police forces.

Just to add a bit to your post, I am not 100% sure how online sales work within state lines, but I know outside of state lines buying a firearm online means it is shipped to a FFL, who has to do a background check on you when you go to pick it up.

Shipped to an FFL regardless of where you live, assuming the seller doesnt want his ass torn inside-out by the ATF

How would one accomplish this when there's no record of a background check or a registry to check up on?

If he was a true democrat the rifle would have burned him on contact.

In principle, that's a great notion to have. In practice, you are going to disproportionately impact the poor. This carries with it all the usual racial connotations that are usually associated with legislation that impacts the poor more than the wealthy.

You know, the GOP once introduced a provision like that. However, it was not an Assault Weapons Ban, so the Democrats killed it. I want to reiterate this, terminology is exceptionally important when you're trying to legislate things. Think of it this way, people get pissed off when politicians try to legislate the internet despite not knowing how it works, right? Well here we have someone who wants to legislate firearms but either doesn't know how they work despite their military service, or is intentionally mislabeling things which shows dishonesty. So they're either uninformed or dishonest, and that makes them unfit as far as I'm concerned.

The point is that it is worrying that it is seemingly that easy to perform these transactions. You can give them context all you want but all you are doing is further describing a system which people have issues with at its core, not in its oddities and subtleties. If you cannot comprehend or understand why people would find cause for alarm in the fact that the United States of America's gun market is this loosely controlled then there really is no reason for you to appear in these arguments because you are fundamentally misunderstanding the very source of worry.

People take issue with the disinformation that the anti-gun side are using. Regardless of your opinion on this, you can't deny that the disinformation isn't designed to sway opinions of the uninformed. I use myself as an example, before I knew what the "gun show loophole" was, I thought we should close it. When I was told of the gun show loophole and how it meant you could sell guns without FFL, yeah it sounded bad. Then I looked into it and realized there is no loophole, it's just a private sale, no different than my grandpa selling me a hunting rifle. Regular sellers still needed an FFL, private sellers were doing nothing different than selling on their front lawn. I learned of the difference because of my interest in firearms, but if I was not interested, I could have supported a ghost, my support could be used to advocate any number of things without me knowing just what I was supporting. There's other issues, the use of "assault weapon" which is meant to get people confused about the type of gun, and lately they've abandoned all nuance and just started calling them "assault rifles". These are meant to confuse people and make them think that these civilian rifles are the same thing as military rifles; they are not. They're typically lower velocity and lack burst or automatic fire-modes that military rifles have. I do not appreciate the amount of disinformation being spread lately. What the fuck!? Pointing a gun at an officer has a very high chance of getting you killed no matter who the fuck you think you are.

Most gun shows I have went too, at least the decent ones that are not just community meets, run a background check upon entry. That or they'll check your ID, and if you are below 18 or 21, and without someone at said age, they'll kick you out. You also are required too have 4473s whenever you purchase from an FFL dealer. Not to mention you can still get a 4473 with a police officer for the transaction of the weapon. What has happened here is a non-issue. Illegaly used firearms are usually stolen or purchased from the black market. The firearm being purchased is of the rifle class, which only accounts for ~300 deaths at best. In short, stop worrying.

It should also be said, for all those afraid of private sales, that most sellers aren't fools. Go on Armslist (Grenadiac linked a few others prior) and look at the listings. You'll note that a large majority of the sellers have a common line in their listings that asks buyers to present a concealed weapons license at in-person transactions. Anything else would be mailed, and that would of course be done via FFL.

Here's the thing: Gun shows aren't required to run background checks, and if they were (or risk being declared an illegal gun sale event, and oh fuck that won't be good) then much of the problem would be circumvented. If private gun purchases required reporting to the local police department and having a background check run as appropriate, that would cover up another gap in the wall. If these conditions were true, then I think most people wouldn't worry. But I'm willing to bet that in most jurisdictions, aside from perhaps California, neither case is required. If background checks were made a requirement for any gun ownership transaction, even private sales over a kitchen table between siblings, and the background check system was actually enforced to fulfill its duties, I feel that much of the moderate gun control crowd would be satisfied overall. Of course there will always be anti-gun nuts that want anything more harmful than a glass of lukewarm water banned, but they can be lumped in with the extreme gun fetishists who preach that there should be no limitations on gun ownership ever including for repeat felons and ignored. A proper mandatory universal background check system will protect the constitutional rights of legal adult gun owners while hindering the ability for criminals and the critically unfit to access dangerous weapons. It is not a perfect fix, but it straddles the thin line balancing the rights of lawful gun owners and the public safety interest in keeping guns out of malevolent and insane hands as often as possible. It also avoids the dreaded B word and does not resort to emotional appeals with scare words like "assault weapon".

Stop that. These aren't WMDs... They're rifles which are less than 1% of violent crime and less lethal than a hammer or clenched fist. If you're callous enough to consider hand guns WMDs, then I have nothing more for you, you've proven your point.

Would you prefer the term "weapons of mass murder"? Hammers can't kill at 300m unless you're super lucky or dropping them on heads from a rooftop.

I'd prefer anything you can think of that isn't sensationalized. I'm not sure you even know what you're aiming at here other than the fact that guns scare you. Range is an awful metric of lethality.

How about you answer the actual content of my post instead of snowflaking out over the last four words? I'm still waiting. It looks to me like you're going for a distraction.

I'll take completely missing the point for 1,000, Alex. Answer: Daily Double.