On the 11th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/'01 it is ludicrous that we still allow those on the terrorist watch list to buy guns, including without any check whatsoever at gun shows and private sales. While 9/11 did not involve attacks with firearms, other terrorist incidents have.
The Huff Po noted in an article earlier this year that support for a bill to ban people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns and explosives had bi-partisan support, including from veterans and gun owners. "
Isn't it time we STOP selling our government to the highest special interest bidder (mostly the many many corrupt conservatives, in the case of the NRA and ALEC) and start putting the safety of the country, the safety of the military, and the safety of our citizens ahead of corporate greed? Corporations are not people, no matter what Mitts on R-money says, no matter how much money and influence the NRA throws behind him to gratify their greed.
Gun control campaign from Stop Handgun Violence in Boston.
The Huff Po noted in an article earlier this year that support for a bill to ban people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns and explosives had bi-partisan support, including from veterans and gun owners. "
A 2011 report by the Government Accounting Office found that from February 2004 to February 2010, "individuals on the terrorist watch list were involved in firearm or explosives background checks 1,228 times; 1,119 (about 91 percent) of these transactions were allowed to proceed because no prohibiting information was found."So despite the fact that our own military members consistently favor this legislation, and gun owners (both NRA members and non-NRA members, per MULTIPLE polling data), the NRA gun MANUFACTURER lobby prevents it by pressuring members of Congress.
Isn't it time we STOP selling our government to the highest special interest bidder (mostly the many many corrupt conservatives, in the case of the NRA and ALEC) and start putting the safety of the country, the safety of the military, and the safety of our citizens ahead of corporate greed? Corporations are not people, no matter what Mitts on R-money says, no matter how much money and influence the NRA throws behind him to gratify their greed.
Weer'd Beard - My apology, in attempting to approve your comment through moderation I inadvertently hit the wrong button. Your comment was fine and I'm republishing it here.
ReplyDeleteWeer'd Beard said, "Well except for the fact that Massachusetts has no legal means of private sale, and the owner of that sign faced serious federal charges (thankfully he lied about "buying a gun") when he attempted to expose such a "Loophole" in New Hampshire
http://www.goal.org/newsarchive/2007rosenthalstraw.html"
So, in reply to that comment -
ReplyDeleteWeer'd - it is entirely not the case that you cannot buy a firearm privately in Massachussets, you most certainly can do so. You can do so in a face to face sale without any restriction whatsoever. You are required to file a form (F-10 I think I read), but that's it.
What you CAN'T do, is sell a firearm across state lines, but my impression is that you can't do that because of federal laws against interstate firearm tracking. You have to, as I understand, conduct such sales through an entity with an FFL (such as a gun store) - to track the sale. Perhaps that's a Mass law, but my understanding is that you have to file documentation with the federal government, not state, which makes it sound like it's a federal requirement. The point being, you are more than able to sell a firearm privately in Mass, you aren't allowed to do so across state lines.
The FA-10 transfer is called a "Face to face private sale", But the form requires both participants to have either an FID or an LTC (depending on the gun being transferred) both of which require a background check as well as training and a rather steep fee. And the FA-10 from must be filed with the State Police. So the multiple levels of direct government oversight, hardly make it a "Private sale". And the sales are limited to 4 per calender year, and all guns are registered with the state. Failure to comply with these laws is a serious crime.
DeleteThe sign is 100% dishonest, as is Mr. Rosenthal.
(BTW thanks for publishing my comment, and no worries about hitting the wrong button, it happens)
Hello Weerd Beerd, fancy meeting you here. Welcome.
ReplyDeletePen was not aware that we had encountered you on other blogs, and I believe you and Laci and my friend japete from over at commongunsense and the crowd at mikeb's, and probably democommie.
I hope you will observe the rules of conduct rather better than your fellow gunner serh8tred did here.
Pen already fact checked your assertions, saving me the trouble. I'm somewhat hors de combat today, whelping puppies for a friend.
Puppy birthing yuck and keyboards don't go well together. There's enough gear involved that squeezing in the portable computer doesn't help matters.
Wow, that's interesting. I have been thinking about buying a pistol. I wonder if I'm on the terrorist watch list?
ReplyDeleteMy Google-fu must be weak: I can't find the terrorist watch list on-line. Is it available? Is it searchable? How can I find out if I'm on that list and if I am, how do I appeal to get off the list?
.
The more I search, the more it appears the "terrorist watch list" is a secret list of people the government doesn't like, what we called in the Nixon days an "enemies list." Nobody knows what it takes to get on it, nobody knows who's on it, nobody knows how to get off.
ReplyDeleteAre you certain you want citizens denied civil rights based on a secret enemies list? What if Romney wins and his minions scour your cached pages and decide you're worth watching - still like the idea?
Joe, is it possible your understanding of the watch list is as flawed as you knowledge of the old right wing and the new right wing?
ReplyDeleteI know how to find out how to be included or to get off the watch list. It isn't anything like as difficult as you represent it, nor is it the way you described it.
If YOU don't know who is on it, how do you know if it is good or bad, btw?
Just as soon as you answer those simple questions posed to you, I promise to provide a post on how one finds the watch list, and if they're on it, and the criteria used to be put on it, and how to get off of it if put on by mistake.
I don't know why it is that you are having trouble with locating that information; it isn't difficult.
But then you only seem to find the cherrypicked data that you want to find.
We can wait for your answer about the old and new right and their opposition to black civil rights and their pro-segretation / jim crow positions.
Take your time. If you continue to have trouble, either I can help you, or you might seek assistance from your local public librarian -- if the tea party extremists haven't closed the libraries in your area yet.
This coming from and author of a post entitled "So True" that talks about an open and demonstrable lie.
Deletey'all need to work on your integrity.
Be more specific.
ReplyDeleteI think our integrity is doing just fine, but if you can show us an error, we are pretty conscientious about correcting it.
An error means a point of fact, not a differenece with your ideology.
Weerd,
ReplyDeleteFirst, so you CAN conduct a private gun sale in Mass?? Hmm... funny, didn't you say otherwise, that you can't. In fact, didn't you then acknowledge that you CAN, it's just limited and maybe not convenient?
Now, given that you claimed you CANT conduct a private sale in Massechussetts, when in fact you can and you acknowledge it CAN be done - well, I think you have to admit that you "overstated" the problem (if not lied).
Further, I don't know what you think DG was wrong about, but IF she was wrong, and we've yet to understand your reason, AND if that error was simply an error, then it's not a lie. A lie is a deliberate attempt to mislead, kinda like saying you can't sell a gun privately, being wrong is simply that and nothing more.
Furthermore, I (Penigma) didn't lie - so you accused ME of lacking integrity as well as DG. Where I come from, people are careful about which words they use. Making scurrelous insults lacks integrity. Going forward, I think ya'll may want to work on improving the compentency of your writing/analyses.
There is a process called a "Private Transfer" in the state of Massachusetts. It requires a police-issued permit for both parties, police supplied paperwork to be filled out and filed with the state police, and the whole process is overseen by the Massachusetts State Police, as well as all firearms transferred are updated in the state gun registry. Divination from any of these protocols will result in loss of permit, forfeiture of all firearms in the person's legal possession, and potential for serious fines and prison time.
DeleteSo yeah its CALLED a "Private Transfer", but it is just as public and regulated as a sale in a gun shop.
This was all clearly outlined in my above statement, yet here I am repeating myself.
And yeah, the blog has your screen name on it, and you allowed dog gone to make such a spurious post claiming such things to be true that are not.
So I don't think my accusation of either of you is at all off base, and actually very well documented.
Wwerd,
ReplyDeleteLet's see if I get this straight. DG posts a satirical picture, you call it a lie, even though clearly no one, certainly not her, thought it was ACTUALLY true. She did nothing to deceive you, it obviously want intentional and you know it, which means it wasn't a lie, but y ou still call it one.
THEN, you post an exaggeration, are confronted, admit it was, but SHES's the liar, and YOU have integrity.
LOL.
Ok - I guess we know your thought process, good for thee but nor for me.
What on earth are you talking about?
DeleteWhat did I exaggerate? I admit there is a "Private Transfer" in Massachusetts, but there is NOTHING about it that is in fact private. I have outlined this, and said nothing untrue.
It appears to be private, as distinct from commercial.
ReplyDeleteAre you trying to tell me no one makes private transfers in MA, including internet transfers that are done privately?
Commercial Businesses are private. FFLs are private businesses that need to open their doors to the federal government for oversight, so in buying and selling of firearms they have ZERO privacy.
ReplyDeletePeople can sell guns out of the trunk of their cars or over the internet or across state lines, or at gun shows....they're just guilty of a felony.
All legal sales of firearms in the state of Massachusetts (Again ALL LEGAL sales...let's not badger this issue any more than necessary) MUST be done under the oversight of the Mass State Police.
My point as it always has been that Massachusetts' "Private Transfer" law is like saying your room has a "Private Bathroom"....but a police officer must watch you while your bathe and use the toilet.
Calling it "Private" is a downright lie.
No Thomas, it is more like saying your house has a private garage. I'm assuming that the oversight you describe, as I understand it from what I've read, is that you cannot sell a firearm to a prohibited person - a criminal, a drug addict, a person found to be dangerously mentally ill, a minor, an illegal immigrant, etc.
ReplyDeleteThey do not prohibit you from making a legal sale, they do not dictate what you can charge - how little, how much; they do not regulate what or how you advertise or otherwise connect with the person to whom you sell.
They strictly limit their involvement to ensuring that legal weapons remain sold to legal owners.
To say that a sale is not private because they make that determination is silly, it is a gross exaggeration to comparing it to someone remaining in your bathroom to watch you wash or sit on the toilet. They do not follow around a purchaser and supervise every use of that firearm - which would be the equivalent to watching you use a bathroom.
You do exaggerate, and you do so where we clearly have an extreme problem in this country with legal firearms being transferred, usually NOT by theft, to prohibited people. In the case of theft, and in the case of the many accidents as well, there is often unsafe storage and security of firearms as well. You have only to look at the news, you have only to look at the statistics that we have deaths and injuries of children by firearms multiple times the totals of other similar countries COMBINED. So clearly, all those gun owners are not taking proper precautions, they are not all that responsible, in securing those weapons, or in sales for that matter given the number of illegal guns.
That makes it a very reasonable provision, and not at all as your represent it, on both the basis of justification - sinks and toilets are seldom if ever the cause of death, either accidental or deliberate; and while there are deaths in bathtubs and showers, the porcelain in your bathroom was never designed primarily to be a lethal weapon; people do not for example commit crimes with them on any regular basis. They are not sold over the border to drug cartels, and there are not shady groups like ALEC and the NRA who do dirty little deals for gun manufacturers on the same basis for plumbing fixtures. Rarely do plumbing fixtures leave the home in the same way that either open or concealed carry provide dangers to the public either.
You made a false analogy that does not equate to firearms in any of the most significant respects; sorry but it is another example of the failures of firearm advocates to reason clearly and succinctly and critically.
It was an attempt to make a stupid emotional appeal that is just silly.
Try again. Hooray for MA for being reasonable, sensible, and rational - unlike the gun zombies who treat firearms not as lethal weapons but as a fetish object for which they hold delusions of heroic performance and power, when the reality is much different.
I would point you to the recent post on pagunblog where Sebastian - who was to chickenshit to post any comment of mine making reasonable and sane poitns - challenged the notion that people with serious vision problems were a risk in publicly carrying and using firearms - objected to requiring a vision check for carry permits, similar to what we require for driving.
ReplyDeleteHe did something very similar to what you just did. He brought up the example of someone who was able to do a very limited and specific type of firearm competition who had a vision problem. The fact that this was one individual who apparently had become proficient while they could still see well, and who reasonably could not have done so if he had tried to become proficient after his eye problems became severe wasn't mentioned. The fact that he was the exception to the rule of people with similar vision problems was ignored, The fact that his situation was very different from most of the more common vision problems, like cataracts was similarly ignored, and the fact that the kind of competitive shooting he did was a skill that would not reasonably translate to a real life situation where there would be differences in lighting, or in the targets moving that a person would need to shoot at were not addressed either.
In short, it was a dishonest example that did not prove his case at all.
Further it left out that I posed this in the connection of a larger issue of preventing an increasingly elderly population that could become unfit to use a firearm, in the same way they become unfit to drive at a certain point in the deterioration that is usually a part of aging, given our population demographics and our gun ownership demographic.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to do much better than THIS. You fail, and our national gun culture is increasingly failing.
I think we've gone as far as we possibly can in what only superficially passes for a "Discussion".
DeleteAs for being taken seriously, you'll note that only one of our sides IS being taken seriously in America right now, and the above failure for rational communication is why.
But feel free to call me a failure, I don't mind at all! :)
Answer me one question Weerd Beard.
ReplyDeleteDoes Massachusetts law enforcement follow you around every time a privately sold or purchased firearms is used?
If not - and it IS NOT - then you have made a bad comparison in your example, and that is not an exception but the rule from what I have seen.
You don't appear to have an argument for my point, or a rebuttal or refutation.
Because I don't think there is one; you made a false claim. The intrusion of the MS state police to prevent firearms from being sold to unqualified or prohibited people is clearly necessary, and not excessive.
Its all written above...twice. Just re-read them. I don't feel the need to re-write them
DeleteAs for the terror watch list nonsense, that's old news. Talked about it here.
http://www.weerdworld.com/2011/common-sense-2/
If you have any valid points, I do not moderate my comments, but I do expect a commitment to discussion and a respect for my readers. So leave a comment there.
Having the state police verify information on sales of lethal weapons does not involve them continuing to follow you around as you use the weapon. It does not involve them standing there while you have your pants down or your cloting off.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't that sustained, and it isn't that invasive.
You haven't refuted that criticism of your analogy.
You apparently can't.
This is not a lack of respect, it is a fact. Your criticism of the private sale provisions is NOT like a cop standing in your bathroom while you pee poo shower or bathe.
That is following that commitment to discussion you claim to respect - if you really have that committment, please respond.
Your comments have been published here; if you object to moderation, blame that on our harasser. If it were not for KRod, we usually wouldn't need to moderate anything.
The only other individual we have had to moderate for harassment was Serrh8tred.