6-Month-Old Dead After Being Shot 5 Times In Chicago

[Dirty Penguin]

Typical distortion of the anti-gun crowd. Why do you print something without checking your facts? Probably because you refuse to believe facts only opinions. A person from one state can not legally purchase a firearm in another state without going through a FFL dealer..THIS INCLUDES PRIVATE SALES!!!!
From the Gun Control Act of 1968

Get off your high horse....Where did I say the guy bought a gun in another state without ID.....????

Nowhere...that's right...

In fact...I didn't even insinuate that he did.....

But so you know....There are some unscrupulous private sellers out there that are in fact selling and not asking for an ID. (case in point)

[youtube]Rbr_rZ2bUZM[/youtube]
Guns For Cash In Texas! No Criminal Background Check Required! - YouTube

Many of the sellers here asked for ID. One accepted something that was obviously not and ID and the guy at the end never asked for ID. Now I l know you like to go on and on about "the law" here but that doesn't factor in so much with some of these people out to make a quick buck. I'll give that guy at the end of the video the benefit of the doubt and say he just "forgot" to ask for an ID......but please don't try and deny the fact that it does happen....

 

[Alceste]

Then they are breaking the law. So, in your perfect world when you pass all of the laws you want, people will not break the law? Let's take the proposal for UBC. Just because the law is passed doesn't meant it will not be broken. Under your false reasoning from above, what would stop the same person from selling a weapon without doing a background check?

Technically, they aren't breaking the law you posted if they don't ask. Excusing anyone who "does not know or have any reason to believe" that a buyer is from out of state is a pretty big loophole. All you world have to do is not ask, and you are complying.

 

[esmith]

Get off your high horse....Where did I say the guy bought a gun in another state without ID.....????

Nowhere...that's right...

In fact...I didn't even insinuate that he did.....

Then why did you even mention

"Detectives learned from a search of computer data that Boysen had researched gun shows in Washington and Nevada either just before or just after his grandparents were killed, Sgt. Cindi West*said.

If you were not insinuating he could have.
It appears that "tytylf" thought that is what you were insinuating when he posted

"Why not? No check required

 

[esmith]

Technically, they aren't breaking the law you posted if they don't ask. Excusing anyone who "does not know or have any reason to believe" that a buyer is from out of state is a pretty big loophole. All you world have to do is not ask, and you are complying.

I do not know the laws of Canada, but here in the USA ignorance of the law is not an excuse. And if you break the law, whether you knew you were or not is still punishable. And if you read it "correctly"
B1) To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector. (my emphases) now the second part " if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. is covered by who may purchase a firearm regardless of residency requirements.

 

[tytlyf]

It appears that "tytylf" thought that is what you were insinuating when he posted

Possibly, but I always tout the problem as the trickle-down effect of guns. Can you admit that irresponsible gun owners that don't follow the law are responsible for this trickle-down effect into criminal hands?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Then why did you even mentionIf you were not insinuating he could have.

Mention what???????

I gave quotes FROM the article itself. And the only thing I said after quoting the article was "Wow"....

It appears that "tytylf" thought that is what you were insinuating when he posted

So how am I responsible for how some one else perceives words on a screen?

 

[esmith]

Then why did you even mention that he was looking at gun shows in another state If you were not insinuating he could have purchased a weapon at said gun shows? (Note: I have added to the original to clarify the discussion)
It appears that "tytylf" thought that is what you were insinuating when he posted

Mention what???????

The following:
"

Detectives learned from a search of computer data that Boysen had researched gun shows in Washington and Nevada either just before or just after his grandparents were killed, Sgt. Cindi West*said.

I gave quotes FROM the article itself. And the only thing I said after quoting the article was "Wow"....

By emphasizing what was found on the subjects computer you, in fact, were highlighting what is considered to be a problem with gun shows. Your "Wow" immediately focused the attention of the reader to the preceding item. Whether you intended to or not insinuate that the subject could have bought a gun at a gun show is the issue. You have put forward that idea. Hence "tytylf" thinking that they could have. When one writes something they should be aware that it can be misconstrued, as "tytylf" did. Hence you are responsible for what you write.

So how am I responsible for how some one else perceives words on a screen?

That appears to be the problem in today's society, and especially on the internet; that no one feels that they have to be responsible for what they write or fact check the information (I have been guilty of that). Too many people read something on the internet that supports their opinions and assume what they are reading is factual.

 

[esmith]

Possibly, but I always tout the problem as the trickle-down effect of guns. Can you admit that irresponsible gun owners that don't follow the law are responsible for this trickle-down effect into criminal hands?

I agree that those that do not follow the current laws are part of the problem. However, until the present laws are enforced and punishment is awarded I see absolutely no reason to enact new laws that will not be enforced and only put a burden on the law abiding citizen.

 

[tytlyf]

I agree that those that do not follow the current laws are part of the problem. However, until the present laws are enforced and punishment is awarded I see absolutely no reason to enact new laws that will not be enforced and only put a burden on the law abiding citizen.

More laws, more enforcement, more checks. I don't understand why you are against this? The more you talk about this gun control issue, the more I think you're one of those irresponsible gun owners that ignores laws.

 

[esmith]

More laws, more enforcement, more checks. I don't understand why you are against this? The more you talk about this gun control issue, the more I think you're one of those irresponsible gun owners that ignores laws.

Did I ever say I was against the current laws on the books? No, I am one of those responsible gun owners that ignores the rantings of the anti-gun crowd, whomever you are.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The following:

Yep...and they're not "MY" words...it was what the article found.

By emphasizing what was found on the subjects computer you, in fact, were highlighting what is considered to be a problem with gun shows. Your "Wow" immediately focused the attention of the reader to the preceding item. Whether you intended to or not insinuate that the subject could have bought a gun at a gun show is the issue.

I was in my right to do so. I was pointing out that this felon didn't even care that he was a felon and was in the midst of searching for a gun show. Had he gone there even with ID he would have been able to buy a gun. And YES...It's against the law for a felon to buy a gun but it doesn't matter to the felon if he believes he can go to a private seller who only needs to see ID...gets his gun(s) and goes on a killing spree. The law is only as good as the person enforcing it (to a degree)....and if ALL sellers required background checks then it would, at the least, deter a felon from attempting to buy a gun.

You have put forward that idea. Hence "tytylf" thinking that they could have. When one writes something they should be aware that it can be misconstrued, as "tytylf" did. Hence you are responsible for what you write.

Yes..I should be mindful as to what I write...but then again...it's words on a screen and you can't always tell what one is trying to convey unless you press for more info. And others are free to "assume"....but in his assumption there's a nugget of truth...there are some instances where a gun has been purchased without asking for ID. I saw another video where no one would sell to this guy....but he wound up walking up to a guy at the gun show and bought a gun from another guy who had just purchased a gun. That seller never asked for ID either.

That appears to be the problem in today's society, and especially on the internet; that no one feels that they have to be responsible for what they write or fact check the information (I have been guilty of that).

I'll take responsibility for what I write...I always do....but in this case....I didn't write anything other than (Wow..!)....So what you or others take from that is on you...Not me...unless you choose to solicit additional information from my surprise remark....

Too many people read something on the internet that supports their opinions and assume what they are reading is factual.

Not sure what you mean because that's not what I did....In fact..I backed up my claim that someone has been known to buy without ID and stipulated that while the law says one thing...it has been known to take place.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Did I ever say I was against the current laws on the books? No, I am one of those responsible gun owners that ignores the rantings of the anti-gun crowd, whomever you are.

Which is why this additional law should be required. Law abiding gun owners won't be affected by getting a background check from a private seller....but it ensures that a felon, and/or some one who shouldn't have a gun doesn't get a gun. No one, including myself, ever has a problem going into a store or gun show to buy a gun from sellers with FFL....so we won't and shouldn't have a problem if that is extended to ALL sellers.....

 

[Alceste]

I do not know the laws of Canada, but here in the USA ignorance of the law is not an excuse. And if you break the law, whether you knew you were or not is still punishable. And if you read it "correctly"
B1) To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector. (my emphases) now the second part " if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. is covered by who may purchase a firearm regardless of residency requirements.

You miss my point. Not asking whether a buyer is prohibited from owning firearms is not ignorance of the law - it's ignorance of whether the buyer is prohibited from owning firearms. In fact, the law as worded basically encourages sellers not to ask.

Cop: "did you know this guy was prohibited from owning firearms?"
Gun nut: "no sir, I did not know and had no reason to believe he was prohibited from owning firearms because I didn't ask him"
Cop: "ok, then, in that case carry on - you're 100% compliant! Nice work!"

 

[esmith]

You miss my point. Not asking whether a buyer is prohibited from owning firearms is not ignorance of the law - it's ignorance of whether the buyer is prohibited from owning firearms. In fact, the law as worded basically encourages sellers not to ask.

Cop: "did you know this guy was prohibited from owning firearms?"
Gun nut: "no sir, I did not know and had no reason to believe he was prohibited from owning firearms because I didn't ask him"
Cop: "ok, then, in that case carry on - you're 100% compliant! Nice work!"

You miss the point.
A private seller is required by law to ensure that the buyer is a "legal resident of the State in which the sale is taking place". The second part of the GCA following the residency issue is " if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law" This references the below 10 requirements. The private seller does not have to affirm that all of the below restrictions are meet if the seller "does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms" The seller is still required by law to insure that the buyer is a legal resident of the state. This was the point of my original argument that tytlyf said that the person referenced could legally purchase a weapon from a private party in a different state than his legal residence. In the case Washington and Nevada.

1. Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;
2. Is a fugitive from justice;
3. Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
4. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;
5. Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
6. Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
7. Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;
8. Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or
9. Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
10. Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Two Teen Boys Arrested in Georgia Baby Shooting Death - ABC News

Two teenage suspects, one as young as 14, have been arrested in the shooting death of a 1-year-old Georgia boy, who was killed as his mother pushed him in a stroller, police announced today.


Sherry West, the 41-year-old mother of the child, told police she'd been walking her 13-month-old son, Antonio, in a stroller Thursday morning through their Brunswick, Ga., neighborhood when two African-American boys approached her and demanded money. When she told them she didn't have any money, West said one of the boys pulled out a handgun.

"He said, 'I'm going to kill you if you don't give me money,' and I said, 'I swear I don't have any,"' West told WAWS-TV in Jacksonville, Fla.

Such a sad story......