moodyring:

People can not buy guns on line unless they have an FFL or a C&R (Curio and Relic) license. Anyone else who wants to buy a gun has to work through an FFL who will run the NICS (background check) on the buyer. The only exception to this are guns made before 1899 which are exempt and can be mailed directly to the buyer.

Ordering guns through the mail stopped with the 1968 Gun Control Act.

Michael

Moodyring, it's no different than buying a gun at a local dealer in your own state. You can order and pay for a gun online, from a federally licensed dealer (FFL) in another state. You must provide him with the name and address, etc. of a local dealer in your own state, along with a copy of your local dealer's FFL.

The out of state dealer, then ships the gun to your local FFL dealer. You must go to him to have your NICS (background) check, present any necessary permits, etc.. Then you take posession of the gun. In person.

So, instaed of your local dealer getting this in his inventory from a distributor or the factory, he ordered it (in effect) from another dealer.

Thanks, moodyring, for bringing this important issue up of people being able to buy such parts easily online. I agree with you, too, that this kid gun-dealer doesn't look at all like he's in a state of 'shock' or regret ... but more like he's scared; because he might be in hot water for selling such firearms parts to would-be killers. I'm interested to see if the feds investigate such dealings & what they discover.

Tell me which happens first. Hundreds of new security in each building w/ millions spent on electronics. Or allowing those who choose to to protect themselves.

I disagree with you notion that having a gun in a backpack is useless. The Illinois shooter shot up the room for 2 minutes. He emptied his shotgun and reloaded a pistol once. Sit there and clock two minutes. I imagine it went pretty slowly as you watched the clock.
Cho went from room to room at Va Tech. I don't remember how long the shooting lasted but I believe someone in a classroom nextdoor or down the hall from him could have ample time to get a gun out of a backpack.

poeticjustice4all:

First of all, you are incorrect in your assumption that you have to have a gun in hand for it to be effective. (If that was the case, wouldn't police officers walk around with them in hand all of the time?) Wearing it on your hip or (in a woman's case) having it in your purse is close enough assuming one is vigilant.

The mere presence of a gun is often enough to stop crime. It happens hundreds of thousands of times every year here.

Michael

I don't know about you "gunners", but I prefer my information to come directly from a .gov site, rather than a commercial site which Mike101 seems to favor...

So what? Disaster center doesn't have an axe to grind. They compile stats for all kinds of disasters, natural and man made.

So you're implying that my figures are not accurate? Yours are DOJ figures for "violent crime". My figures are FBI figures for ALL crime.

Disaster center source:

Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports

Just for you:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius

So you trust a gov't database that historically has a 10%+ error rate?

I noticed that "self-defense" was never explicitly mentioned as a legitimate activity. Why was that?

Also, your argument loses credibility when you compare gun usage/ownership to the ownership and usage of an automobile. The latter being a priveledge, not a right. Personally, I would like to see some licensing regarding "freedom of the press" based upon the truthfullness of content but I have too much respect for our Bill of Rights to ever support such a measure. I would love nothing more to get all 'bad' guns out of circulation but I haven't a clue as to how to get guns out of the hands of the people most likely to use them against me and against you.

Let's keep the bogus analogy going for a bit regarding cars. What amazes me about the NICS background check for a firearm purchase is that no one is suggesting that the NICS verification be applied to obtaining or renewing a drivers license. All it takes is for one crazy to run into a group of students at a pep rally with a vehicle equiped to inflict maximum damage. We will then have a bunch of copy-cats, especially in a utopian world where we somehow prevent crazies from obtaining firearms. Then there will be an outcry. I am just weeks, months or years ahead of my time. All drivers who fail the background check would be required to wear an ankle bracelet. All cars would be equiped with a kill-switch that would be activated upon detecting a signal from the bracelet. We could expand NICS, when used for driver screening to include all registered alcoholics, all people undergoing a divorce or under legal separation.

Regarding your suggestion that certain misdemeaners should be included in the NICS screening. I don't disagree but at the same time treating all felons alike is rather absurd don't you think? An architect in Massachusetts who sets up shop without a license is now a felon. Violent felons, Yes. Felons of convenience, No.

You are making wild assumptions and proving nothing.

Coincidentally, my brother was born in 1960. Perhaps he is responsible for the 313% increase. My (intentionally ridiculous) logic is no different than yours.

But you refuse to acknowledge all the deaths caused by guns? You are an incredible piece of work -- sorry, I mean piece of shit. Let's here it for violence! According to you, it works every time.

Mike101 says:

"I know you anti-gunners are afraid of the truth, but here are some statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Report."
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/
I don't know about you "gunners", but I prefer my information to come directly from a .gov site, rather than a commercial site which Mike101 seems to favor...Secondly, Mike101 states that "From 1960 to 2006, crime per 100,000 inhabitants of this country has increased 313%. This is what 40 years of gun-control have done for you. I remember life before gun control. Lot's of people carried guns. We didn't have Old West shootouts, or home-invasions, or mass shootings at school, or "gun free zones". It seemed to work out pretty well."
Really, well that isn't what the Dept. of Justice website claims, perhaps you will want to see what they have to say here:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

innerpeace:

There is noting like fear to make people think that guns will make them safer.

I doubt that you mean like, The Patriot Act, but it fits your theory.

And to that I add... There is nothing like fear to make people cling to something that doesn't exist, simply because the truth is too frightening to contemplate.

Amen. The firearms forum I spend a lot of time on used to have a section called "Legal and Political." They had to dump the "legal" part, because Dem and Republicrat members were fighting all the time. I voted for Kerry and Gore, myself.

They only fool themselves when they stereotype us like that.

Oh, and about that "Nazi" reference........

"Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve
the State." ~ Heinrich Himmler.

So, let me get this straight. You are using Hitler to make your point about having guns, by implying that if we don't have them, we are subject to rulers like him " because he"s a good spokesman and right. And at the same time, you (or at least many posts on this blog) are comparing people who don"t believe in a proliferation of private gun ownership to supporters of Communism " because after all Hitler was wrong. On one hand you are relying on him as an authority and on the other you are holding him up as what he was, evil and in the process making no sense at all. Make up your mind.

Let"s say that you do have the right to bear arms (which I don"t agree with), nobody has told me why they need to have a gun. We all want things. But wants are not needs. So, regardless of your rights, why do you have such a death grip on your guns?

And as far as you being a Democrat or a Republican, I don"t give a shit. I never specifically accused anyone of being a dreaded, Republican. You made that assumed "generalization" all on your own, with your admission to being a Democrat and its implication, that because of that, my statements didn"t apply to you. So much for "f*cking obnoxious" huh?

Obviously you skipped the part about "right of the people" as well as who comprises the militia:

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are"
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

You might also want to read up on who comprises it according to the FF's.

"Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
-Tench Coxe

But of course it's much easier to throw out insults and stereotypes than to do any research.

Dennis Henigan says it even better and without my un-apolligetic name-calling. And rather than edit his words, I've divided them into two parts, as follows:

PART 1

THE RIGHT TO BE ARMED: A Constitutional Illusion
By Dennis Henigan, Director, Legal Action Project
(Originally published in the San Francisco Barrister, December, 1989)

The Language of the 2nd Amendment

The 2nd Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia being necessary
to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

One way in which the NRA constructs its mythical 2nd Amendment is by changing the language of the real one. The NRA's political ads consistently omit the part about the militia being necessary to a state's security. Indeed, the abridged version actually appears on the edifice of the NRA's Washington, DC headquarters. The NRA's deliberate omission of the militia language speaks volumes, because it is precisely that language that expresses the purpose, and limit, of the right to keep and bear arms.

As the United States Supreme Court wrote in its fullest discussion of the Amendment's meaning, the "obvious purpose" of the Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of state militia forces. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939). The Court added: "It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." Therefore, the necessity of maintaining effective state militias is, by the language itself, the only concern of the Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms exists only to the extent necessary to meet that concern.

(continued in Part2)

First, the right to keep and bear arms already existed when the second amendment was written. 2A does not grant any rights. Neither do any of the other amendments. The amendments enumerate and guarantee existing rights.

The "militia' Is cited as the reason for providing the guarantee that "the right OF THE PEOPLE, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It is not cited as the reason for the existance of the right itself.

"The abundance of gun-rights supporters (especially those who equate gun laws with being like Hitler -- the same who so often strive to limit the rights of Women, Race, sexual orientation and anything and anyone else whom they want the right to be able to shoot first and ask questions of later) forces me to speak out. So, from a purely emotional standpoint:

What the hell is wrong with you controlling (in the guise of freedom), bullet-happy assholes?

What a load of crap. I don't suppose you'd care to provide any documentation of these absurd accusations though, huh?

And who are the "controlling assholes" here? We are not trying to control you. It is you and your submission-monkey ilk who are trying to control us.

Fadeln:

Please check this defintion of the word "militia" from the 1771 Encyclopedia Britannica...

MILITIA, in general, denotes the body of soldiers, or those who make profession of arms.
.....In a more restrained sense, militia denotes the trained bands of a town or country, who arm themselves, upon a short warning, for their own defence. So that, in this sense, militia is opposed to regular or stated troops.
.....For the direction and command of the militia, the king constitutes lords-lieutenants of each country.

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/militia.htm

As you can see, the word refers to a trained band of trained towns people (as opposed to regular troops) who arm themselves for the common defense. So, if people are trained in the yse of arms (as I am as well as most of the pro-civil rights group that posts here) we are the militia under this definition.

Look at the link. There is a scan of the original page from the 1771 Encyclopedia.

Michael

Fadeln:

You wrote "Guns alone don't kill people -- but fearful, angry, asshole, whack-jobs with guns, do."

People with guns (like Jeanne Assam) also stop "whack-jobs with guns".

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html

How many people do you think would have died that day if she had not been armed and shot Matthew Murray as he entered the church. He was carrying two handguns, an rifle and 1,000 rounds of ammunition. How many more people would have died that day if she had not stopped him?

Also, what about Vice Principle Joel Myrick who stopped Luke Woodham's rampage that day in Pearl, Mississippi? V.P. Myrick ran to his car to retrieve his handgun and held Woodham at gunpoint until the police arrived. How many more would have died that day if he hadn't acted as he did to stop the shootings?

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OthWr/principal&gun.htm

Michael

Because, then it wouldn't be the gun's fault.

mike101; See my above post. And by the way shedances is also Kelly of the Brady Blog.

I have no idea if the site is factual or not. If it is, then I would say the guy is a hypocrite. If it's not true, then you're helping to spread a lie. Either way, guns are primarily meant to kill. How much do you need to do that?

They do Kelli. Maybe you should say the same about Josh Sugarmann who has an FFL in Wash DC.

That's right Kelli. Just keep ignoring the fact that this was a perfectly legal dealer-transfer. You are pretending to be ignorant of that fact, and I know you are not. You are just perpetuating the lie. Why?

"Does he have any clue whatsoever as to the huge consequences of such business dealings over the Internet? I sure hope that ATF keeps a very close watch on him & his activities in the future ..."

Yes he does Kelli. He is the holder of a Federal Firearms License, just like Josh Sugarman. I wonder if Josh has any clue whatsoever of the huge consequenses of lying to the ATF and the IRS.

Sure. That's what the dealer tells ATF. But in reality. Yes, he SOLD it to Cho.

Why do you defend him so? Do you want to buy firearms over the internet? Do you want to have automatic weapons at your disposal? Are you a terrorist?