E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-18-2013, 02:32 PM   #81
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 99
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
But they ignore the fact that we ALREADY have background checks.
The current background check laws, regulations and systems are so pitiably weak, loophole-ridden and ineffectual -- hardly by accident -- that the system hardly deserves to be called that.
Rhumb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 02:33 PM   #82
joeski3d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 519
My Ride: 2000 323i
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
Just wait until you get fleeced for $15 everytime you want to buy something (even if it's an hour apart), when you have to apply for a special permit to be able to buy more than one gun a month, to wait (it's up to 10 business days now) to be able to PICK UP your gun while the background check is done (backlog my a$$, this is simply an illegal waiting period), etc.

For me to buy a gun in NJ at a gun shop.

Get in Jeep, drive 11 miles to shop.
Fill out paperwork, show my ids and FIDs, and submit paperwork.
Get in Jeep, drive home.
Wait.
Wait.
Wait some more.
The following week (or two) I get a phone call telling me the check is in and it's clean.
Get in Jeep, drive 11 miles to shop. Sit in some traffic.
Go to store, pay for gun I "purchased" 2 weeks ago.
Get in Jeep, drive home with gun.

Wasted about 4 hours of my time, about $25 in gas, etc.

If you think that's ok, by all means support new gun legislation, but I sure as hell won't support ANY new law when it comes to guns, no matter how much "sense" it makes.

What these states are doing is criminal.
Meh. The place I plan to purchase from is where I pick up my son for visitation every other week. If not, I will go to the place about 5 mins from work. No big deal. No traffic that I wouldn't normally drive through. No extra gas burning. It's on the way, so to speak.
__________________

Ballbusters Inc.

DISCLAIMER: No balls were physically hurt during the reading of this post. Should redness and/or swelling occur consult your gynecologist immediately.
joeski3d is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 02:33 PM   #83
david05111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ponte Vedra, FL
Posts: 3,756
My Ride: drei hundert dreißig
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
What precisely were you opposed to that was proposed?
Honestly, this has been covered by me and others all over this thread already. Read into private person-to-person sales.

EDIT: I answered this question in the other thread. Copy/pasted below

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grande D View Post
Wait a second... As I read this Fox article it seems the bill exempted personal transactions from background checks to appeal to people like y'all.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...s-on-gun-bill/
It basically attacked any private sale facilitated by an advertisement anywhere. That's a newspaper, magazine, Craigslist, e46fanatics, etc.

For instance, if I was to make a post in this forum saying I had a shotgun to sell. And another person decided they wanted it, current law would allow us to meet up in FL face to face and do the deal. No dealer/background check required. The new law would require us to pay a dealer for the transfer, pay for a background check, turn a 10 minute deal into one taking at least an hour, and for what? It's no different than if my neighbor across the street and I decide he wants my shotgun or rifle or handgun and we do a deal face to face.

The way they word the amendment attacks such private sales amongst individuals. Most of the time, yeah, we use some form of post or advertisement to facilitate things. The funny thing is that the bill doesn't actually define what constitutes an advertisement, so we don't know what the rules are entirely.

What they don't tell you is that true sales, from dealers, stores, etc. over the Internet ALREADY REQUIRE background checks and dealer transfers. With the limited exception of the Government's own Civilian Marksmanship Program, all firearms bought through a dealer or store online must be shipped to a local dealer near yourself where you undergo a background check and pay a transfer fee. They don't just magically show up in your mail without one.

They also don't tell you that sales from dealers at gun shows ALREADY REQUIRE background checks. All other sales at gun shows are simple consumer to consumer, face to face transactions that they then attempt to say will be exempted! It's total bullshit language. Anyone who knows anything about it and takes a second to really read it can see straight through it.

This is another example of people not reading between the lines and knowing what current laws actually do.
__________________


"You'll Never Walk Alone"

"Psycho Murican" -- beeemerdude of Canada

Last edited by david05111; 04-18-2013 at 02:36 PM.
david05111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 02:37 PM   #84
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 904
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
The current background check laws, regulations and systems are so pitiably weak, loophole-ridden and ineffectual -- hardly by accident -- that the system hardly deserves to be called that.
Because it doesn't work. None of it works. It's only for the sheep to believe that these moronic laws serve ANY kind of purpose.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 02:37 PM   #85
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 904
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeski3d View Post
Meh. The place I plan to purchase from is where I pick up my son for visitation every other week. If not, I will go to the place about 5 mins from work. No big deal. No traffic that I wouldn't normally drive through. No extra gas burning. It's on the way, so to speak.
I edited my previous post.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 02:39 PM   #86
david05111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ponte Vedra, FL
Posts: 3,756
My Ride: drei hundert dreißig
Quote:
Originally Posted by brew View Post
Maybe the methodology was sound, but to take the results of that poll and say that they mean that "87% of Americans want expanded background checks" is BS. The problem is with the question:

"Do you support or oppose legislation that would require background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows?"

We already have legislation that requires background checks on all dealer sales, including all dealer sales at gun shows, which compromise the vast majority of sales at gun shows.

We also already have legislation that requires anyone shipping a gun in a private sale (like all "online" sales) to ship the gun to a FFL holder, who will run a background check if the purchaser does not hold a FFL.

I'm in support of that legislation. If I were being truthful in my response to that question, I would have to answer "yes". However I was strongly opposed to all of the legislation being voted on yesterday.
This times 461746716326361537363. Hit the nail on the head. The question and the interpretation Obama is using is absolutely incorrect.
__________________


"You'll Never Walk Alone"

"Psycho Murican" -- beeemerdude of Canada
david05111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 02:42 PM   #87
david05111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ponte Vedra, FL
Posts: 3,756
My Ride: drei hundert dreißig
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
The current background check laws, regulations and systems are so pitiably weak, loophole-ridden and ineffectual -- hardly by accident -- that the system hardly deserves to be called that.
Democrats, read again, democrats voted down another proposal by Grassley and Cruz that would have done wonders to fix the system. They voted it down yesterday, directly after the Toomey solution failed. And it almost garnered as much support. Don't blame us Obama; another solution was presented that also would have strengthened laws and funded programs but your constituency didn't back it.
__________________


"You'll Never Walk Alone"

"Psycho Murican" -- beeemerdude of Canada
david05111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 02:44 PM   #88
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 904
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...rting-firearms

Link to the proposal in case someone cares to read it.

Key points.

• Improve and reauthorize grants for NICS database;

• Require federal courts to submit relevant information to NICS;

• Ensure that relevant mental health records are submitted by states to NICS;

• Condition federal grant money for states on their submission of mental health records to NICS;

• Increase federal prosecution of gun violence by establishing the Nationwide Project Exile Program and establishing a high level federal taskforce;

• Study of the causes of mass shootings;

• Responsibly addresses gun violence by criminalizing straw purchasing of firearms and gun trafficking;

• Second Amendment Protections for Veterans;

• Require the Department of Justice to explain to Congress why it has or has not been prosecuting gun cases;

• Place Limitations on Fast & Furious type operations by DOJ;

• Authorize FFL's to utilize the NICS database to for voluntary background checks of employees;

• Authorize FFL's to access the FBI's National Crime Information Center stolen gun database to ensure that a firearm is not stolen prior to acquisition;

• Reauthorize the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act (MIOTCRA) with amendments;

• Address school safety by Reauthorizes the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Secure our Schools Program through 2023.

For the record, I'm not crazy about this one either, but its a lot better than the alternative.
__________________

Last edited by NFRs2000nyc; 04-18-2013 at 02:45 PM.
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 02:54 PM   #89
joeski3d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 519
My Ride: 2000 323i
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
I edited my previous post.
Don't plan to keep a pistol in the house. I have two sons. I have every intention of teaching them to use and respect firearms... but I don't want either of them to be able to causally walk out of the house with my firearm for any reason at all.

A shotgun is kind of hard to hide in your pants.
__________________

Ballbusters Inc.

DISCLAIMER: No balls were physically hurt during the reading of this post. Should redness and/or swelling occur consult your gynecologist immediately.
joeski3d is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 02:54 PM   #90
david05111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ponte Vedra, FL
Posts: 3,756
My Ride: drei hundert dreißig
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...rting-firearms

Link to the proposal in case someone cares to read it.

Key points.

• Improve and reauthorize grants for NICS database;

• Require federal courts to submit relevant information to NICS;

• Ensure that relevant mental health records are submitted by states to NICS;

• Condition federal grant money for states on their submission of mental health records to NICS;

• Increase federal prosecution of gun violence by establishing the Nationwide Project Exile Program and establishing a high level federal taskforce;

• Study of the causes of mass shootings;

• Responsibly addresses gun violence by criminalizing straw purchasing of firearms and gun trafficking;

• Second Amendment Protections for Veterans;

• Require the Department of Justice to explain to Congress why it has or has not been prosecuting gun cases;

• Place Limitations on Fast & Furious type operations by DOJ;

• Authorize FFL's to utilize the NICS database to for voluntary background checks of employees;

• Authorize FFL's to access the FBI's National Crime Information Center stolen gun database to ensure that a firearm is not stolen prior to acquisition;

• Reauthorize the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act (MIOTCRA) with amendments;

• Address school safety by Reauthorizes the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Secure our Schools Program through 2023.

For the record, I'm not crazy about this one either, but its a lot better than the alternative.
I would vote for it. Project Exile has been proven to work. As a matter of fact, I think it was a Clinton program that Bush expanded. I would have been pretty satisfied to see that pass if it had; I think it might make a difference. But Democrats, who WANTED TO DO SOMETHING, voted along party lines because they were pouting and did NOTHING. A very inconvenient truth for Obama, which no media outlet seems to be pointing out.
__________________


"You'll Never Walk Alone"

"Psycho Murican" -- beeemerdude of Canada

Last edited by david05111; 04-18-2013 at 02:55 PM.
david05111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 02:55 PM   #91
david05111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ponte Vedra, FL
Posts: 3,756
My Ride: drei hundert dreißig
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeski3d View Post
Don't plan to keep a pistol in the house. I have two sons. I have every intention of teaching them to use and respect firearms... but I don't want either of them to be able to causally walk out of the house with my firearm for any reason at all.

A shotgun is kind of hard to hide in your pants.
Get a safe?
__________________


"You'll Never Walk Alone"

"Psycho Murican" -- beeemerdude of Canada
david05111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 02:58 PM   #92
joeski3d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 519
My Ride: 2000 323i
Quote:
Originally Posted by david05111 View Post
Get a safe?
No need for a handgun safe if I don't plan to have a handgun.
__________________

Ballbusters Inc.

DISCLAIMER: No balls were physically hurt during the reading of this post. Should redness and/or swelling occur consult your gynecologist immediately.
joeski3d is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 02:58 PM   #93
brew
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Central Oregon
Posts: 341
My Ride: Sequoia X5 MR2 G20
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
What precisely were you opposed to that was proposed?
Well for starters:

Expanding background checks to face to face private party transfers. You can't sell a gun to a lifelong friend without going to a FFL and paying a fee and waiting for clearance . . no matter how long you know your friend, no matter how many prior background checks he's had and no matter how badly he needs the gun to deal with an imminent threat.

You can't lend guns to friends for non hunting/sporting purposes. So if your friend says "someone tried to break in last night and I'm afraid they are going to hurt me . . and the cops won't do anything about it", you have to say "well I can lend you a gun, but we have to drive to a FFL, pay a fee and wait for clearance (which may take a few days)".

No cap on the fees that FFL's can charge for background checks.

Exempting certain private party transfers between certain family members, but only under the federal definition of such family members. For example it would be a felony for a married gay person to sell or lend a gun for non hunting/sporting purposes to his partner without a background check. It's unclear whether common law marriage is recognized.

The de facto 2-3 day waiting period that this would cause, especially considering that gun show transfers take precedence over non gun-show sales.

The completely unlimited HIPAA exemption loophole for the attorney general to collect private health information. If my wife took an anti-depressant drug for 3 weeks after she had a baby 6 years ago, could that prevent her from buying a gun? Dunno - but information of that low level is currently subject to HIPAA restrictions.

Spending up to $400MM of bribe, er I mean "grant", money to get states to cooperate.
brew is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 03:06 PM   #94
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brew View Post
Well for starters:

Expanding background checks to face to face private party transfers. You can't sell a gun to a lifelong friend without going to a FFL and paying a fee and waiting for clearance . . no matter how long you know your friend, no matter how many prior background checks he's had and no matter how badly he needs the gun to deal with an imminent threat.

You can't lend guns to friends for non hunting/sporting purposes. So if your friend says "someone tried to break in last night and I'm afraid they are going to hurt me . . and the cops won't do anything about it", you have to say "well I can lend you a gun, but we have to drive to a FFL, pay a fee and wait for clearance (which may take a few days)".

No cap on the fees that FFL's can charge for background checks.

Exempting certain private party transfers between certain family members, but only under the federal definition of such family members. For example it would be a felony for a married gay person to sell or lend a gun for non hunting/sporting purposes to his partner without a background check. It's unclear whether common law marriage is recognized.

The de facto 2-3 day waiting period that this would cause, especially considering that gun show transfers take precedence over non gun-show sales.

The completely unlimited HIPAA exemption loophole for the attorney general to collect private health information. If my wife took an anti-depressant drug for 3 weeks after she had a baby 6 years ago, could that prevent her from buying a gun? Dunno - but information of that low level is currently subject to HIPAA restrictions.

Spending up to $400MM of bribe, er I mean "grant", money to get states to cooperate.
I guess an asteroid could be headed for Earth, and Bruce Willis might need to borrow your gun so he can shoot his way into the rocket to fly up there and blow it up, but you can't give him your gun because, even though he's your lifelong friend, he hasn't yet been cleared through a background check! I think I just destroyed the world.

Sorry, but that's how your post came across.

If you need a gun so urgently that a background check is insufficient, there's a problem. Someone is threatening you and you need a gun? You'll wait for them at home armed to the teeth? Wouldn't leaving town or staying away from your residence for a couple of days and reporting this to the police be a better solution? Oh, I know. The police are useless and so on.
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 03:07 PM   #95
Zell
Registered User
 
Zell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Such City
Posts: 5,627
My Ride: '02 Dogemobile Shibe
Quote:
Originally Posted by brew View Post
Maybe the methodology was sound, but to take the results of that poll and say that they mean that "87% of Americans want expanded background checks" is BS.
The results of the poll said that 60% want stricter laws covering the sales of firearms, and 87% supported background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows.

The law states that private sales do not require background checks - in other words, people at gun shows as well. About 2 out of 5 guns sold do not get background checks, last time I read a statistic about it. I can go buy a rifle at a gun show from a seller without a background check.

So yes, the answer from this poll is that approximately 87% of Americans are seeking to expand background checks.

I don't know how they'd enforce private gun sales unless they did something like they do with car VINs.
__________________

Last edited by Zell; 04-18-2013 at 03:09 PM.
Zell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 03:08 PM   #96
brew
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Central Oregon
Posts: 341
My Ride: Sequoia X5 MR2 G20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
The current background check laws, regulations and systems are so pitiably weak, loophole-ridden and ineffectual -- hardly by accident -- that the system hardly deserves to be called that.
What "loophole" are you talking about? The law requires dealer sales to non FFL's to have a background check. It requires non face to face private sales to have a background check. The "loophole" you are likely referring to is outside the scope of the law.

It's like saying that since you don't need a commercial drivers license to ride a bicycle, there's a "bicycle loophole".
brew is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 03:10 PM   #97
brew
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Central Oregon
Posts: 341
My Ride: Sequoia X5 MR2 G20
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
I guess an asteroid could be headed for Earth, and Bruce Willis might need to borrow your gun so he can shoot his way into the rocket to fly up there and blow it up, but you can't give him your gun because, even though he's your lifelong friend, he hasn't yet been cleared through a background check! I think I just destroyed the world.

Sorry, but that's how your post came across.

If you need a gun so urgently that a background check is insufficient, there's a problem. Someone is threatening you and you need a gun? You'll wait for them at home armed to the teeth? Wouldn't leaving town or staying away from your residence for a couple of days and reporting this to the police be a better solution? Oh, I know. The police are useless and so on.
Tell that to Feinstein with her specially approved CA concealed carry permit, or Bloomberg with his armed security team. Ordinary people face real threats, too. Cops are just there to figure out who did it after the fact.
brew is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 03:14 PM   #98
brew
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Central Oregon
Posts: 341
My Ride: Sequoia X5 MR2 G20
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
I guess an asteroid could be headed for Earth, and Bruce Willis might need to borrow your gun so he can shoot his way into the rocket to fly up there and blow it up, but you can't give him your gun because, even though he's your lifelong friend, he hasn't yet been cleared through a background check! I think I just destroyed the world.

Sorry, but that's how your post came across.

If you need a gun so urgently that a background check is insufficient, there's a problem. Someone is threatening you and you need a gun? You'll wait for them at home armed to the teeth? Wouldn't leaving town or staying away from your residence for a couple of days and reporting this to the police be a better solution? Oh, I know. The police are useless and so on.

And question on the gay spouse thing - so are approving of a law which would make it a felony for a gay spouse to use his partner's gun for self defense in a home invasion situation . . but that would make it ok for a hetero spouse to do the same?

It's just a lousy law all around.
brew is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 03:15 PM   #99
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brew View Post
Tell that to Feinstein with her specially approved CA concealed carry permit, or Bloomberg with his armed security team. Ordinary people face real threats, too. Cops are just there to figure out who did it after the fact.
Considering how much Feinstein's name gets brought up in anger on this forum and others by the pro-gun crowd, I'm not surprised she would take extreme measures. I don't know if people bring up your name in the same tone at the same rate.

Yes, people face threats. Of course. But I am unlikely to urgently need a gun in 5 days, and be completely oblivious to that fact today. If I am the type of person that might find myself in that position in 5 days, or am I surrounded by people that would cause me to need a gun in such a short period, I'd damn well better know this about myself way ahead of time before I need a gun.
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 03:16 PM   #100
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Quote:
Originally Posted by brew View Post
And question on the gay spouse thing - so are approving of a law which would make it a felony for a gay spouse to use his partner's gun for self defense in a home invasion situation . . but that would make it ok for a hetero spouse to do the same?

It's just a lousy law all around.
The law specifically differentiates between gay and straight marriages?
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use