Excellent Tina, Note to all Liberal judges out there Coddling criminals, Start enforcing the Laws on the Books, We would not have half of the Crime we do, Most states have Weapon enhancement laws, If you use a weapon to commit a crime, It is ridiculous to have three and four time felons on the streets of this Country.

The author should provide some concrete proof that such sales lead to criminal use of guns. Most of the time guns on the REAL black market are STOLEN.

They post this story every year, and they get the same reaction. Nevertheless, they're going to keep trying it seems.

Also, a "semiautomatic assault rifle" is a contradiction. An assault rifle is one that can fire more than one round per one pull of the trigger (going by the ATF's definition), which means, if it's semiautomatic, it's not an assault rifle. Fully automatic weapons, including assault rifles, have been regulated by the ATF since 1986, cannot be made after 1986 (meaning, you have to grandfather in existing ones), and are considerably expensive. Class III weapons owners (fully auto) are some of the most law abiding in our nation, according to the very statistics of the ATF. How about getting someone who knows something about a firearm to write the stories about them. But that's MSNBC, once again, playing politics.

I hate FOX News, MSNBC. I really do. But when you stoop to the same level they do, I really start to hate you too. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if you run stories just like FOX News does (with an agenda in mind), I'm going to end up hating you too. Please, don't turn into the demon spawn that they are.

Do we realy have to do this again ? If you own a firearm in this country in most states you may sell it to an individual as a private citizen, most private sellers do not have the capability or legal standing to conduct a background check. You must remember a licienced seller (FFL) must do a background check for all sales involving a firearm even at a gun show. You must have an ffl to conduct a business that retails firearms if these people are truly involved in the gun trade and not selling personly owned guns, but selling as continueing business enterprise they are BREAKING THE LAW. There is no loophole! if an ongoing business is realy afoot then the producer of this story have participated in a federal crime.

This article doesn't have guns as the bad guy. This article has bad guys buying guns legally by exploiting a loophole which is what helps give guns a bad name. It's pointing out that the loophole needs to be fixed.

As for the "liberal judges coddling criminals," that person missed the boat entirely. No laws were broken here. THAT was the point of the article.

Thou shalt read more and rant less.

I just want to make a quick point. Liberal and Conservative are two words that have nothing to do with gun ownership. I'm a democrat and a liberal, and you can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers... AND i'm a member of the NRA..

Anyone can buy guns, no questions asked

So: And your point is.......

Psst - could you give me a lead on the .50 Cal? going "deer hunting" soon... :)

What's just as bad is the media trying to sell us on the idea that these guns can reliably take down a plane in flight. This is just nonsense. They stand about as much of a chance taking down a plane in flight as does a model rocket from the local hobby shop.

Thanks for you input Shadow. It's good to know this is an American vs. government issue, not American vs. American.

This article seems to hint people are ordering guns over the internet. What is actually happening is buyers and sellers are being put in touch with each other thru the internet same as any newspaper ad would. most criminals do not get their guns this way.

Square... Tina said nothing of having everyone own a gun. So you went with the slander.

Tina - Amen. Criminals need to be punished. And since I too am not a criminal, I should not have my rights taken away. Nor should I have to be registered when I purchase fire arms.

I say allow us full-automatic weapons. Tax the dickens out of it if you would like, but there is nothing better than squeezing off a long burst of full-auto firing.

It is our right as citizens to own fire arms. And the more our local police weaponize their bomb squads, cruisers, SUV's, foot patrolman, and general crowd control personnel I think it is inherently necessary for civilians to have the means capable of putting the gov't in check should we wake up to an out of control military-police state. The whole fight fire with fire ideology. But I've digressed.

Big scary black guns!

Typical sensationalist.

Example: 50-caliber that could shoot a helicopter? How many criminals would walk into a bank to rob it with a 50-caliber sniper rifle?

does your right to bare arms extend to bombs? missiles? tanks? helicopters? fighter jets? those are all considered "arms" that are used to inflict damage to people and property and entities. If this investigation was about C4 explosives and not guns, EVERYBODY would be up in arms about this. C4 explosives are just inanimate objects too. it just sits there and does nothing, and in fact, is way more stable than a gun (see mythbusters). But we don't just let people buy it because its destructive and harmful. so what if somebody who is a law abiding citizen just has a harmless collecting/blowing stuff up hobby. As long as he's not harming people and property he's law abiding right? This whole "guns don't kill people" argument is bull@!$%#. Guns are designed to kill people and destroy things, often times things that are designed to repel gunfire. Just like explosives, its a dangerous thing to allow in public. Yes, most people aren't mean/evil/malicious/crazy enough to go around shooting up people and blowing up buildings. But the easier you make it for anybody to get these weapons, the more likely they end up in the hands of people who are malicious and seek to cause harm.

SixballQ45.......and you can do it from home, 5 miles from the woods ! Don't even have to worry about anything getting between you and the ever dangerous deer.

Anyone can buy guns, no questions asked

So: And your point is.......

Wow if you missed the point go back and read the article it tells you in there here is a hint "badguys"

OK

You should be able to buy a gun since it says so in the 225 year old constitution (which also used to say black people were 3/5 of a person if I remember). However, if we are going to believe we should never change the constitution to reflect changing times, there is nothing in the provision that says that you cannot require all guns to be registered and all sales to be registered and recorded so that all guns that are owned can be traced if used in a crime. You wanna slaughter Bambi, go ahead. You wanna put holes in tin cans, go ahead. You wanna blow up clay pigeons go ahead. But let us all know you have this weapon of mass destruction (when there are enough of them) and make it traceable so when you do decide to knock off the corner 7-11 we can figure out where the gun came from.

If you own the gun, you are responsible for the gun and all the damage the gun causes, even if it's stolen from you.

That is NOT abridging your right to own a gun

I wonder if anyone will pick up the fact that there was a straw purchase technique used to obtain the data.

If the author hadn't loaded (no pun intended) this article with a bunch of hype and sensationalism to scare people and would've stuck to the intended topic of the issue with people selling guns online to potential criminals and ignoring laws that are in place she would have a point. But she does not. Instead she creates an article that has all merit washed away with biased facts, bogey man scare tactics, and little source to back up her claims. This article is no better than the mindless drivel the the jokers at Fox news spit out. Fortunatly it appears there are pleanty of people on here who are seeing thru her crap and calling BS.

This is the problem with our country left, right, liberal, conservative, republican, democrat. How about American? The extremist BS is eating our country from the inside out and has got to stop. This is why I don't favor either side. Both have good points but then get the nutbags who take it too far and have become so blinded by their own far out beliefs they can no longer rationally think and see the big picture.

Is there a gun control issue, yes I think so, but its not cut and dry as just limit all gun sales and/or stop them. Part of it is there are areas that the laws are too weak (maybe even non existent) and need to be strengthened. The other part is the fact that the are good laws in place but (like many other laws) they are not being enforced like they should be. It is clear we need to make some changes and it is time we do that but we have got to stop letting the extremist BS get in the way. And that includes the far right "all the govment want's to take my goons so they can tell me what to doo and make us socialist commies, well, I ain't a lett'n em" to the far left "if we stop all guns sales the world will be a magical place with no crime, and there will be rainbows in the sky everyday, the birds will always sing, and the unicorns can prance thru the streets." I know, extreme, but get the point?

What a hit piece.

A .50 Caliber can down a helicopter... you just have to make a beyond perfect (read impossible or the military would be doing them all the time) shot.

A Glock 23 with hollow points. Hollow points do inflict more severe damage. On the upside, they don't go through targets into other targets because they lose their energy much more quickly.

A "tactical rifle modified to use AK-47 ammunition". Big whoop.. taking a firearm that's meant to shoot NATO .223 and shoot 7.62x39 doesn't change the firearm's capability one iota. If anything it reduces the capacity because that ammunition is larger diameter.

Sigh...

"We were watching from nearby vans as our buyers paid cash for a tactical assault rifle modified to use bullets for an AK-47, along with an easy-to-conceal pistol – no questions asked."

Did anyone here notice this inane and idiotic statement? I would like to see exactly what "tactical assault rifle" this moron is alluding to. Modified to use bullets for an AK47? Laughable. Let's not forget the "easy to conceal" pistol drivel.

Inflammatory articles rife with misinformation such at this are obviously intended for the ignorant and easy influenced and easily frightened masses that possesses little knowledge of firearms, and are designed primarily to lay the foundation for Obama's promised anti gun laws.

After all, his "fast and furious" scam blew up in his face, so it's time for his next attempt.

@ Ferrosynthesis-3490482:

Any kind of law that requires me to do something before buying is breaking the 2nd Amendment.

Whether it be having to register for a firearm before buying, otherwise I can't buy it is making a law restricting my access to firearms.

Mark - You are absolutely correct !!! and how about the 5 Mile shot... The Longest recorded "Kill" in the war is just a hair over 1 Mile. The 50 Cal. won't even shoot 2 MILES !!!

Pro Obama and Pro Gun.. That's an oxymoron in it's truest form.. He is a puppet of the Clinton wench and we all know she wants to outlaw them all.. Some states are so screwed up that even having spent casings in your pocket or trash is grounds for arrest and interrogation.. Punish the people who use the weapons in a crime and leave the rest of us alone..

Constitutional rights?? They are forcing you to buy health insurance.. What is next? we all will have to give a large chunk of our income to the corrupt masters like modern day surfs?? Wait we already do that and the Sheriff of Knottingham is the I.R.S. ..

Yes, and the photo with the caption "guns as powerful as this," as if the appearance has anything to do with power.

Also, I believe there are federal limits on shipping guns via the mail, and often via private carriers. Most gun dealers I know of will ship a firearm to another dealer for pick-up, but not directly through the mail or some other carrier. Could be wrong in some cases, though.

Legal loophole permits weapons powerful enough to down aircraft to be sold without checks

Yet we haven't ever had an aircraft shot out of the sky. Weird?

Do you really think your safer with criminals having easy access to weapons?

Criminals will aslways have easy access to guns, it's law abiding people who have to jump though hoops to get one. Drugs are illegal, yet last ime I checked criminals seemed to have no problem getting them.

If you own the gun, you are responsible for the gun and all the damage the gun causes, even if it's stolen from you.

If you own a car and it is stolen, taken on a high speed chase and kills someone you are responsible, right? Oh wait that would be stupid.

Wahoo, im going to build some nukes and sell them on the internets!

im certain no criminals - especially EVIL MUSLIM TERRORISTS - would want to buy any.

after all, nukes dont kill people...people kill people.

and most people, are simply good awesome people who just like to gloat about having a nuke in their garage.

I can not WAIT to get this business off the ground and booming!

ha, no pun intended i promise!

isnt it awesome that the 2nd amendment says ARMS, not guns? what an awesome loophole we've not thought to exploit yet...er, i mean...what an awesome part of the constitution we havent exercised our rights on fully yet!

who's with me? come on all you gun nutters, this is right up your alley!

WHO'S WITH ME!!!????

once again the media is making guns the bad guy

No, they aren't. Read the article again. The author's clear agenda is to promote mandatory background checks for online gun sales. The article does NOT imply that 'guns are bad', but that 'bad people should not be allowed to buy guns'. There's a huge difference.

Legitimate gun dealers are required to conduct background checks. Why are online sales exempt?

To be consistent, you might argue that NO ONE should be subjected to a background check and that formerly convicted felons deserve the same rights to own a gun as the rest of us...

but your complaint that "the media is making guns the bad guy" doesn't hold water.

@LogicReguired: Correct in all your statements. Majority of the guns the cartel gets is from foreign soil other than ours (USA)

Also, adding on to your statement about stolen guns. PEOPLE, if someone steals your car, what do you do? You report it.

If someone steals your credit card, what do you do? Both cases after you report, your not responsible.

Same thing with guns, you are not responsible when you report. By law you're supposed to report the gun stolen anywho.

the death penalty IS a deterrent! Execute the criminals that murder people. PERIOD!! And if you use a weapon of ANY kind in an illegal fashion put them in jail for a verrrry long time! BTW I am a gun owner and believe in the 2nd amen.

You know if everyone owned a gun then i would think criminals would be weary of entering a home or stealing or attacking some one, and our 2nd Amendment cleary states that we have the right to bear arms... so why shold the government deny any US citizen a gun.

@commonsense....: I'm against background checks for ALL GUN sales. Because what defines a "bad guy"? What defines a "terrorists"?

Since I'm not for the current administration in the WH and they find that out..........what is stopping them in the future of creating a "no gun list" and adding me to it because I speak out against them?

They already have a no fly list that nobody can see, I've known people that had NO REASON to be on there. An 8 year old on the list? Come on........

You're trading your liberties and securities for freedom........

No matter how many regulations or laws you pass to try and hurt the bad guys getting access, they will always get them..........in the end you're hurting your fellow law abiding citizens in protecting themselves.

NBC has only proven that there are idiots everywhere doing things they shouldn't and illegal things as well. There are idiots selling cars to people without insurance or licenses. There are idiots selling beer to minors. There are idiots selling illegal and prescription drugs. There are idiots selling food stamps for cash. I can keep going and going and going.

I agree with the posts that state that their are making the guns offensive, while personal responsibility and abiding by the actual laws is an afterthought. What NBC is trying to do is get the President's gun show law enacted as it's his version of "common sense", remember that is what he said. If the current laws were enforced, this would reduce the occurrence of illegal gun sales by some margin. Most law abiding gun owners realize that guns are a restricted item and that you need to use an FFL for the transfer of most of them, you have to fill out state paperwork to purchase them(most states), that you need special permits/licenses for handguns, and that you have to abide by your state's laws or you'll loose your right/privilege to own them. That threat of loosing your ability to legally own them is enough for most of us to do the right thing and abide by the line and letter of the law.

How about a bit of perspective- The NBC article noted that about 34 people are killed each day by gun violence. Just look up the Bureau of National Statistics reports (and the FBI reports) on deaths per year and you'll find that gun violence ranks down near the bottom of statistics, however they are a disliked item by some so they must be evil and banned. Those same statistics show that gun violence has been dropping significantly over the last decade- while gun sales have risen massively.

All I can say is read, read, read. Don't believe the hype and read a lot of resources for yourself before you decide on this one.

I only read the first comment because of the ridiculousness of the statement.......What do you need a 50 cal weapon for? Going elephant hunting? There is a fine line between freedom and equiping nutz to carry out crazy agendas.....If one of these nutz bought a bomb...you know right to bear arms and all, then how would you feel? You can throw artillary and tanks on there too....that would fall under the right to bear arms.......and it does because...they didnt have tanks.....they didnt have mordern artillary..... They did not see what mordern "Military" weapons would evolve into.....So whatever garbage you are spouting....no one needs a 50 cal weapon and no one needs to own a tank.......and wake up there are alot of bad people foreign and domestic....I see a little of that small town back woods mentality here.....Look, there are alot of bad people around too.

This article is a waste of journalism.

The title is in error, it should read "Procedural laws and legislation have little to do with keeping guns out of the hands of determined individuals."

In addition,

"There is no gun that cannot be bought by anyone in any major city with a roll of cash, no questions asked"

@Peter Arsuaga:

1. Chances of someone having money to buy a tank, more than likely is not dumb enough to buy it in the first place.

2. There are lots of gun hobbyists and militarists that like to just shoot the guns.

3. It is the right of the people to have militias to keep a secure state AGAINST the government. (for this, I think that tanks, bombs, extreme weapons, should only be used my the Federal military and State militias)

4. But when it comes to firearms, no restrictions in my opinion. When a criminal can get full auto weapons easier than me, thats BS then.

Here's a question for all the pro-gun folks here. If this situation is not such a big deal, why is Fast & Furious so important? Not much difference between the two . . . . you can't play it both ways. (In any case, F&F was started under the Bush Administration)

Tina - to your original post:

Private gun sales is my right, as it is yours

But private gun sales that circumvent federal background checks (as described in the article) should not be permitted - they allow those who are unable to pass said checks to purchase firearms "legally" in certain states. Private gun sellers should have to verify the identity and right of the purchaser to acquire the goods they are selling.

Would it not make sense to protect all gun owners if the registration of gun ownership was handled in much the same way that vehicles are? When you sell your gun you are no longer associated with the item so you can't he dragged into court when someone uses it when committing a crime...

Any kind of law that requires me to do something before buying is breaking the 2nd Amendment.

Not even close to the truth.

The Second Amendment recognizes the need for a well-regulated militia (thus recognizing the need for rules and regulations) and gives all of us the "right to bear arms".

The Second Amendment does not prohibit registration of firearms. It MIGHT prohibit the ban on convicted felons owning guns (even though SCOTUS has always said otherwise), but that is not the argument being raised by anyone.

Money is evil too isnt it? People are tempted to lie, cheat, and steal. It is so ignorant for people to think that restricting the sales of guns is going to change anything. So you don't have a gun and the perpetrator has a knife, then we will restrict the selling of knives? It goes on and on and on...

Just plain dumb.

Just like drug use, if we make it very hard for it to get here, then people will not use them... Or if you get people to stop using drugs, then the pusher have no on to push on. Go to the real problem, not the easy cop out target.

Just another inept article by the pmsnbc liberal rag. Making honest citizens jump through hoops and not enforcing the laws on the books is typical liberalism at it's best. How about you clowns go after the criminals for a change?? Oh, it's easier to just pile more anti gun laws on the honest guys and then you feel so good about preventing crime. Liberals................................................

@commonsense....: Go look up the term well-regulated from the 1778 era. It means that the fire arms were in proper working order and calibrated correctly OR that the militia is in working order and is properly trained.

It has NOTHING to do with "rules and regulations".

BEAR - to hold or support....

You don't bear a tank, you don't bear an fighter jet, you don't bear a cannon. The amendment is limited to weapons that people carry.

The NRA says it opposes the bill because it has “many serious flaws,”.

Sometimes lawmakers include onerous things in legislation, under the guise of 'protecting society'.

Let's see what the 'flaws' are, so we can evaluate for ourselves.

Is it bad reporting, or lazy reporting, or biased reporting?

I love how the republitards use the argument that they need guns to protect them from the government. Yeah, beacuse the average fat American slob with a gun really stands a chance against a member of our marine corps, battle experienced from Iraq and Afghanistan. Sorry, but 50 marines could probably take over the city of Dallas in a matter of hours against the redneck majority of idiots there that think their gun makes them tough. Your gun does little if your so fat you need a scooter to move about.

Tina M G

Reports like this are upsetting to me, not because anyone can buy a gun, but because once again the media is making guns the bad guy. Guns do not commit crimes or kill people, people do. Stop supporting government control over our rights to own firearms. Criminals will get guns or use other weapons to commit crimes. Private gun sales is my right, as it is yours. If anything needs changed in regards to firearms, make laws that cannot be dismissed during prosecution, when a firearm is used to commit a crime. Stronger Laws Against Criminals Not Law Abiding Citizens! Criminals commit crimes, not guns. I'm not a criminal.

Just to be clear ...... no one is "making guns the bad guy". If there are "bad guys" they are the NRA and the gun advocates who believe that they should not be inconvenienced in any way in the effort to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of people who should not have dangerous weapons.

Gun rights advocates continually rant that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" as if that were a brilliant and clarifying statement. It's not. Everyone realizes that people are the problem and that is why a gun never has received a prison sentence for a crime. People are the issue. When we require a driver's license and institute traffic laws we are not controlling vehicles .... we are controlling people.

In spite of the rhetoric to the contrary, most of us who advocate for laws restricting the ownership and use of guns by people do not want to eliminate gun ownership. We want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, people with mental illnesses, people with substance abuse and anger management problems, people who demonstrate lack of responsibility regarding gun safety, etc.

Far too many gun rights advocates believe that the Second Amendment should give them unfettered rights to own any gun the manufacturers can design, as many guns as they can pay for, as much firepower as possible in the form of large capacity clips and rounds per second, but they want no inconvenience or restriction regarding background checks or any other attempt to restrict gun ownership to responsible citizens.

Why is it reasonable for any gun to be sold without a background check?

1. Chances of someone having money to buy a tank, more than likely is not dumb enough to buy it in the first place.

Private ownership of tanks is not allowed. If it were, I might buy one. I bet I could have a lot of fun with one on the right piece of private property.

2. There are lots of gun hobbyists and militarists that like to just shoot the guns.

Nothing wrong with that, and no one should prohibit it. Me, I'd also like a tank.

3. It is the right of the people to have militias to keep a secure state AGAINST the government.

That's just plain ludicrous.

The notion that our Constitution allows us to KILL one another when we have political disagreements has ZERO legal or intellectual merit. Here is the Second Amendment in its entirety, word for word:

"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."

The purpose of the Second Amendment is clearly identified as the SECURITY of the state, not a means for DESTRUCTION of the state.

Any child with even a rudimentary grasp of English grammar should be able to parse that from the sentence as written.

ferro(bozo) said:

there is nothing in the provision that says that you cannot require all guns to be registered and all sales to be registered and recorded so that all guns that are owned can be traced if used in a crime.

That is NOT abridging your right to own a gun

Fair enough. Then I would assume you would go along with obtaining a government issued writing license prior to exercising your free speech rights, or getting the local sherrif's permission prior to attending the church of your choice? Sounds stupid doesn't it? Think about it.

most private sellers do not have the capability or legal standing to conduct a background check.

It costs $25 to $35 to have someone else do it for you.

An armed society is not a polite society, its a paranoid society.

The NRA says it opposes the bill because it has “many serious flaws,”.

Serious lawmakers should ask what those perceived flaws are. There may be a basis for improving the proposed legislation.

It doesn't hurt to get input from the regulated community.

"There’s no background check: Anybody that has a murder conviction can simply log on, email someone, meet ’em in a parking lot, and buy a freaking AK-47.”"

What a complete peice of sensationalized garbage reporting.

There is no "online" gun buying loophole, buying a gun in a parking lot has nothing to do with being online. Buying a gun online still requires the gun to be delivered to a dealer who then does a background check before handing over the gun. Learning about a gun for sale online is no different than seeing one posted on a bulletin board or in a newspaper, or having a freind who wants to sell a gun. Where is the "shocking outrage" over those "loopholes"?

It's sickening what some "journalists" are allowed to print.

Fair enough. Then I would assume you would go along with obtaining a government issued writing license prior to exercising your free speech rights, or getting the local sherrif's permission prior to attending the church of your choice? Sounds stupid doesn't it? Think about it.

Alright, I thought about it, and you're right. What you said does sound stupid.

@ commonsense....: LOL, now you shift the subject instead of going back to your argument about "well regulated". You're absolutely right about the 2nd amendment is there to protect the right of the people to keep a secure state. Militia by the way, if you come back on this that it is the Federal Military, Militia is termed as any of the age to be drafted. Hence the legal age to by a rifle is 18, which I'm TOTALLY for.

My point 3 is not ludicrous, anyone can pull quotes and original state Constitution back in the 1800's and see where those first statesmen were afraid of a standing Federal army. Read some history. Read the Federalist Paper.

@ Dem in Texas-2291575: Go look up Oath Keepers forum. There is a VERY LARGE group of active military and police, as well as retired police and military. They have signed an oath they will never obey orders from the Federal government that tell them to go against the Constitution.

I'm in Dallas, tell you right now, they try to take over Dallas, with 50 marines, they would be dead, you must never have been to Dallas or the hood. Americans fighting Americans is different then fighting untrained ragheads.

Last reported number, there are 4 million plus gun owners. Thats more then the US military I believe, could be wrong.

They want to chisel away at our freedom a tiny bit at a time. If you can go out to the mall parking lot and buy an elephant gun...If you really think and elephant gun is what you need then go for it, You can also buy one through legal channels but either way it's going to kick like a mule when you fire it. If you can buy any gun that is legal in all other markets from another individual and save some money then that too is your right. If you choose to violate someone else's rights using that firearm then you should be responsible.. Not the seller and not the firearm and most certainly not the freedoms of the rest of America. If you make it illegal to sell them this way then you bring in even more crime and black market where it then becomes a serious money maker for certain people... Everything will still be available to everyone same as before but the deals will happen in a garage or a basement and become much more dangerous for everyone. All of the crooks will still have them and the legit people will have a slightly harder time getting one.

So what! More people are killed by automobiles then by guns. Yet if you kill someone with your car you walk away in most cases with out a ticket. Kill some one with a gun you go to prison or have to spend allot of money for a lawyer. The gun and automobile are control by a human. Yet there is no stories on automobiles how people can buy one with out a back ground check. Give me a break.

Nukeman - That is the dumbest argument ever. You can't kill somebody just by talking to them or by walking into a church. You can however do so with a gun, hence the permit and registration.

pjam - Try reading the whole article next time, the journalist didn't fill out any paperwork for a background check and even implied to the person they were buying from that the gun was intended for criminal activity.

Lyle - Almost all people killed by cars are done so on accident, whereas almost all people killed with guns are killed on purpose. There is a massive difference.

Roy; "Is it bad reporting, or lazy reporting, or biased reporting?

Yes, Yes and Yes!

Within 12 hours, we bought eight dangerous guns – even a 50-caliber weapon so powerful it could take down a helicopter.

It should be noted that I believe that more helicopter and planes in the United States have been affected by laser pointers given away free at many conferences and conventions than have been by a 50-caliber weapon.

Z from AZ
I wonder if anyone will pick up the fact that there was a straw purchase technique used to obtain the data.

And they had a former ATF agent running it for them. Plenty of stories lately about their track record with straw purchasers.

I think when you can buy a 50 caliber battle rifle like the M95 or any of the Barret series rifles really, which mounted with a 6x-12x scope have insane bullet speed, damage, and capability to disable helicopter engines with one hit, that your 'right to own a gun' has gone a little too far. I'm a gun enthusiast myself, but there's limits that need to be put into place on what you can buy.

I don't complain that I can't go to my local car dealer and get hooked up with an M1 ABRAMS.

Nor do I complain that I can't get an 83MM high explosive round firing SMAW rocket launcher from a gun shop.

In the article it refers to legal purchase of a firearm in states without a background check. Even if your a felon or couldn't pass a background check. That is where the article is in error because it is illegal in every state (a federal law and offense) to purchase a firearm if your a convicted felon by what ever means. It is illegal to posses one, transport one, or even keeping it for a friend end of story.

Those that posted that the courts should not go easy on people who use a weapon (any weapon) in the commission of a crime have it right. Our judicial system is out of control and out of focus. We are far to concerned with petty crimes and far to easy on felony crimes. As heinous as the crimes committed by Bernie Maddoff were, is it right that he spend the rest of his life in jail when a murderer walks after 3 or 5 years?

I believe that if you are a gun owner (any type) you are responsible for your behavior with that gun. if you commit a crime, then you should be justly punished for it and your right to own a firearm stripped from you. However, if you are a law abiding citizen you should have every right to own whatever type of firearm you wish, which is how it is today. Even fully automatic weapons are permissible if you jump through all the legal hoops to own one.

The 50 cal. sniper rifle talked about in the article may indeed have a bullet capable of traveling 5 miles, but at that distance it is random chance that anything could be hit. even with that powerful a rifle, with good optics, the range that an average person could hit anything is still about 100 to 150 yards. Anyone who has hunted can attest to this fact. The average caliber used for deer hunting ranges from .270 to .308 which have bullet travel well over 2 miles but effective ranges out to 1000 yards in the hands of a trained sniper. The problem is that even shooting out to 100 yards takes practice to hit a target consistently let alone gain a kill shot.

Though the article doesn't address this, I am going to anyway. Conceal carry laws seem to be in vogue right now and many are applying to receive one. While I do believe that it is our right to be able to obtain such a permit, some serious thought and training should be required before granting one. Before anyone applies for the permit they should sit down an consider the consequences of carrying a firearm, be made to learn all of the rules of liability and responsibility for using that firearm and ask themselves one very serious question. If I were to pull my gun to protect my self, would I actually be able to pull the trigger and would I be able to live with the thought that I killed another human being? Those thoughts seldom enter the minds of those that carry guns for personal protection and unfortunately are the reason that many that carry guns die, usually by their own firearm.

Lyle Kellogg

So what! More people are killed by automobiles then by guns. Yet if you kill someone with your car you walk away in most cases with out a ticket. Kill some one with a gun you go to prison or have to spend allot of money for a lawyer. The gun and automobile are control by a human. Yet there is no stories on automobiles how people can buy one with out a back ground check. Give me a break.

People who wish to drive must present themselves to the DMV and prove that they understand the rules of the road. The car (the owner) is subject to rules regarding the safety of the vehicle, for instance lights, horn, pollution control devices. When gun owners are subject to similar regulations regarding their weapons and their ability to operate their weapons safely, I will be much more satisfied with the system.

@Looking forward
I have been to Dallas, I used to live there. There isn't a fatter city in the U.S. Don't tell me it's full of ex-military. And Dallas pd? Are you serious? All they seem to get right is harrassing minorities. I haven't seen an cop on the force that looks like he could outrun more than a one legged chicken. That's why they are all getting segways now. Please, the PATRIOT act was against the constitution, didn't see any uproars there. I'm sure you've been to a gun range in Dallas. The average person there is not overweight, they are morbidly obese. That's another problem with guns, they make even the weak, fat slobs feel tough.

@Dem in Texas-2291575:

100,000 fat people shooting at 50 people..........you do the math

@the realchris - THANX. It was supposed to sound stupid because it is. My point is that if you put restrictions on the exercise of one right, you will soon have restrictions on ALL rights. When the Constitution uses the word "right" it ain't referring to some regulated privilege (like driving) granted by the government.

@Tim - Missed my point. Which was related to the regulation of Constitutional RIGHTS. Regulate one and soon regulate all.

Dieselbug- There is a HUGE difference between personal gun sales and "Fast and Furious".

1. The Federal Government chose to create an international gun smuggling program (well in violation of US laws and international gun trafficing laws).

2. The Federal Government chose to use US taxdollars to purchase and supply those weapons to criminals and the drug cartels.

3. The Federal Government directed gun stores to provide guns to known criminals and questionable persons whom they wouldn't normally agree to sell weapons to.

4. The Federal Government provided well over 2,500 guns to people with the express purpose of violating US laws (drug, weapons, etc.)

5. The Federal Government's program lead directly to the death of a federal law enforcement agent and has been tied to other assaults and murders (both civilian and law enforcement).

6. The Federal Government is currently purgering itself in a federal investigation, supressing federal documents, personal, and police files of the border agent's murder.

A guy illegally selling his pistol on a corner is illegal and covered under the US laws. If identified as the seller, he should be properly charged and punished for breaking those laws. Yeah, it's a bit different.

In response to those talking about explosives and Nuke sales on the internet; You can already go to sites that show you how to fully construct a nuclear weapon. The physics behind nuclear fusion/fission are hardly a secret and most high school physics students can explain the principle. The problem here is the ignorance of the poster because not only is all nuclear material highly regulated, it is also easy to trace especially if it is used. Each reactor has its own signature of elements that are the byproduct of the reactor's operation. Further, the precision required and the machines required to produce even the most crude nuclear device are watched carefully by all governments. A dirty bomb is of course another story, yet the availability of the nuclear material is still difficult at best.

Plastic explosives and improvised explosive devices also have information available on the internet and are really not all that hard to procure. All it takes is some motivation, intelligence, and time to get what you need but that doesn't make it easy or unnoticeable. Look at Tim McVey, He used a truck full of fertilizer and fuel oil to bring down a building, how hard is that to purchase?

to buy dangerous weapons.. First it shows how naive people refer to firearms. It is only a weapon when the PERSON using it has intent on using it as such. Isn't it great we live in a free country.. Now if we could only make a good education mandatory all would be perfect.

waye45

to buy dangerous weapons.. First it shows how naive people refer to firearms. It is only a weapon when the PERSON using it has intent on using it as such.

You are exactly right waye45, And that is why an effective background check system is necessary. Those who wish to purchase weapons with superior firepower should be subject to a more rigorous background check. That is a regulation that recognizes the danger from a PERSON.

Private ownership of tanks is not allowed. If it were, I might buy one. I bet I could have a lot of fun with one on the right piece of private property.

Not exactly true. Private ownership of WW2 and Korea era military vehicles, including some tanks and armed personal carriers, has been allowed. I believe those ownership do require a registration. It also requires the barrial of the cannon to be field with concert and all removable weapons to be removed, if I remember correct. I used to haul tanks and armed personal carriers for private owners who were putting them on display at conventions and such. I believe this is similar to the Mustang fighter planes and B-17 Bombers owned by private citizens.

BTW, while it is technically possible to down an aircraft with a 50-caliber rifle, it is easier to down an aircraft with a Mustang fighter plane.

This article and the newly designated Rossen Report, further show me that NBC will become the "Official Broadcasting Network of the Federal Government." I can see it now, OBAMA and Immelt in 2012. Controlling the people for their own good.

This also is another way to separate the populace and get them to seek government support for their personal safety. Government loves this crap, and until people really see and understand the control of government upon it'scitizens thru the many fear factors applied, America as you knew it, is lost.

Who needs guns? According to other blogs of today we already have crossbows and washing machines.

What we need is to train people in the use of firearms so they respect them and know how to use firearms safely. Effective is the word in play. Effective in the way drugs are kept off the street. Effective in the way that a drunk driver can still drive a car. Effective in the way people who commit welfare fraud are given back benefits. Effective like someone intent on using a gun to commit a crime can buy one from there local black market dealer. These effective laws only turn out to be a inconvenience for law abiding citizens. Maybe enforcement of the laws on the books now would be effective instead of adding more ineffective laws.

This country has allowed the right to have a gun since it was founded. So if someone does not like that they do have the right to leave. I am all for safety and trying to control what a criminal can get their hands on. But not at the expense of other citizens rights.

I am not republican or democrat and the NRA gets no money from me. I just do not like our freedoms taken away due to some scared whiners. We stand a better chance at dying in a car accident. Than getting shot. So by Anti gun freaks logic we should make it illegal to buy a car.

Remember you can buy a car without a license or insurance. Legally!! The illegal part comes in when you drive without a license. This issue is lame really. If a criminal wants a gun they will get a gun.

Look at Mexico it is illegal to own or carry a gun there for Citizens yet they have it worse than we do. Because only the bad guys the army and the cops have guns. And there is a war on the streets.

You know where the idea of shooting down a helicopter with a .50 cal originated? Try the movie SWAT. That's right, in a MOVIE a bad guy shot down a police helicopter from several miles away.

I consider myself a moderate liberal, and this story annoyed me. It's not journalisim, it's sensationalisim that belongs on afternoon TV with all the "baby daddy" shows.

Dem in Texas, you spend a lot of time calling people names, maybe you should check your mirror a bit closer. Your statements about gun ranges and the people that frequent them are beyond stupid and idiotic, it's shows You spend more time watching tv shows like Maddow and Matthews instead of educating yourself.

I suspect then criminals start searching the houses to determine WHICH one to rob, your home will be targeted...For me, I suspect they'll see the NRA stickers, gun rack in truck and other things at my home. and nope, not obese, likely more successful that you and proud to be PRO GUN....idiots like you are the problem.

LookingForward: Yes, I remember the outraged Oath Keepers speaking out when the citizens of New Orleans were disarmed. Oh... wait... I don't. The Oath Keepers are just another extremist rw sect bent on scaring people with the idea of a insurrection against the government it perceives as threatening constitutional rights. Funny how these things die down when there's a Republican in the White House, isn't it.

@Pedestrian-in-SF: LOLOLOLOL!!!

Read history, you obvious don't research before speaking.

Katrina was in 2005. Oath Keepers were established in 2009.

Your statement is false and baseless.

(by the way, I was against the N.O. people being disarmeed, that was illegal, regardless of their race)

Thank you very much!

Wow, an article demonstrating how easy it is to buy a gun. Helicopter killing machines, bought right off the street. Beyond the misinformation and hyperbole is the fact that I can sell a piece of property that is legally mine. Now, how does a crackdown which the author of the article implies is necessary, get enforced? Who does the enforcing? We have the NDAA law, now making it possible for the authorities to declare any American citizen a terrorist and held indefinitely without trial. Is the author of the article at all concerned about that bit of anti-constitutional legislation? Nope, that's something they don't even know about or if they do then, being of a liberal mindset, they probably think the government is a huge and benign entity who would NEVER EVER falsely accuse and arrest someone. The liberal mind thinks that the government is a huge and cuddly Nanny.

@commonsense....: I'm against background checks for ALL GUN sales.

That at least has a logical consistency to it. I might even agree with you on that one.

Then again, I haven't really spent a lot of time thinking about it, because I don't expect any big changes in gun laws any time soon. People are just too emotional about the issue to think straight.

My point 3 is not ludicrous, anyone can pull quotes...

Your point 3 is ABSURD. No judge (living or dead) in America would agree with you. My "quote" was the exact text of the Second Amendment in its entirety. Not one word omitted, not one word added.

Pull any quote you like from any authoritative source you fancy if you care to rebut. I don't think you can make a reasonable case. You've already made a silly one, but it's not at all reasonable.

@commonsense....: Go look up the term well-regulated from the 1778 era. It means that the fire arms were in proper working order and calibrated correctly

You need to buy a dictionary.

It is time,

Thank you. What you stated regarding extremists applies to much of our current national and global mess. Awesome, great job.

One question to anyone that can answer (fairly and objectively).

At the top US citizen-701707 made a comment that was collapsed by the community. I found it to contain nothing crazy, rude or indecent. The liberal reference is tame compared to many of the comments (and I'm a mix of fairly liberal and also rather conservative depending on the issue).

Sooooo...........The question is: Why?

I'll be brief as the fact that this excuse for a "story", (and that's stretching it), is nothing but pure, unadulterated Bull SCHLITZ...

Rossen, YOU are most definitely a bona fide, propagandist HACK. PERIOD!

Pure LIES. Pure MISREPRESENTATIONS. Pure MISINFORMATION. Pure SKEWED STATISTICS. Pure MISDIRECTION. So obvious that even a third graded could see it.

More BLATANT proof of deliberate propagandizing by 'TODAY', 'MSNBC and MSN.

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." -- Abraham Lincoln

"Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." -- Unknown

"Throughout history, there have only been two groups of people that have never been allowed guns: Slaves and Conquered Nations. And which one are they trying to make us in America?" -- Sheriff Richard Mack

“Criminals celebrate when politicians clear the path for their destructive ways.”-- Ted Nugent

“Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.” -- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775

“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” -- 16 Am. Jur. Sec. 177 late 2d, Sec 256

“Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed. Almost without exception, murderers are extreme aberrants with lifelong histories of crime, substance abuse, psychopathology, mental retardation and/or irrational violence against those around them, as well as other hazardous behavior, e.g., automobile and gun accidents.” -- Don B. Kates, writing on statistical patterns in gun crime

“No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before.” -- Colin Greenwood, in the study "Firearms Control", 1972

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty -- so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator -- and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -- Cesare Beccaria, in ‘On Crimes And Punishments’, later quoted by Thomas Jefferson

“.. a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.” -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

“When Pa was at home the gun always lay across those two wooden hooks above the door. ... The gun was always loaded, and always above the door so that Pa could get it quickly and easily, any time he needed a gun..” -- Laura Ingalls Wilder

“Gun's don't kill people. The Government does.” -- Unknown

“Those who melt their guns into plows will plow for those who don't.” -- Unknown

“If One truly believes that only the government should have guns, I suggest that They put down their coloring books and pick up some history books. Obviously They have much to learn.” -- Unknown

“History has shown what happened when Hitler confiscated the firearms from the law abiding citizens of Germany.” -- Unknown

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell

If guns kill people, mine are all defective.

Thus endeth the lesson for today.....

This story does not tell you that the 50 cal they bought was more than 5000.00 cash how many people can even buy that . And most states do have laws against Internet guns sales and gun shows. There are a few states that have not closed that door. What is failed to be mentioned is that most private sales of hand guns is that you in order to own and be lawfully is that after you buy the gun it is not your gun until it is registered to you. You may have it but the law says it is not your gun and you can go to jail for even having it in most states. He or she did not say that in the article. Guns will always stir up problems because some people are just afraid of them and some people are nuts about them. If you want this changed call you wonderful congressman and tell him your thought so he can work on closing the door on some of these loop holes. I wonder if this artical was even read by any one in office that can make a difference?

last time I checked Tyler we have the right to comment on public news articles. I agree vulgar statements have no place here. Although this article does border on sensationalism. If you can not handle criticism I suggest you Tyler find another career.

Thanks to the moderator for restoring a reasonable (US citizen-701707)post.

Regards

@commonsense....: You didn't quote me fully, I said also:

"Go look up the term well-regulated from the 1778 era. It means that the fire arms were in proper working order and calibrated correctly OR that the militia is in working order and is properly trained."

You forgot to add the "OR" and after.........

I do have a dictionary. Use Oxford English Dictionary which defines what words or phrases meant at the time they were used.

Example, "gay", way back when, that meant "happy" now it means something totally different.

Below is from the Oxford English Dictionary and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

So commonsense.... please tell me where Oxford is wrong with their definition of "well-regulated" phrase during the 1800's???? And please cite your source, not an opinion. Thanks!

Hey Brian.... If guns kill people, then forks and spoons make people fat!!!

Obviously everyone should own a grenade launcher, assault rifle, rocket launcher, and mini gun. In fact, when walking around around the grocery store, everyone should look like Arnold from Predator, armed to the teeth. "Get to da choppa!!!"

We should also start strapping automatic gatling guns to the hood of our cars... flamethrowers on the side, and a rocket launcher on top for good measure. Oh, and every truck should come equipped with anti-aircraft ordinance in the bed. You just never know when a criminal will come at you with an Apache equipped with Hellfire missiles.

Hey, this is the ONLY way to make sure we are safe.

Someone cuts you off in traffic, activate the gatling guns and turn his car into swiss cheese. Then don't forget to follow up with the flame-throwers to really drive your point home.

Someone is rude in the check-out line at the store. Grenade launcher mother-f***er. No more Mr. Rude.

Annoying parent at your kids soccer game... take your assault rifle, shove it down their throat, and make their kids watch as you pull the trigger. "This is what happens when you don't have morals, little Johnny. Say goodbye to mommy. Booya b****"

Someone breaks into your house... ROCKET LAUNCHER BABY! Sure, the explosion may take out your house, your family, and the next door neighbor. But it's your right as an American to blow some sh** up.

Ahhhhh... the new Mad Max America. It's like a real life MW3. Lock and load mother-f***er... GET SOME!!!!!

When they say "buying guns online" I am pretty sure they're not referring to any kind of actual transaction occurring online. They're talking about sites where ordinary people can post a gun for sale and an interested party can arrange to meet that person to complete the sale.

Sounds a lot like craigslist to me (knowing that craigslist itself doesn't allow gun sales, but you do the same thing there with TVs or cars or sofas).

If you do in fact purchase a gun online, it must be shipped to a registered firearms dealer, where you are ID'd to ensure your background check cleared.

This article is a load of crap.

Lyle Kellogg "So what! More people are killed by automobiles then by guns."

Very true - about 4 times as many people are killed by cars each year than by guns, and most of those killed by guns are self-inflicted suicides, who likely would merely use another method if guns weren't available.

Should we outlaw cars because they are 4 times as deadly as guns?

Also, people don't have a 'Constitutional Right' to drive a car.

PS - I don't even own a firearm, so I'm not a 'gun toting right wing nut'.

@Spiddas

I didn't care much for the article either, and I'm wondering how to avoid Rossen Reports on MSNBC in the future. But I think you went a little overboard in your critique. That said, I like this line;

If guns kill people, mine are all defective.

It appears I have some defective guns as well.

You play golf, knit sweaters, go rollerblading and i go to the local range to punch holes in paper 1000 yards away. Its what i do for fun when i have free time because knitting sweaters is lame.

Its already illegal for the wrong person to own a firearm so adding laws wont stop them if they are already breaking the law. It may make it more expensive but at the same time the higher price will attract people trying to make money off illegal gun sales... Weed is illegal but also being bought in parking lots all over the country, prohibition only means the dealers can charge more money for the same stuff effectively funding the people your trying to stop. Whats next? The war on guns? Has it already started? How is the war on drugs going?

Hell yea a 50 bmg can bring down a helo but so can a bird, so can a r/c airplane or hot air balloon. If bad people want to do bad thing they will. I live in a rough town that has cops getting shot, gangs, drugs, illegals, home invasions, car jackings and more all the time. All of my friends (even the hippies) have guns because they provide protection to defenceless innocent people who don't want to be the victim. I don't leave the house without a gun because i do not want to be a victim. I have guns in every room (don't have kids) of my home because i don't want to carry my .45 from room to room, you call me paranoid but do you know the current situation in my neighborhood? Do you know how many people have been duct tapped and raped in their OWN HOMES?!?!? Its not going to happen to me or my wife because if you come into my house to do me or my family harm i am going to KILL YOU and you deserve nothing less.

Lastly, They destroyed the guns? Damn people are stupid.

I am not a big fan of guns-yet do not believe that making them illegal is going to save lives. Tha horse has long since left the barn.

I agree that guns do not kill people-people kill people. But, guns do make it a lot easier. It makes sense to not allow people who are most likely to use the guns to kill other people easy access to guns.

If you are shown that you can not handle the responsibility of owning a gun-you should not be able to legally own one. You lost the right to own a gun when you commit certain crimes in the same way you lost the right to freedom when you commit some crimes.

This loophole does nothing but enable those who society and the law have said should not have the right to own a gun to have easy access to guns.

I have no problem with law abiding people owning guns, but do not believe that the constitutional right applies to those who have committed violent crimes. Violent criminals sacrifice other constitutional rights as the result of their crimes-I see no difference here.

Law enforcement can do nothing now because the loopholes make it legal. Will closing the lopphole eliminate the problem-of course not! Every law written is at some point broken-but it at least gives law enforcement a chance to reduce the number of guns and creates penalties to people who, as indicated in the article, sell guns to those who indicate that they wish to use it for a crime.

If people who support the right to bear arms want for the gun control movement to weaken-they need to stop opposing things that are common sense. This is the reason us "libs" get so upset with the gun lobby.

I like Chris Rick's idea-"We do not need gun control-we need bullet control. If each bullet cost $5,000-there would be a lot fewer murders..."

Hmmm... I agree with you. Last Sunday, a father killed his two boys, ages 5 and 7, then set the house afire. His weapon? A hatchet. So, should hatchets be banned?

There is an interesting news item in today's Everett Herald. Go to The Everett Herald. to read about a burglar being shot killed by the homeowner.

That is a case of one burglar whose criminal career was cut short by an armed homeowner.

That burglar did not wake up and decide, "Today I am going to be shot and killed while I try to steal from someones house." He thought he would be able to break into the home, steal things, and get away with it, but his plan failed, due to an armed homeowner. It's all about making better choices.

Still, in the case described in the link, the homeowner might be charged with a crime. It depends on the circumstances - and, if there was no other means to contain the criminal.

Tyler,

If you don't think this report is newsworthy, don't comment on it.

It is not a report it is an editorial masquerading as one. Below are a few good points made by another poster.

Oh and i have to agree that this article was obviously written by someone who knows nothing about guns and was written in a way that will scare other people who also know nothing about guns. The statements about the .50 cal, hollowpoint ammo and rifles modified to take AK ammo were stupid, unnecessary and alarmist drivel.

To that I would add the hyperbole of "assault weapons" (they were not) and "police grade pistols." They had a former ATF agent advising them. He knows better but added to the disinformation.

Howard - thank you. That was my main intent. We know we have problems in the country and yes gun control is one, however the situation will never be improved until we drop the my way or the highway extremist crap and actually try to work together and come up with a reasonable answer.

One will also notice that I don't say solve the problem, won't happen and trying to solve it is a waste of time, see war on drugs if you have any doubts. The only hope we have here is to accept that fact and then find that balance that we can live with. I know we would like it to be clean cut but it isn't and yeah it may not always be pretty but it can be practical and something we can all agree on if we actually try.

Phil-673730

Anyone can buy guns, no questions asked

So: And your point is.......

=======

..........that ex-cons, gang bangers, mental patients, etc. with histories of violent behavior can..............DuuuuuuuuuuuuuH!

I have guns in every room (don't have kids) of my home because i don't want to carry my .45 from room to room

Would this include the bathroom? After all, we all saw Psycho. /sarcasm

Very frankly, if I were that afraid, I would get a few German Shepards. I live in the inner city myself, but guns aren't an option for me as I have a mentally ill teenager. Even if I didn't, I can't imagine living someplace so dangerous I needed a gun in every room.

RichardW and CommonSence,

Just FYI, it isn't only WW1, WWII, and other historical military vehicles that may be purchased by private American citizens, but more modern and even current vehicles as well. No the barrels don't have to be filled with concrete either, or otherwise rendered non-functional, but that does make the process easier. You do have to fill out all the proper government paperwork, especially if you want to import anything like old Soviet, Chinese, French, etc. equipment.

You also have to have the $$$ to pay for it. Even 1950's/1960's era equipment non-functional can run you in the millions to tens millions of dollars. A used H-1 Hummer will run you a good $100K. So this isn't a cheap hobby, or something just anybody can do. Most banks won't let you Mortgage a "Tank" or SP Gun.

Why will the government let you have "the tank" with a working gun? Because getting ammunition for it is an entirely different matter. Oh, and even possessing it, just like C4, dynamite, and other explosives, is illegal without the proper licences and permits. Same with buying the chemicals to manufacture your own. Trust me, go and asked about purchasingsome Cordite, and see who come busting down your door. Heck, you buy too much Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer, and diesel fuel and see what happens.

Should we outlaw cars because they are 4 times as deadly as guns?

Also, people don't have a 'Constitutional Right' to drive a car.

ROY,

The only logical answer is to attach guns to our cars.

I'm thinking rocket launchers behind the headlights, mini-guns that rise up from the hood, flame-throwers on the side to take care of anyone approaching your car on foot, grenade launcher in back for the creepy people following you, and mines that can be dropped from the bottom as you drive.

Now the drivers themselves should have quick access to hand guns, shotguns, and rifles... just in case you need to take matters into your own hands. Is armor plating expensive? Because that would come in handy too.

What do you think? Let's turn our freeways into a mother-f***ing battle field. I'll teach those God damn soccer moms to talk on their cell phone while they drive. Booya... GET SOME!!!

Holy Smokes!!!! Everyone is fighting about the wrong ammendment here! I am pro-gun and think the anti-gunners are full of rot, but that is NOT the point here.

Anti-Gunners: Do you want me to be able to do a background check on you and find out your SS#, School history, divorce status, monetary situation, criminal status (yes - including speeding tickets) and more - just for the asking? That is what is available to the searcher from a criminal background check! We are talking about a gross invasion of privacy. If you want to open that can of worms, I think I may need a gun to protect myself from you!

As for those who think I don't deserve a "weapon of mass destruction", think about what the government has aimed at you right now. A city near me under 30,000 populace just bought an armored vehicle with a roof-mounted 50 BMG. If Barney Fife has that sort of fire-power, I think I need a gun to protect myself from him.

Look at the idiot in the white house - he wants to force me to buy insurance, pay for the freeloader's lunch, and house the criminals for free. He is slowly dismantling ALL the rights granted by the constitution, taxing us to death, spending us into "prosperity" and socializing the entire nation. I DEFINITELY need a gun to protect myself from him.

I am not going to hunt anyone down, but I have a very reasonable right to protect myself when the above people try to hunt me down. I have never seen a Rossen expose remove a gun from a criminal's hands, so I have to assuem they can still get them. If the criminals get them I should be able to get them.

Unless you are going to let me do a background check on you so I can steal your identity - keep your stinky paws off my guns!

If the guns that are readily available to purchasers in the US were mere hunting rifles and target pistols this wouldn't be a story at all. The sad fact is that anyone can walk into any gun shop in the country and find high-powered sniper rifles, assault rifles, and pistols that are chambered for ammo that defies any useful purpose. One can even buy them on the streets or order them online, in many cases. This is madness, not a hobby.

Well over 20,000 people die every year in this country as a consequence of gun violence, every one of them a martyr to the Second Amendment rights of private gun owners to possess their senseless toys. With millions upon millions of firearms sold annually in this country, it is beyond the ability of law enforcement agencies to track them and enforce the few watered down laws that exist to control their sale, transportation, and use. There is an ocean of tactical weapons flooding the country and the NRA and its mindless supporters resist every attempt by law enforcement agencies, legislators, and citizens groups to enact responsible legislation to stem the tide of these useless firearms. In the meantime, thousands of innocent people die every year merely so that post-adolescent wannabe Rambos in the guise of private gun owners can accumulate pointless arsenals of dangerous weapons that are useless for sport hunting, or in many cases, even for home defense. These weapons are simply deadly toys for over-age juveniles.

.50 cal sniper rifles? Assault rifles? Outlaw them all.

http://www.assaultriflesforsale.com/

http://www.eastcoastfirearms.com/

http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm.assault-weapons-for-sale.html

http://www.gunsinternational.com/Assault-Rifles.cfm?cat_id=256

http://www.50bmgstore.com/50bmgcurrentprices.htm

Guns don't kill people.

People with guns kill people.

People with easy access to guns kill people easier.

People with quick access to guns kill people more quickly.

People with no access to guns find it harder and less desirable to kill.

It makes me laugh that the same people who will yell and scream about the need for background checks and I.D. with regards to voting, are insisting that people should be able to go out and purchase a 50 caliber assault weapon, no questions asked. Right after that, they'll be talking about how well armed criminals are.

Conservatives will bring up Fast and Furious to highlight Eric Holter's responsibility for guns getting in the hands of criminals, yet do a 180 with stories like this. It's 'cause Eric Holter's a black liberal and the ones who bought the guns were Mexican, see?

Hilarious. But not so hilarious.

Transparent as always.

Have a nice day.

@ Sailcat

While you're at it, post a link to any news articles that involve a criminal using a $7,000 .50 cal rifle in a crime. And explain how a .223 "assault" rifle is more dangerous than a .308 "hunting rifle"

First thing I noticed was Automatic firearms regulated bt the NFA of 1934 not 1986 (ranman87 1.4) manufacture for transfer must be before 1968 not 1986 (whole series of exemptions exist for 1968 to 1986 time frame despite country of origin but the general rule holds) with TAX STAMP affixed plus sign-offs by local law enforcement. Private sales what we're really talking about I seen a few most people are very careful and get detailed information about the firearm and the seller and the seller gets the same from the buyer none of which is required but careful people leave paper trails just in case. This whole article and the introduction of Mayor Bloomburg and his sponsored straw purchases ( which cause several states attorney generals to at least threaten legal action) is just another example of misleading the reader. On the whole a typical article from MSNBC.

They (Newsvine) did the spam thing again

Which is more dangerous? It really depends upon the person who is shooting the weapon and at what skill level they are. If you put the .223 in the hands of a well trained Marine and the .308 in the hands of a novice then the .223 is more dangerous. and visa verse....If I were back in the jungle and on patrol, I would want the .223 because it is lighter and shoots faster and of course holds more rounds. If I were in the jungle waiting for a target to come to me then I would want the .308. It made/makes a real nice sniper rifle. Now which one would I want to be shot by, I can tell you I've been shot by both and the .223 hurt a lot worst than the .308 (7.62mm).

The .223 travels in an excess of Mach 1. And for the record, the news reporter said the 50 cal sniper rifle could shoot 5 miles. That is BS. A 50 cal. military round has 826 gr. hot load. It has only gone or been shoot/documented 2600 meters acurately. that is a little more than a mile and a half. So there is no way this weapon could ever shoot 5 miles let alone hit a target......

Master Bob (1.68)

Barret makes the M-95 the Browning 50 cal bullet has a typical muzzle velocity of about 2700 feet per second there are many other cartridges that far exceed this number ( check out any number of 30 cal mags for example). The ability to hit a target at long range takes a lot of practice and dedication along with a good coach. The argument concerning disabling an aircraft is true even for a .223 round so that is a load of bunk. Your whole post just makes me wonder.

Newsvine did that possible spam thing again

I'm sorry. Is this from the same liberal media that didn't so much as lift ONE FINGER to investigate the "Fast And Furious" operation that Holden recently snubbed his nose at a Congressional investigation over? Yeah you know, the one CNN and MSNBC won't report about with regards to flooding the illegal market with assault rifles?

LoneRanger01 (1.116)

Not to rain on your parade but both the .223 and .308 are above the speed of sound at least to 600 meters or, so then the .308 out to about 1000 meters its trans sonic area. The Browning .50 5 miles is a long way but maximum range could be favors for this bullet weight and velocity lots of momentum for reference, check out 45-70 at Sandy Hook and you'll see what I mean. Hit at that ( 5 mile) range not too likely.

Jhawke (1.118)

To everybody it is Eric H-O-L-D-E-R I'm not a fan of this guy but let's get his name right.

Bruce....45-70? It could only go 3350 yards not meters. 5 miles equal 8800 yards. I don't know of any rifle that will shoot 5 miles. If a 50 cal with a hot load of 826 gr. will go 2600 meters acurately just how much of a hot load do you think it will take to get that projectile to go 5 miles. I wouldn't want to shoot that rifle.

I know they travel faster than the speed of sound. That is why there is a bang when the round leaves the barrel. The .223 still hurts worst than the .308.

getting really tired of that possible spam every time I post. It doesn't work any way. guess wrong three times and it still posts....

I think you miss the point on the .50 cal/5 mile range question. If you are shooting at a target, you probably can't hit it; but, if you are shooting into a crowd you would probably kill even at close to 5 miles.

No I not missing the point. A 50 cal round can only be loaded with 826 grains of gun powder. Accurately it will go 2600 meters ( with the best expert marksman shooting it) while the projectile could maybe go another 1000 meters if it didn't hit any thing. The physics of it will not allow the bullet to travel 5 miles. At some point the velocity slows and gravity takes over. there is only one way possible for a bullet to travel 5 miles and that is if it is fired from a plane 5 miles up in the air but then even a BB would travel five miles back to the ground.

Thank you Possible Spam detector for letting me post again......

Very frankly, if I were that afraid, I would get a few German Shepards. I live in the inner city myself, but guns aren't an option for me as I have a mentally ill teenager. Even if I didn't, I can't imagine living someplace so dangerous I needed a gun in every room.

Hell yes, matter of fact i keep the 12 gauge in the bathroom because if johnny puts an ax to the door ill put 00 buck to it. Seriously though you never know when its going to happen so best to be ready.

Afraid? Your right, I'm afraid someone will hurt me or my family for what we have and they want. I have 3 highly trained American pit bull terriers, Shepards are great but i live in fl and don't want vacuum clogging hair everywhere, plus the pits are amazingly smart and have that fear factor to them that keeps people out of my yard.

Worst part is this area used to be great but the times have changed, for a while there anyone could get a mortgage, and did, and moved into my nice neighborhood and ruined it just like the ones they were trying to get out of. I pray i never need my firearms but if i didn't have them i would feel responsible for whatever happened as a result of me not being able to protect those i care about. Maybe you would feel differently if you had been directly affected by criminal violence as i have. As a man i feel obligated to protect and if the scum has guns so do i.

LoneRanger01 (1.121)

Read the whole test results from Sandy Hook . I did not reference the type of measurement used during those tests ( Sandy Hook) . The muzzle velocity of the 45-70 used at the Sandy Hook tests was in the range of 1350 feet per second. Longest ranges used a 500 grain bullet the 405 grain exhibited a shorter range all in the text of the reports from the tests.

Aww... my first collapsed post:

I'm more concerned about the prospect of criminals and home-grown terrorists easily attaining a stockpile of weapons than I am about the rights of the average, law-abiding American gun owner. If you can't see that this is what the article is focusing on, well then, have a happy agenda!

Roadrunner, that's just plain stupid. Obama has expanded gun rights in this country. You fear-mongering kooks try to whip up the base with these lies every time a Dem is in the White House.

Dave, apologies for sounding like I was coming across so harsh on this "_____" (fill in the blank). I've read some piss-poor diatribe in my day, but this one really takes the proverbial cake. There's 'Investigative Journalism', 'Journalism', 'Reporting', Repeating, Gossip, Diatribe, and Propaganda. This trash was lower than the lowest...

“An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.” -- Col. Jeff Cooper

“Seek out and join a lawful Militia or form one in your area. If you wish to remain Free you will have to fight for it... not because we want to fight, or you want to fight but because the traitors will give us no choice in the matter” -- William Cooper

“To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” -- Ted Nugent

"A firearm is a tool. Your weapon is between your ears! Use THAT ONE first." -- Unknown

"Better to shun the bait than struggle in the snare." -- William Blake

"Liberty is given by nature even to mute animals." -- Gaius Cornelius Tacitus

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." -- Abraham Lincoln

Did some checking maximum range for a M-2 using M-2 ball ammunition 7400 yards data from the mid-fifties. Please note this is not the effective range same source list this as 2400 yards. Five miles works out to be 8800 yards so still a little short.

Bruce...Please don't take this the wrong way but your figures are based on a math formulas that starts with d = v*t. First of all if and I say if some how the 50 cal round could travel 5 miles by the time it got there if it were to hit some one it would not be going fast enough to break the skin of that person. In fact I feel safe in saying that if there were a paper wall 5 miles away and a person could hit that wall the projectile would not break though the paper.

There are so many different things that come into play when shooting for distance. You have wind speed, weather condition, humidity, the smoothness of your projectile, how clean your barrel is, hell even the time of day and the speed at which the earth is rotating.

We had the M2 browning in Vietnam, and I think the longest shot that was made with it was just under 2 .6 miles and it was modified by the Marine named Hathcock that made the shot to fire in a single round at a time.I personally could careless how far a round will travel, I shoot for distance and accuracy and rapid fire for the shear pleasure of smelling spent gun powder......Ah life doesn't get any better than that....OohRha.....

Yhank you possible spam detector for letting me post again.....this is really getting old fast

Bruce BTW: I do own a Windrunner Model 96 with a Nightforce NXS scope and there is no way I would ever believe it would go 5 miles.......

Thank you possible spam for making me try two times before I could post......

LoneRanger01 (1.129)

I've actually reference Hathcocks shot in another vine. I check case capacity for the 50 and found it holds just under 300 grains of water. The data about maximum range was U.S. Army data from the mid-fifties. As you well know this Internet thing is great. I've been rolling my own for over thirty years. I like Hope's #9 for aftershave.

Ummm, if a reporter's story is poorly written or biased, shouldn't commenters be allowed to make said observation? When no comments are allowed to reflect on the article or it's writer then what is the point of allowing for public comments? Seems a rather poor way to inspire freedom of speech. If someone writes a crappy novel, are we supposed to praise it because it is published?

If someone writes a biased and ill-researched article are we supposed to swallow it whole and not reflect on the possible agenda's of said author? Suppression of comment is essentially censorship, and very close to the slippery slope of only allowing state sponsored and approved information. So sorry, but a commentor should be allowed to speak their mind about the caliber of any article posted on MSNBC. The Newsvine code is agreed upon, comment regulation based on personal opinion smacks of censorship.

Bruce....sorry I don't know what 300 grains of water is..lol....And maybe I should have googled what his exact distance was, I was just saying what I remembered from being in Vietnam the same time he was. As for you making your own cigarettes and what after shave you like that went right over my head.

The point I am trying to make is that the news guy said the 50 cal would shoot 5 miles. There are two kinds of ammunition, civilian and military. Civilian brass is not as thick/heavy as military brass is there fore you can not use a hot load with civilian brass. The most you can load a round of civilian brass with, is 423 grains of gun powder. A military round is loaded with 826 grains of gun powder. Now if a military round might make the distance of 5 miles with 826 grs. logic says there is no way a civilian round will come close to 5 miles with almost half the powder.

My logic is based on this, If you have two cars with the same engine and they both get 33 miles to the gallon, but one car has a thirty gallon gas tank and the other car has an eighteen gallon gas tank the one with the thirty gal. gas tank will go further than the other.....

LoneRanger01 (1.133)

You Know what Hoppe's is, powder solvent. I've been reloading for over thirty years. Went to my Barnes #2 manualshowed max of about 254 grains of VihtaVuoriVV20N29. As far civilian vs military brass goes the rule of thumb is reduce loads when using data for military brass because the volume is less due to thicker case walls. Smaller space equals higher pressure with same charges. The news guy has his agenda and it is one that is simply wrong.

I also reload, smaller cal. I can not afford the 50 cal reloading equipment so I purchase special reloads. they run about 450.00 for 100 rounds for 660gr.. I don't even know if you can buy them any more but my Windrunner came with a 30inch barrel which was to short for hot loads so I special ordered an hand rolled 50in. barrel from Germany with a Myers flash suppressor on it. A lot more efficient at burning the excess powder.

i protect the... gold on my ceiling...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yCIDkFI7ew

Too many Gun rookies in here...cant argue with stupid, even my horse "Big Tex" shakin his head after readin through this...y'see, Big Tex ownes a S&W 500 Revolver...this horse dont mess around and he sure knows a thing or two about guns...

I bet those guns have already been divided up amongst the Cops, destroyed indeed!

NRA nut-cases and flaming leftist extremists are the people leading the gun control debate, and that is why it is so stupid. Anyone thinking could have solved this problem by now.

People either literally want no restrictions on guns or no guns to exist. Both are patently ludicrous. And, by the way, it isn't like laws don't exist, but it is pretty well proven since Columbine that sellers who don't enforce laws have been the problem. Do I think that the shooter is to blame? Yeah, duh! But no shooter lives in a vacuum. They all got their weapons from somewhere, and usually by circumventing laws that ALREADY EXIST. So no, we don't need big brother to go out and make us all only carry steak knives as weapons. But we don't need yuckity want to sell an M-16 to a 9 year old child with cash not being thrown in jail either.

So what! More people are killed by automobiles then by guns. Yet if you kill someone with your car you walk away in most cases with out a ticket. Kill some one with a gun you go to prison or have to spend allot of money for a lawyer. The gun and automobile are control by a human. Yet there is no stories on automobiles how people can buy one with out a back ground check. Give me a break.

If I sell a car on craigslist and the new owner hits someone and kills them, is it my fault for selling them the car? I don't think so. Same as a gun.

Next Week on Rossen Reports! Our reporters will hold up a bank and liquor store to show how easy it is when you have a gun that was legally purchased. Be sure to tune in! The following week we're going to visit the highway just outside the airport to try and shoot down helicopters with a 50 cal sniper rifle. Fun, fun, fun!

Welcome to the New NBC!

Agenda driven sensationalism from the media whores at NBC! Where the New World Order is sponsering mindless drivel for the masses.

It's not the ownership that's the complaint in this article, it's the lack of background checks. How can anyone deny that convicted felons being handed guns no questions asked is a problem? What's the trouble with a background check, what do you have to hide?

As a Democrat, I love guns. I think every American should get one on their 18th Birthday. They are as much a right as freedom, (That is why it is the 2nd Amendment). If everyone owned and carried a gun, I promise there would be a lot less crime, no one to prosecute, because they're dead. It's a win-win for the drain of imprisonment costs on the Justice System. Guns kill less people than cars, where is the uproar over making them illegal?

Guns kill less people than cars,

Maybe that's why cars have to be registered and you need a license to operate one.

Doesn't seem to help does it!!

This article highlights "assault rifles" and "assault weapons" based on appearance. If they really wanted to report then they should highlight more on the hand guns, handguns are used in violent crime 18x more than rifles (taken from the census bureau). In fact you are more likely to be stabbed or beaten with a blunt object than be shot by a rifle (taken from the census bureau).

Also a little fact, you are 2-4x's more likely to be raped than murdered by a firearm, so maybe everyone should have to wear a chastity belt when they leave their homes to ensure this wont happen to them.

You are also 32-56x's more likely to be involded in an aggravated assault than be murded by a firearm, so everyone should wear a helmet and pads to make sure they don't get beaten.

You are 34-39x's more likely to be robbed (or mugged) than be murdered by a firearm. So no one should carry anything valuable on their person.

This has all been taken from the US Census Bureau. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me.

Oh, and before I end my rant, the efective range of a .50 cal rifle is 1800 meters, or 5900ft or 1.1 miles. Not 5 miles!!! Longest sniper kill shot in history was made in 2009 by a british sniper with a .338 Lapua magnum at 2,475 meters.

Bubble Wrap The World!!! That would stop Violence!!!;)

Many states you don't have to if it never leaves your property. Registration and licensing are only for making money for the state.

any of you gun nuts ever stop to think about where and how criminals get guns and why it's so easy?

They get them (a) the same way you do, and (b) they steal them from gun stores and from you.

It's so easy because so many people are so stupid that they promote unlimited distribution and unlimited access to guns.

But my favorite stupidity (although it doesn't directly cause unnecessary deaths) is the one about left wing media. I never knew that MSFT, GE and Comcast were run by a bunch of commies, but now I do - because all the really smart people here told me.

TopoftheLine,

I think your a little out of date on the longest sniper kill shot. Just saw on Discovery or Military channel a week or so ago about a US, Army or Marine, sniper in Iraq or Afghanistan that made an over 2600 meter shot (2 miles) with a Barret .50 cal with the new Lapua armor-piercing "anti-personnel" round. Guy said they had just fielded them in the last few months. Nasty Buggers.

..."Cars kill more people than guns"....

Yeah. And we ALL know that cars were made to aim at people and kill them.

And guns were made to get from point A to point B.

Ludicrous argument.

Have a nice day.

I shoot hundreds of rounds of ammo a month and have never aimed my gun at someone on purpose.

What a ludicrous response.....

Go stuff yourself....

guns kill and other stuff too

If more laws are passed it will only stop law abiding citizens from getting guns. Criminals will still get guns. The only solution would be to end the criminals.

Derek - careful you a speaking commonsense! Great points and I'm right there with you. See my posts above.

htdjpf,

I hadn't heard about that shot!!! Both are amazing feats!!! The only purpose I put that up was to show that the .50 cal is a Long range weapon, but there are other calibers out there that can be just as impressive so a direct attack on that caliber is unwarranted. While the .338 Lapua will not hit with the same ftlbs as the .50 bmg the accuracy is suppose to be able to be maintained at much longer distances due to the flat trajectory path the bullet flies. I have personally shot both and couldn't say which i prefer, both are impressive rifles.

Derek (2.4)

Hate to burst your bubble but the N.R.A. has supported numerous gun laws. What they (N.R.A.) opposes is the non-enforcement of current law to propose further law, that would unreasonably restrict your RIGHTS. Currently all felons are prohibited from even touching a firearm ( federal statute) supported by the N.R.A. both in passage and enforcement.

Newsvine did their spam screen on me yet again

Whether there's ever a video segment of this released for viewing, as badams007 would like, or not, I doubt what's really going on here will be made apparent.

There have always been 'professional' gun runners out there. They've been around for hundreds of years. The Confederate States relied on them for the purchase of arms when the Union forces blockaded all the harbors and none of the gun makers in the New England states would willingly sell to the South. Since the advent of gun control laws, naturally, people prohibited from purchasing firearms legitimately have often bought them from black market traffickers. The thing is, almost all of them operate within their own 'networks', which do not include the internet! If you want to buy a gun from a black market source, you usually have to know somebody, or somebody who knows somebody. Not too much of a trick for residents of the criminal underworld.

I doubt we're seeing real unlicensed gun dealers here. I think it's a fair bet we're seeing people who have fallen on hard times and need money far more than they do one or several firearms that they owned.

If you're looking to sell a gun, you learn very quickly that taking it to a pawn shop or a regular gun dealer is the least beneficial way for you to do it. Unless the proprietor is a good friend of yours and looking to do you a favor, expect to be low-balled big time. After all, they're in business to turn a profit, not to help you out when you're down on your luck!

To sell a gun private party, you need to find someone who's looking to buy it. You can ask around, but that doesn't get most people very far. You're trying to sell something that no one really needs but you're hoping to get a few hundred or even a few thousand dollars for it. That's a tall order in these less than prosperous times. You can take it to a gun show, but in most cases you'll only find a dealer who will give you a low price on it. The idea is to find an individual who wants it, but even at a gun show, it's a long shot. So, putting an ad or notice on the Internet is becoming the most effective way to sell a gun and get most of your money back out of it.

Why would you want a stranger to come over to your house? Especially when you don't want him to know where it is as your other firearms and valuables are presumably there? A public parking lot or other 'neutral' place is the logical location in the best interest of both buyer and seller in a private sale when they don't know each other.

A lot of the firearms mentioned in this article were probably 'big boy's toys' when purchased several years ago. Not all that long ago, ammunition was cheap and plentiful, thanks to abundant military surplus on the market and low prices of copper, brass, and lead. Those days are gone. The majority of the surplus ammunition is long gun, and what's left isn't cheap anymore. Metal prices are at or near record highs. Recreational shooting of firearms has become a very expensive hobby at this late date.

And, too, a lot of people who engage in recreational shooting were men who worked in factory or construction jobs. Many found themselves laid off several years ago. If you've got a gun that you bought 'just for fun' in the 1990's or early 2000's and it's been gathering dust for a few years, of course it's time to sell it and try to recoup what you spent on it, no? In many cases, a firearm is the only thing of any real value a person has that they're willing to part with if it didn't belong to Dad, or Grandpa, or another ancestor. Electronics and computers, furniture, clothing, vehicles, and all the other things we tend to spend our disposable income on have lost a lot of value and are very hard to sell at a fair price these days. It's a buyer's market on that stuff.

I think the real story here is that hard economic times are forcing people to sell guns they once bought but hadn't been able to afford to use and feel they can't afford to keep when they could be sold for a relatively high price compared to other personal property that could be liquidated.

It is time 92.19)

There is plenty of current law concerning firearms and the ownership of them. Your posts seem to suggest otherwise simply not true. Also you point out the fact of non-enforcement. This is not a problem that can be addressed by more law but rather a simple case of will by the authorities ( will they use the tools law enforcement already has?). Felons are prohibited from handling the ammunition for firearms this prohibition is supported by the N.R.A.

As has already been mentioned the sales involved were 'classified ad' sales NOT through the mail or internet sales for which one has to have the weapon sent to an FFL dealer and have a background check done to retrieve it. I know this because I just bought a rifle from Oregon in Dec. and they would only ship it to a licensed FFL dealer. Classified ads from from an owner (or thief) who has a gun to sell not legitimate gun dealers.

And I am a moderate Democrat but I believe that the 2nd amendment was written for a 'citizens' militia as in those days the military WAS it's citizens who took up there personal arms, not a specialized group.

As to being able to own a tank, that is perfectly legal in the US but only older American armor or certain foreign models such as the British Chieftan, and Scorpion, the Russian T-55, T-72, and the T-80. Even then ALL armament and in case of then newer tanks, reactive (explosive) armor must be removed before sale.

a Canadian man who crossed into the U.S., bought a gun online in Seattle, then shot her 11 times as she got in her car

This man, went out of his way to break one law, so he could break another law! With or with out a gun he was going to kill this women!

Making guns illegal will not keep criminals from illegally getting guns. They are criminals for Christ sake and criminals do illegal things, that is what makes them criminals. If someone is going to kill another person, does anyone seriously think he would give a crap about breaking some gun law to get a gun when he is prepared to commit the ultimate crime? Making guns illegal is just going to be applicable to law abiding citizens because they are the only ones that abide by the laws in the first place. The liberal left is nuts if they think they can legislate guns away from criminals, they can only legislate guns away from non criminals. This is just media hysteria aimed at the part of the naive public that will be influenced by this drivel.

This is true. Criminals will always have guns. Liberals would have us be like Brazil if they could. Just las week the unionized Police dept. of Salvador City in Brazil went on strike for a 6% pay raise. Meanwhile, 115 civilians were murdered because there was no police in the city. Civilians in Brazil are not legally allowed to own personal firearms even for home protection. That's what Obama and many liberals would like to see here.

The Canadian man got a weapon because its easier to kill with a gun, why do we want to make it easy to kill?

if guns are out-lawed there will be just more people pushed out of windows

Check the BBC news; they have the strictest gun controls almost anywhere in the world. I see a shooting incident daily.

& don't twitter on about it being a small country (It'll fit into Texas 4 times by landmass) take gun deaths in Texas & divide by 4 (remove all legitimate shootings like burglars, home invasions, hold ups etc.) and the ratio is pretty similar.

lifeliberty

We can pass all the laws we want and criminals will still easily get guns.

That's what MANY don't understand lifeliberty...

The current laws aren't even enforced.

As I've mentioned in earlier threads...my neighbor, ex-convict. Has spent most his adult life in prison.

Cops are called to his house at least twice a month, for things from public intoxication, to spousal abuse.

And thanks to his *obediant* wife, and *friends*, he owns, or rather has possession of, over 12 weapons. Pistols, shotguns, 30-30, etc. .

Now some of us know its illegal for him to have these. Yet the cops know he has them.

Not sure what the problem is, but I know more laws aren't the answer !

(oh, and did I mention hes a drug addict also.....what a wonderful person to have as a neighbor huh)

lifeliberty...Not true. If gun legislation has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese, it hasn't the teeth to take a big enough bite out of the obscenely profitable gun running in the US. It's worse than the drug industry and every bit as much a weapon of mass destruction.

Only the cowboys love the idea of walking around public places armed to the teeth on major city streets. Their overbloated blowhard egos demand they intimidate others elsewise all happiness eludes them. These are the idiots who think being dressed to the nines and strapping on a holster and walking into upscale restaurants is some kind of badge of supremacy. BS.

And you might thank your lucky stars if one of these "cowboys" happened to save your life. How would you even know, much less be intimidated by, a person was carrying a concealed firearm? Are you intimidated by police officers? Try reading the Constitution..and not just the parts you like.

You anti-gun liberals are simply amazing

Square Dude, With all do respect. Is what your trying to say is, no gun no crime! If were only that easy.

Why don't they start by passing another law against pot first, and see how that works?

Wow, ewent, what kind of gun owners have you surrounded yourself with in order to get this "egotistical cowboy superiority complex" view of them? I know that my IQ doesn't go down with every gun I purchase, but ignorant comments like yours make me think that you've lost more than your fair share of brain cells.

@Phil-672730:

You might want to check FACTS instead of speculating (I'm just guessing you're a GOP supporter - you guys just spout "facts" without verification) . . . google "gun death per capita" and see what you find.

The US has over 20 times the firearm-related death rate of the UK.

ewent..........should the occasion arise, I promise not to use my gun to defend you.

Have all the guns you want America, I'm sure the reason your near last in education, health and wellness in the developed world is because you don't have enough guns. Way to have your priorities straight.

Interesting that no one touched on the fact that the Canadian entered our country illegally...and people wonder why Conservatives want to stop illegal immigration!

So what! More people are killed by automobiles then by guns. Yet if you kill someone with your car you walk away in most cases with out a ticket. Kill some one with a gun you go to prison or have to spend allot of money for a lawyer. The gun and automobile are control by a human. Yet there is no stories on automobiles how people can buy one with out a back ground check. Give me a break.

Lyle,
Maybe you shouldn't have spent so much money on guns and instead spent some of that money completing the 3rd grade. Learn to write the English language. Although you do prove my point that guns sure don't make you smarter.

We can pass all the laws we want and criminals will still easily get guns.

We don't necessarily need more or fewer laws, but we do need the right ones. That probably means eliminating some unnecessary restrictions, and replacing them with sensible, easy to comply with regulations that do not restrict people's Constitutional rights.

Now is not a good time politically, however, because too many people have an emotional, rather than rational, response to the issue.

Similarly, we can pass all the laws against murder we want, too, but it will still happen. Doesn't mean the existing laws are good or bad. But we still need the right laws, so that we can protect against murder, without treating everyone like a murderer.

@ Doc Holiday.....you really need to go back to school or get your money back. The first ten Amendments are called The Bill of Rights. They are your Civil Liberties. A Civil Liberty is a basic human right guaranteed to all humans. The federal government and the State governments regulate who does and does not get to keep their Civil Liberties. If you break the law you lose your Civil Liberties. If you are a criminal you no longer have the right to bear arms, if you are a criminal you no longer have the right to vote and so on.....

Break the law means convicted of a felony....

dieselbug:

I believe you are trying to make the point that the UK has less gun related crime because they have strict gun laws...if this is the case, then your logic is flawed. First, your mathmatical figures are skewed for your purpose. The US is much larger than the UK both in landmass and population; thus comparing apples to apples is not a fair comparison. Second, if the UKs strict gun laws are working (not even the London police carry guns), then why is there even gun crime in the UK?

I say the US should be more like Switzerland, where everyone owns a gun. They have the lowest gun crime rate in the world. Example, in 2006 there were 34 gun related crimes in Switzerland with a population of 7.6 million!

I just want to make sure you are looking at both sides of the argument before you come to any conclusions. Oh and please feel free to check my facts, I am a GOP (libertarian) supporter, I'm sure you will find them accurate.

This article is bias and the facts have not been checked...plain and simple this is bad reporting.

@dieselbug

Actually, his facts are correct. Maybe you should do some checking.
The UK has one of the most strict gun-control laws in the world. It's been called the "Gold Standard" of gun control. That's why U.S. Gun crime will always be higher.
But wait, the UK has a higher violent crime rate than the U.S. does.

@dieselbug

His 'facts' might be correct but the logic is completely flawed. Land mass does not count for much, the UK is more densely populated than Texas. The population of the UK is around 60 million. The population of Texas is around 25 million. If you divide the population of Texas by 4 and get a similar ratio then, because you're doing it completely backwards, you're only disproving your point. You need to divide the population of the UK by more than 2, then compare the ratio's.

I'm from the UK, and I have never, EVER, felt afraid of guns whilst living there. However, living in the US I have. My wife walked out of our house, got 20 yards down the street and almost got right into the middle of a gunfight.

@Kadye10

The cultures of Switzerland and the UK are very different. The cultures in the UK and US are not very far removed. A lot of people in the UK are very 'americanized'. You say to disregard any comparison of the UK and US because of landmass and population, but I would suggest culture is far more important when making a comparison, whereas when looking at differences in population you can boil it down to ratios.

I believe police in London (and elsewhere, the UK is NOT just London) do carry guns.

Funny all this talk about guns and weapons and knives and cars and stones and arrows and........Well, why don't we take a look at what the real problems are out there?

Examine WHY people kill, mame, hurt, abuse, degrade etc. We all have lost respect, trust, and common sense for the human race. Why? GREED, and the feeling of self preservation takes first priority. Our wonderful leaders, our "representatives", sure have led by a fine example. But society will not survive as a Democracy, let alone a Republic, (which we were), without ACCOUNTABILITY for oneself.

Until then, I am pro gun for self preservation. Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.

@ Squaredude: You are the one making it easier to kill! WTF?

If you disarm the general population, the criminals will have free reighn. The fact that there are firearms on the streets in LEGAL law abiding citizen's hands, makes you much more safe - armed or not. There is an INVERSE correlation between firearm availability, concealed arms tolerance and crime rates. This has been proven time and again - it is irrefutable fact.

The real argument here is whether you want Joe Blow on the street being able to do a background check on someone else prior to the gun sale. I do not want just anybody to have that sort of access to my information - ever. I have nothing to fear of the firearm background check - however - I prefer to buy used guns over new ones for obvious reasons. This is no different than buying a used car - it is cheaper, I don't put the first ding in it, and I have more choices. Plus I don't have to deal with the tool used car salesman. When selling a car from a curb, I don't have any idea whether the person buying is going to use it to run over his ex-wife or to take his daughter to school. I don't know if he will speed with it or go 15mph in a school zone. I also don't care - it is no longer my deal...

..."Criminals will always have guns"....

Yeah. Because we ALL know that criminals were born with 50 caliber weapons in their hands.

And we ALL know that lax guns laws aren't responsible for the amount of guns on the street, now don't we?

Have a nice day.

dem in texas, you are a MORON! and yes it is legal to own a tank in the USA...

@ Dem in Texas

Have all the guns you want America, I'm sure the reason your near last in education, health and wellness in the developed world is because you don't have enough guns. Way to have your priorities straight.

You clearly received a better education than the rest of us.

Actually, no, they are not perfectly legal; as a private seller, if you knowingly sell a gun to someone who couldn't legally by the gun from a dealer (e.g. telling you they probably wouldn't pass a background check) you have just broken the law.

Werewindle will be commenting on another thread about gay marriage in Washington State. An activity that is perfectly legal.

If it took you ten minutes to read that brief article I'm not interested in your opinion.

The "reporter" also broke the law ON CAMERA several times in a 2 minute clip. Straw buying is explicity illegal! This is federal law which could result in decades in a federal prison.

Hey,shut yer yap; SHUT YER YAP!! WHY ARE PREJUDGING (where the word "prejudice" came from )Werewindle?! Just state what you KNOW! I'm so tired of people "profiling" others! Why not try me? Betcha can't CORRECTLY!

LMAO Werewindle - well said. This is nothing but a ploy designed to push why gun control is "necessary." In fact, I'd like to hear from one of these Gun Control people what makes a gun any different from, say a bow & arrow, or a hunting knife (both of which are also designed to kill, but are completely legal.)

In fact, there are also all kinds of non-conventional weapons that can kill. You can torch a man to death with a can of hairspray, for example. BTW, messing with hairspray was my personal favorite as a rather "mischievous" teenager, until a certain "incident" (which I don't really care to talk about) scared the holy crap out of me, and made me quit doing it. But all the same, I was young, stupid, and thought my homemade blowtorch was "cool."

Archie Midwest,

Had to look that one up, but, you are right!

It seems though, that if the buyer, and the straw buyer, are legal, feds usually go easy.

You're an idiot or extremely ignorant. Take your pick. If the person has not been caught yet, they would have been "locked up". It's attitudes like yours that help the gun control advocates.

You're an idiot or extremely ignorant. Take your pick. If the person has not been caught yet, they would have been "locked up". It's attitudes like yours that help the gun control advocates.

Even if criminals could be incarcerated indefinitely or 'put to death' as you purport you'd still have people out there buying guns, committing crimes in the future. The judicial system can't account for that.

You don't get to have your cake & eat it too; if you want your rights to buy guns expect that right to become abused by your fellow man who can't play by the rules. Then don't bitch when they want to run a check on you- that's to ensure you can retain your rights to gun ownership.

I'm with you. I've got a nice little stash of IEDs and a small nuclear device, and if anybody tries to take 'em away from me I won't just finish them off, I will take out their whole effin TOWN!

Hey there pardner . Y"all think its alright to buy any kinda gun. Care to meet me in the street to see who has the fastest draw? Oh wait a minute this isn't the ol"e west is it. Do you think it should be legal to buy a bazooka or a hand grenade. Didn't think so. So where should we draw the line. I think back ground checks should be reasonable. There should be some kind of control on who gets these guns. Just a thought. Oh wait maybe I could go buy those grenades on E-Bay after all!!!

The problem is the media tries to make all sales sound "fishy" or "dangerous". There are over 200 million firearms and 1 in 4 people own at least one gun with the average firearms per gun owner is 4 guns each (I personally own 7 pistols). My point is we need to focus on those illegally using guns. To ask a personal gun owner to do a background check is unreasonable and, quite frankly, simply a gimmick to try and initiate more gun controls. As a percentage of ownership and the population guns are VERY safe and virtually all gun owners are very aware and responsible with their gun ownership.

Asking the gun seller to determine whether a person intends to use a gun illegally is like asking a person selling a car to make sure the buyer is not planning on using the car for a bank robbery. That is silly. Now if a person SAYS they are going to use the car for a bank robbery then the seller has a moral obligation to inform authorities with a description of the car and buyer. Same with selling a gun. If the buyer states they are going to use the gun for a bank robbery then the seller should inform authorities they just sold a gun and the buyer mentioned he was going to rob a bank. But THAT is the extent of legal restrictions. You don't limit personal sales just in CASE someone might buy a gun for non-legal purposes.

I'm for people who think like Jaime being able to buy hand grenades as well.

The judicial system that you berate has locked up millions. In fact, we have a higher percentage of people in jail than any western country. Perhaps if we had the ability to recognize people who are buying guns to commit future crimes we could add to that population.

Check the BBC news; they have the strictest gun controls almost anywhere in the world. I see a shooting incident daily.

& don't twitter on about it being a small country (It'll fit into Texas 4 times by landmass) take gun deaths in Texas & divide by 4 (remove all legitimate shootings like burglars, home invasions, hold ups etc.) and the ratio is pretty similar.

Your logic is completely flawed. Land mass does not count for much, the UK is more densely populated than Texas. The population of the UK is around 60 million. The population of Texas is around 25 million. If you divide the population of Texas by 4 and get a similar ratio then, because you're doing it completely backwards, you're only disproving your point. You need to divide the population of the UK by more than 2, then compare the ratio's.

I'm from the UK, and I have never, EVER, felt afraid of guns whilst living there. However, living in the US I have. My wife walked out of our house, got 20 yards down the street and almost got right into the middle of a gunfight.

Just because something is a right doesn't mean it should come without responsibilities. People say driving isn't a right, that it is a privilege. That is correct, but just imagine how our Constitution would have been written if we had cars before the Revolution. Maybe British soldiers would have severely limited who can drive when and where. After the first Congress I could easily imagine an amendment stating that the government cannot infringe upon car ownership. If that were the case would it suddenly be unconstitutional to have @!$%#ing stop lights, driver exams, and licenses?

This whole debate about responsible regulation and responsible ownership is insane. Pass a short course and you can carry a concealed weapon. Get a license and you can own a handgun. Background checks should be mandatory for all sales including private ones. Arsenals should be restricted to an appropriate size, which can be determined by all involved. In my opinion no one has need of massive caliber machine guns, but I would leave it to the democratic process to determine where to draw the lines.

I see the need for guns as a deterrent from tyranny and as weapons for sport and survival - I'M NOT TAKING AWAY YOUR @!$%#ING GUNS, YOU LUNATICS. But to argue for not wanting any responsibilities attached to ownership is the dumbest @!$%#ing thing a person can argue for.

As a private seller it may be a hassle to have to go through official channels to sell a weapon and to have to go through a lot of paperwork checking the identity of your buyer. I get that. But wouldn't you rather know that the buyer isn't a nut and is simply a sportsman or a responsible citizen? I know I wouldn't want to find out I sold a weapon out of my trunk to some guy who just murdered a family!

It's not your right to buy a gun any way you want. Whoever told you that was lying to you.

If you're concerned about a potential buyer's possible criminal history, why not ask if s/he would mind going through an FFL holder. If they hesitate, maybe you should reconsider the sale.

If I were selling to a friend, I'd have no problem. All others go through an FFL.

CAL USA

The judicial system that you berate has locked up millions. In fact, we have a higher percentage of people in jail than any western country. Perhaps if we had the ability to recognize people who are buying guns to commit future crimes we could add to that population

Cal, the problem with your statement is that the vast majority (something like 70%) of all people in prison are in there for non-violent crimes. We lock someone up for years and years for drug charges and white collar crimes, while the assaults, DUIs and rapes get pled down and their time served in county or local jails, not prisons. Even then, they often enter rehab facilities or enroll in some outreach program and get a deferred prosecution that, upon completion, completely erases what they've done from the judicial system as if they had never committed the original crime. Get drunk and kill someone with your car? No problem! Just go to a year of AA meetings and make sure your checks to the probation department don't bounce, and we'll cover the whole thing up for you! Get caught selling a bag of pot and you go to prison for 10 years. Beat the crap outta your wife and kids? You obviously need anger management, you poor, misunderstood thing! Cheat some idiot out of $50,000 because they were too gullible to say "NO!" to your huckster pitch and you will spend the next two decades in prison.

What some of you need to understand is we have a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Spin it any way you want to but it is what it is. The desire of those who want to eliminate guns knows the public will not support a total ban so they are smart enough to know if they can take a little bit here and a little bit there they can get guns banned. This is just another ploy to get more control of guns.

If you are selling a gun and have a "reasonable knowledge" this person is not allowed to purchase or has criminal plans then you have a moral (and legal) obligation to not sell or, if the transaction is complete, to notify the authorities. Just like if someone is interested in your car if you know they intend to rob a bank with your car after purchasing then you have a moral (and legal) obligation to notify the authorities. But asking a person to check some database to sell their gun is like asking someone selling a car to confirm the buyer address is correct and they have proper insurance. That is not your responsibility.

bazooka's and hand grenades can be bought smarty pants, i have some, would you like to purchase one or more?

i have been in the middle of a firefight, (and i will never be without a gun, or firearm, whatever you prefer to call them). oddly enough because it would suck to be in the middle of a firefight without one.

i helped a woman one night that was about to be raped, (penitration had not yet occured, but it was just about to be) she was a anti-gun person to the core, and you know what she said to me after saving her from a certain rape and possible death? she said thank you. gun or no gun, i would have helped that girl, even if it ment losing my own life in the attempt, but i am glad i had it. that night i wasn't expecting to play the hero, i never wanted to, but i am certainly thankfull i had a gun, and i think that woman might be too. i do offten wonder if she changed her veiws on guns, but i'll never know. the fact is that there are alot of bad people out there getting their hands on guns, it just seems crazy to me to run around not being thankfull, and hopfull that there are more good people out there with their hand on 'em too.

when i think of violent crimes happening, i can't help but think that if i were to be murrdered, i think i would preferr to be shot, rather than beaten to death, or stabbed, set on fire ect. the quicker they get it over with the less i would have to deal with it, and the quicker i get to see what happens next (not that i'm in any hurry). i'm just saying...

we should ban life, that seems to result in death 100% of the time. derrrrr

I'm a moderate on this issue. I am pro-gun, but I am also for restrictions on the right to buy a gun. No restrictions means you can buy any gun you want, and I for one would be afraid of a person who target-shoots with a .50cal Barret, and hasn't been properly trained on these weapons (eg how far these weapons can actually shoot, their penetrating capabilities, etc.) There are reasons why police (and especially military) sniper ranges are in remote places. Accidents do happen. If you have a weapon that can shoot up to 3000 yards (or a little over a mile and a half, if my math is correct), and live in an urban area, you're going to kill someone. It's almost guaranteed. You may not have meant it to happen, but it happened, and you cannot take it back.

.

Yes, Rich from Michigan, a legitimate buyer has to check their State's gun laws to know what they have to register. Just because someone purchases a gun online doesn't mean they don't have to register it.

I believe, in Michigan, an online buyer purchasing a weapon requiring registration has to have that weapon received by a licensed dealer in Michigan before it can be picked up. So, unknowingly having it shipped to your house would be a violation of the gun registration law.

People should be aware of this, and check into their State's gun laws, prior to making an online purchase.

all guns bought on the internet have to be shipped to a FFL dealer, who then has to perform a nics check to be able to give the gun to the buyer. no passed check no gun. there is no law in many states preventing a person to person sale, face to face with no check. perhaps that is a loophole. i have bought many guns over the internet and all of them were sent to local ffl who did the check. with regard to the hollow point ammunition, i would use nothing else in my carry weapon because they provide the best stopping power in case god forbid i needed to defend myself or my family. i also shoot in competition to maintain a good level of competance. if you liberal posters dont like guns, dont buy one, but dont try to make everyone do what you want.

I believe, in Michigan, an online buyer purchasing a weapon requiring registration has to have that weapon received by a licensed dealer in Michigan before it can be picked up. So, unknowingly having it shipped to your house would be a violation of the gun registration law.

Federal Law states that you cannot ship ( Fed ex, ups ) Firearms to an individuals house. IT has to goto a licensed dealer. IF you send it from person to person it is considered trafficking. My uncle is a gunsmith ( makes a damn good living at it too ) He fixes guns from all over the US, but he legally cannot have them shiped to his home. They have to goto the shop he works for and the shop has to ship them back.

THAT is why they are meeting in parking lots.

OOPS MrWood seems to have beat me to the punch about shipping guns

That's the problem with this article in a nutshell. They bandy the term 'online gun sales' when what they are really talking about is more like a classified ad system. Online gun sales do have checks in place and background checks are required (at least for persons who do not have CHL). People have been using the Internet for this other type of transaction from day one, whether the item being exchanged is a firearm or pot or sex or whatever, all they do when it gets noticed is start using euphemisms. When my father sold off his collection, he could have found individuals to buy them, but he took a hit on the value and sold them to a gun shop instead, because the gun shop could checkout the potential buyers and he couldn't. Unfortunately, most people are going to prefer the higher payoff and risk selling to someone like the Canadian stalker mentioned in the article. Buying something from someone that you contacted online and then had to meet in person to complete the transaction is not an 'online gun sale'.

Enough: You are EXACTLY right!! These are NOT "internet" sales. These are "classified ads". As others mention above guns cannot cross state lines without an FFL transfer. But if I live in Florida and I find a person who also lives in Florida then I can simply meet face to face, purchase the gun, and go home. THAT is what is taking place here. Perfectly legal. Perfectly acceptable.

Pro....you are right. I don't know how Florida does it but in TX the seller is required to ask the buyer if the buyer has been ever convicted of a felony. Most sellers are smart enough to get it in writing because if the gun you sell is used in a crime and you did sell it to a convicted criminal unless you can prove you questioned him.her about their criminal back ground you can be held responsible for their crime also......

You are all absolutely correct. I will never understand why people think creating more laws will be effective when the current laws are already being broke. You can legally sell a gun, person-to-person, with no background check; however, the moment the buyer tells you they probably wouldn't pass a background check, the transaction becomes illegal. You cannot sell a gun to anyone you feel may not be able to legally buy a gun.

I agree there was a lot of sensationalism in the article, but that should not deter from the point, which was that guns are not regulated at all in this country. Responsibility comes with gun ownership and if gun owners want less stigmatism they should, in good faith, support efforts to make gun ownership more responsible. That includes closing the kinds of loopholes that give guns a bad name and so easy to sensationalize in the media.

This business with having to have a gun transmitted through a FFL dealer for a background check before pick-up AFTER one has bought the weapon is a tremendous scam. I used the "legal way" to transport a gun from one state to another a few years ago. I used that system ONCE, and never again. The charges for the service are OUTRAGEOUS and a dealer can refuse to give you your property if you don't pass their check-AGAIN! It made a 2nd time I had to pass the background check, to recieve the property I already owned. It was little more than an opportunity for the government to disarm me and confiscate my weapon. And as I said, I had to pay a hefty price for the service. Never again will I obey such laws or regulations. I have relied on the US Constitution's simple statement of "shall not be infringed." for my legal protection ever since.

If every state had adhered to the Constitution's REAL meaning like Vermont has since 1793 we wouldn't have these problems now. Yeah, thats right! Little old "liberal" Vermont has always let it rest on the responsibility of the gun owners and we only have 3 or 4 limitations on the citizens. No applications- no permits, just responsibility if they choose to carry open or concealed. I wish to hell that the rest of the citizens of the states would get with it and insist that the US Constitution be followed. Are you going to get a permit to speak freely or worship as you wish too? 99.9% of all gun laws are USURPATIONS of YOUR rights. Its about time they are treated as such and the government be slapped down like a bad dog for their interference.

Oh yeah, Thanks for the idea on how to buy weaponry by side-stepping all of the BS regulations and laws! I'm going to put it to use before the wusses get it closed down.

Oops, I forgot to say- all of the regulations and laws are pointless to people with the skill of metalworking and the tools to do it. They can make any weapon they please simply by producing the parts to specifications and assembling it themselves. You can find plans and specifications online and in books all over the place. Good old American know-how can provide anybody with the skills an un-numbered "stealth" weapon if they choose to make one. Every metalworking shop can become a gun producer if they really want to.

Way to miss the point. For all the blather from the gun crowd about their "rights" being eliminated, it simply isn't true. In fact, this article underscores the problem with lax gun sales laws.

I agree with Rich from MI above. I am a proud, legal, multi-gun owner. I have had a background check for every firearm that I own. They need to be targeting the people unlike us that do not go through the correct channels. Guns are not dangerous, the people who wield them are. This was made to sound like people were purchasing online like they would with ebay and having these weapons shipped direct to them. Turns out this is not the actual case. This is a prime example of the ATF and FBI not doing there jobs as well as they should. This is no different to me than the "Methhead" and drug dealer meeting in the back alley.

When I see people ranting nonsense, I like to bring up this website.

nramemberscouncils.com/lifeclock/

It shows the deaths so far this year out of a number of major causes of death.

People will not be happy until our constitution is trampled under foot and we have successfully destroyed our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. People will kill each-other with pointy sticks and rocks, cars kill four times the amount of people that guns kill each year, lets ban them too. We are even given the right to fight back against an over oppressive government if needed, through our great constitution of the United States of America. So why does the minority push so hard to remove our freedoms? Because it is wrong to do so, and right is becoming wrong and wrong perceived as good.

I'd love to see , or not see, people texting while driving.

You can make methamphetamine buy using simple "cold remedies" from your local pharmacy, so now, if you have a cold or allergies you have to "sign" for these legal, over the counter drugs and, there is still a huge meth problem in this country! Criminals just don't up and go away, they just get smarter.

MRZ: I know this is a little "off-topic" but your allergy comment is correct. I have been on prescription allergy medication for years taking two a day (one in the morning then one a night). So my prescription was for 60 pills a month. Then Claritin D went "over the counter" but I can't buy more than 20 pills at a time (one box) AND must show all kinds of identification to buy 20 pills!! (If only our immigration department was as concerned with identification as our government for people with allergies!!). It was easier for me to buy another gun at the gun show than try to buy another 20 allergy pills!?!?

So I ask my pharmacist why I could buy 60 pills a month when it was a prescription but only 20 pills at a time now? Now I must come in every week or so to buy another box of 20?!?!? (BTW, there is also a maximum per month so I was exceeding that too!!). My pharmacist told me to ask my doctor to write a prescription for Claritin D. Even though it is over the counter the prescription on file allows me to bypass all the restrictions on buying Claritin D. So now I can just go buy my allergy pills. If we put THAT much effort in controlling allergy pills then why do we still have so much of a problem with illegal immigration!?!?

Yes, if someone wants to harm or kill someone else they will do it. Just like I'm sure the "outstanding citizen" at the past gunshow in Florida that shot himself was probably looking to harm himself.

I own four guns. I have no criminal record. I only shoot my guns about once every three months at a range. I only own guns because of self protection of my family and home.

Having said that, I support background checks for all gun sales. There is no excuse to oppose background checks for people buying guns. Yes no matter what we do Criminals will always get guns. But there is no reason to make it easier for them and we need to enforce existing gun laws.

Exactly, and when people make a big deal out of this @!$%#, the law abiding citizens are punished, by restriction. Now lats Take Cali for example. They're restricted on ammo capacity in your magazine to ten rounds, you can't have full Auto, I'm mean the list goes on and on, and it's ridiculous, but this won't stop someone who's going to break the law anyway. By restricting the law abiding citizens only more people get killed. Why? Well lets see here, oh yeah, because they people can't defend themselves with heavy restrictions. Besides, you can kill anyone with anything, and you know what, I think that Marijuana Cali legalized is playing with their whats wrong and whats right judgement.

"It would be just as easy to maim someone with a baseball bat or run them over with a car."

Why are the dumbest arguments the ones that get repeated the most? To be killed by a bat you either need to be really still and have your attacker approach you from behind, or the attacker needs to be really committed to the murder. A gun can kill from a distance and takes very little commitment from the person pulling the trigger. They flex their finger and you're dead. With a bat you've got a fighting chance and the killer needs to get very personal with you. Plus, who carries bats around with them? A gun can be anywhere to settle any disagreement at any time, and it can be used at an impersonal distance making it much easier and more likely to kill than a bat.

Who the @!$%# uses a car to commit murder? Maybe occasionally this occurs, but if you can't dodge a car when you know it's aimed at you, you need to play more sports. Or just run through the woods!

Outlawing guns will not solve the problem, only exacerbate it. War on drugs being a prime example. Prohibition is another. It is not illegal to have marijuana in our country if you have a federally issued permit. The only problem is they don't issue any permits, effectively making it illegal to possess marijuana. This is what the government wants to do with guns. Regulate them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Outlawing or severely limiting access to guns will only create a larger black market causing the unintended consequences of more crime, gun crime, and larger police state. Along with the costs of funding enforcement.

Ha. ha! (chuckling to myself!) not to get off-subject, but why do they always show someone trying to "outrun" a vehicle in the movies instead of just jumping/ moving out of the vehicle's path? Just sayin.

Here is an example: Guns have been outlawed for years in China. About two years ago they had a couple "crazies" who killed children with knives. In fact an excerpt from a Time magazine article on the subject stated "In China, where private firearms are banned, attackers are limited to using simpler weapons like knives. That helps explain the grim logic as to why the recent attacks were aimed at schools. They are a soft target, where an assailant armed only with a knife can still inflict great harm." (Time Magazine May 12, 2010).

So guess what China did next? You got it - they outlawed knives over a certain size. What next - outlaw chopsticks when they are sharpened to a point and used as a weapon? Outlaw shovels? Outlaw oven-mitts?

We have over 200 MILLION handguns in this country and we do not have any more injuries due to guns than we do proportionally with swimming pools, automobiles, or even oven-mitts. Virtually all gun owners are responsible and take great care of their weapons. I have several handguns (7 to be exact) and not ONE has gone off accidentally and not ONE has been used in committing a crime. They are locked in a gun safe except for the one or two I carry at that time. Point is don't focus on the gun or the responsible gun owner - the crime is those who use guns illegally. The key word there is ILLEGALLY!! Go after them but you are not going to affect my ability to protect myself or my family.

Actually "dumbass" When you order a gun online it does not ship to your door. It goes to your local federally lisenced dealer where you will pick it up after you go through a background check and pay the dealer a tranfer fee. Please stop spewing bad information.

Well, that all depends. There are sites set up to pair gun sellers with buyers and in places like Virginia, where the rule of law still has some teeth, a face-to-face transaction can be brokered where no checks are required.

The thing is that most of the people will not sell to a known criminal and known criminals will generally not try to purchase from private citizens for fear of being made.

This report is essentially much ado about nothing.

Joshar15, did you read the story? The investigators made contact with the gun seller online and arranged to meet in a parking lot. That's not quite the same as ordering a gun and picking it up at a FFL-licensed dealer, is it? Who's the dumbass now?

Please. You can buy anything for the right price, but you can't get guns this way legally, people. You can buy anything at anytime for a price. State laws do not generally supercede federal laws. I find it hard to believe that I can legally walk in to a firearms dealer in Virginia a buy a gun at that moment.

Where online? Craigslist or some other ad site. Certainly not on Gunbrokers.com. All purchases have to transfer from FFL to FFL

wiley- as a private citizen if you own a gun you have the legal right i(n most states) to sell it with without a backgorun check or waiting period. However it is important to note that if you sell that gun and a crime is committed with it some legal respocibility for that crime is yours and you may be sued or whorse. Also as a private seller you would have no way or legal right to conduct any criminal background check. To legaly conduct business as a firearm retailer you must have an FFL that is very different than selling a gun you own personaly if these guys in this story are doing business in the firearm trade without background check or a ffl lic. the law is not being bent it is being broken and someone should be getting fitted for an orange jumpsuit. To avoid legal hassels when you sell a gun you own take it to a FFL holder for a small fee they will take possession of the gun and do the paperwork and background check for you and legaly you are of the hook. I charge $15.00 for this service.

This "report" is all bull, any weapon you buy online from a dealer have to be send to an FFL licensed dealer to process the transaction.

Federal law requires firearms to be shipped to FFL Dealers. For an individual to receive a firearm from an internet retailer it must be shipped to an FFL Dealer in your state. You can pick up the firearm from the local FFL Dealer of your choice. Also, you will need to find an FFL Dealer that will accept the firearm and complete the required paperwork.

Now an individual owner, yes they can sell to anyone, that's their right. Also there is the black market of weapons, you can get everything there, no need for paperwork.

As usual, the left wingers psedo journalists democrats twisting the truth, just a little "bit". My personally I prefer the whole country armed to the teeth that loosing my freedoms. I was born on a totalitarian country and I know what I am talking about. Hope the Americans are smart and see the truth, not stupid like my people.

Joshar15.........Wow ! You missed the entire point of the article and yet still felt compelled to comment ! Did you even read it ?

Individuals selling guns to other individuals are not required to do any kind of checks, a gun dealer is supposed to do a background check. this is really not a new story, anyone who wants to buy or sell guns knows the loopholes.

As a convicted felon I do not have gun rights and don't own one, but getting one would be easy; I just don't need one.

People read the headlines and post comments not knowing anything about the law. Here is the summation: If you live in a state (say Florida) and find a person (who also lives in Florida) wanting to meet up in person to purchase your gun that is perfectly legal. That is NOT an "internet sale" - that is a "classified ad". However, you CANNOT take a gun across state lines to transfer ownership. That REQUIRES an FFL transfer. If you don't get the transfer you have broken the law. Doesn't mean you CAN'T it means you broke the law. And if a person sells a gun to a person who represented they could legally buy (but lied-say a convicted felon) then THEY broke the law - not the seller. As long as there is not "reasonable" belief that the seller knew.

However, a gun cannot be SENT across state lines either. That requires an FFL transfer too. End result is if you meet a person in your state you can meet up in person and buy the gun (at least that is the law in Florida - not sure of other states). So don't "muddy the waters" with speculation and incorrect statements. If you are a gun owner wanting to sell it is YOUR responsibility to follow the proper laws of transfer. But if your transfer was LEGAL you have nothing to worry about and if the BUYER broke the law it is THEIR responsibility.

rdoss70, Thanks for saving me a lot of typing. I am curious about one thing. Could the seller get all the pertinent info from the buyer over the phone, get the background checked through an FFL, verify the ID info at the selling point, and sell the weapon if OK or refuse to sell if info bogus? Some sales are often outside business hours or distant from known, reliable FFLs. I have an excellent FFL dealer within 5mi of home, but I know some folks don't have that advantage.

lol but its big brothers job to do everything remember? Liberals dont actually put their money where their mouth is. They want daddy to do it for them. Waaaaa

Liberals always someone else to protect them. People have been poking their eyes with McDonald's straws so we must outlaw McDonald's straws!!

Funny thing is one day a liberal will be attacked in a mall parking lot, scream (because they have no way to protect themself), and I will run over there with my .357 in hand to help a citizen in distress. The assailant will run off and the person will thank me but the next day continue to talk about "the need to control guns".

My favorite Thomas Jefferson quote is (actually quoting Cesare Beccaria):

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

I describe myself as a moderate liberal. If I'm attacked in a mall parking lot, I expect you to wait until the police arrive.

So you can tell them you saw me use my .40 S&W legally to defend myself.

Time to stop with the "liberal" and "conservative" labels. They're just a tool to divide and conquer the people. If you sit down and talk you find out that you want the same damned things. You need to dispense with the propaganda labelling first though.

@Merlin: I agree 100%!

Fair enough Dave. I'll stand back and recognize you have things under control so will just call the police. And don't worry, I'll help explain why you took 20 shots when your clip only holds 14:)!!

Bob....I am so sick and tired of politicians like Bloomberg and Schumer in NY trying to dictate what laws they think the rest of the US should follow. Places like NYC, DC, and Chicago have the toughest handgun laws, but also have the highest handgun murder rate. Hypocrisy at its best

I watched some of CSPAN last weekend regarding FF. Dealers in AZ reported the attempt to buy large quanities of weapons to the ATF...and were told to do it...because they had a plan. Evidently, the plan was to flood the border conflict with arms so they could have their media lapdogs yell, "See, we told you!" When the ill conceived plan exploded in our's and Mexico's faces...they ran for darkness like the vermin they are. Now, their solution is to prosecute the people they told to release the weapons...rich. They are more dangerous to America than Iran or Al Qaeda.

"Places like NYC, DC, and Chicago have the toughest handgun laws, but also have the highest handgun murder rate"

"Law Abiding citizens" are disarmed, the Criminals are not. Ever notice that when EVERYONE is armed, crime drops?

People are less likely to whip out a gun if they know that they will be faced with 2-20 more from the people around them..

My dear Bob, if you had researched the matter at all, you'd see that the ATF gunwalking operations began in 2006, long before the current administration came into power. I know it's more convenient to your point of view to leave it all at the doorstep of the administration currently in charge, but perhaps you could engage in a bit more research next time so that you don't look as much a fool when the actual truth is unveiled.

Forkchops,

Maybe you are the one who should do more research. Operation Gunwalker did indeed start under the Bush administration, but that was in cooperation with the Mexican government. Fast & Furious was implemented without the knowledge or concurrence of the Mexican government. It sounds to me like a rogue operation set up by Eric Holder to demonstrate a "problem" with major straw purchases in the border states by "unscrupulous" gunshops which did not exist. In fact the shop owners pleaded with the ATF to not sell these guns, but were told "don't worry, we're with the government, it will be OK". Apparently, they were wrong. Why would the US govenment do this without involving Mexican authorities? Perhaps to further an anti-gun agenda by creating more sensational headlines. Too bad an American Border Patrol agent had to pay the price with his life.

bush stopped the program, holder and obama ,restarted it then tried to cover it up after it got a boarder guard killed...

^ This

Additionally, if Citizens are ARMED, then criminals are less likely to try anything stupid

An armed society is a polite society.

It would not appear that way when you look at statistics.

Mike the second amendment is no longer a valid argument to the right to own and bear arms as you have inadvertently pointed out. You see, no matter how many guns you all can buy without background checks we will NEVER again be able to bring down our government with any guns individuals may own. If we wanted to bring down our government, how do you suggest we combat the tanks, fighter jets and nukes? All the hollow point bullets in the world, coupled with all the 50 caliber weapons would be no match for the U.S. military and their weapons. So you see, all the BS about the second amendment and its original intent is no longer valid.

Therefore, the government must enact laws which either again fully arms our citizens to combat government tyranny as promulgated in the second amendment or we must enact laws which curtails our second amendment freedoms. Currently all we're doing is paying lip service to the second amendment in order to continue to arm criminals. No law abiding citizen who has no intention of harming humans has any need for semi-automatic weapons or hollow point bullets or extended magazines or AK47s or anything other than shotguns used by sportsmen. This circular argument made by the NRA that ALL weapons are covered under the second amendment is only made to fool citizens into arming criminals. So unless the NRA is going to begin lobbying for all of us to be able to purchase tanks, nukes and other weapons of mass destruction to level the playing field if you will between citizens and our military the second amendment argument is foolish.

The point of reporting on something that is completely legal is to use persuasive arguement to encourage people to support rational gun laws that protect both the sportsman's need to kill animals and society at large who wish to limit the amount of gun violence in this country. And by the way, we have the highest number of gun deaths of any first world country on the planet, so for all of you who claim that gun laws don't take guns away from criminals you are clearly mistaken.

Didn't you hear that the federal government wants to regulate sugar? How is that for intruding in to our lives. The liberals want government to regulate everything and have everyone depend on the federal government.

Here's the article.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/02/great-now-libs-want-to-regulate-sugar-like-a-toxin/

.

snarkqueen writes, " All the hollow point bullets in the world, coupled with all the 50 caliber weapons would be no match for the U.S. military and their weapons. So you see, all the BS about the second amendment and its original intent is no longer valid."

I'm sure the NVA/Viet Cong of the 60's and 70's, the Afghan mujahidden figthing the USSR in the 70's and the Taliban in Afghanistan today might differ with your opinion.

Your hoplophobia, the irrational fear of firearms, is clouding your view of the Second Amendment. It is MUCH more than defending against a tyrannical government. A person's natural right to defend herself against death or great bodliy harm is paramount. As proven by recent court cases, law enforcement have NO legal obligation to protect you or your loved ones.

Ms. Snark - Historically a militia armed with rifles has been able to defeat a government backed by a fine army and navy. Our own American revolution is but one example of this. Britain had the finest army and navy on the planet. They were not defeated by men with squirrel rifles, although the revolution started out that way. An unarmed populace becomes a slave to armed despots, and the framers of the second amendment knew this. An armed populace is just as valid a concept today for protecting itself from its government as it was in 1776. On today's news you can watch the Syrian people struggle with their despotic government. They started with rifles but they are better armed now because they had them. Yesterday it was Libya with armed citizens struggling against a despot and his army. Other armies helped them, but the citizens of Libya kept the wolf at bay with their own firearms. In both places armed citizens acquired the arms necessary to bring down a despot. An unarmed citizen cannot do that.

I posess a collection of firearms for three reasons: 1) to hunt and enjoy marksmanship, 2) to protect my life, my family and my property and 3) to protect myself, my family and even you from my government should such a need arise. Regarding #1, you may not enjoy marksmanship or hunting. That's your choice. I do, and therefore your supposition that I don't need or deserve to possess any particular firearm, magazine fed or otherwise, is really none of your business. I have the right and the desire to own any weapon I choose. Welcome to America: a free country. Re: #2, Texas ranchers in particular, unprotected by our open borders are at particular risk of assault by drug smugglers and other illegal (doesn't that mean "criminal") entrants into our country. I don't care if they intend to immigrate or not. Those illegally crossing my property are commiting a crimnal act. Some of them at least are desperate and pose a threat to life and limb of me and my family. Although I will call on law enforcement for assistance, that assistance may arrive too late to stop an assault on me or my family. But in my case at least they will arrive in time to take away the bodies of anyone who attempts such an assault on me. I am armed, I have a permit to carry my firearm concealed, and I will use it in the even my life or the lives of others are at risk. As for #3, I pray that taking up arms against our government is never again necessary, but in the event it is I will have a say in how our country is governeed in the future where you, Ms. Snark will not. That too is your choice, but don't deny me the right that better people than either of us laid out in our constitution. They spoke from experience.

As for the Rossen Report that brought on this string of discussion, take heed MSNBC. Your assault on our nation's second amendment rights has brought the ire of most of the people writiing on this string, regardless of their politics. American's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Taking that right away is a dead horse. Quit beating it.

In all honesty, sugar has been a bane on American health for decades. It should be regulated or out and out banned.

snarkqueen...."No law abiding citizen who has no intention of harming humans has any need for semi-automatic weapons or hollow point bullets or extended magazines or AK47s or anything other than shotguns used by sportsmen".....Your statement is no different than saying that any husband that has no intention of cheating on his wife should not own a little red corvette. You discourage extended magazines so do you only put a quarter of a tank of gas in your car at a time, No, why, because it would be inconvenient to be stopping all the time to get gas. The same thing applies to shooting a gun, rifle, weapon for pleasure.

In my opinion the only way to make the crime rate drop is to arm the law abiding citizens. Most, not all, but most criminals will not draw a weapon on some one they know will draw and fire back at them. A Criminals number one rule in committing a crime is self preservation. In stead of having to register for the draft the kids not convicted of a felony should be required to purchase a weapon upon graduation.

As sad and stupid as it sounds more guns equals less crimes. Case in point, have you ever heard of a police man being held up at gun point? Has anyone ever heard of a police station being robbed by armed robbers, and has there ever been a police car car jacked at gun point....No because all these cops are armed and the criminal knows they will shoot back. which goes back to the criminals first rule of a crime, self preservation......

No law abiding citizen who has no intention of harming humans has any need for semi-automatic weapons or hollow point bullets or extended magazines or AK47s or anything other than shotguns used by sportsmen

Clearly, you are one of the ill-informed who believes the sensationalism provided by the media.

What if I choose to go prarie dog hunting? That is a perfect example of a time a semi-automatic rifle would make all the sense in the world.

What if I want to go duck or goose hunting? A prime example of when a semi-automatic shotgun would be handy, as the geese and ducks fly in groups, being able to shoot multiple times without reloading means you can shoot more than one (completely within the law).

What if I moved into a once safe neighborhood that has since become less safe? Should I be left with a single shot shotgun that does little to no good against multiple intruders? Or should I be able to protect myself and my family with a semi-automatic pistol filled with hollow point bullets? After all, this will not only do the most damage to the would be intruders, but likely won't penetrate a wall, thereby accidentally hitting my kids, or god forbid, someone walking by if it is an exterior wall.

What if I am an avid gun collector and have gone through the extensive federal background checks required to purchase class III weapons, simply because I want an AK-47?

How many kitchen knives do you have? Realistically, there is no need for anything other than a 3" paring knife. Of course, this isn't the most efficient knife, but it really is all one needs in their kitchen.

And no body NEEDS a vehicle weighing over 3,000 lbs that goes over 55 mph, and no one NEEDS to consume alcohol, and no one NEEDS a house with more bedrooms and bathrooms than they have family to live in them........and out of the wants and desires of all the property americans can buy only one is protected by the US Constitution........go live in cuba or russia, it would better suit your communistic tendencies.

rancherin texas,

Well they will never get what you explained so well.

snarkqueen,

Tell that to the Viet Cong, or the Afgans

funny you should mention spoons......

The Spoon.....

A lesson on how consultants can make a difference in an organization.

Last week, we took some friends to a new restaurant, 'Steve's Place,' & noticed that the waiter who took our order had a spoon in his shirt pocket.

It seemed a little strange. When the busboy brought our water & utensils, I observed that he also had a spoon in his shirt pocket.

Then I looked around and saw that all the staff had spoons in their pockets. When the waiter came back to serve our soup, I inquired, 'Why the spoon?'

'Well, he explained, 'the restaurant's owner hired Andersen Consulting to revamp all of our processes. After several months of analysis, they concluded that the spoon was the most frequently dropped utensil. It represents a drop frequency of approximately 3 spoons per table per hour.

If our personnel are better prepared, we can reduce the number of trips back to the kitchen & save 15 man-hours per shift.'

As luck would have it, I dropped my spoon & he replaced it with his spare. 'I'll get another spoon next time I go to the kitchen instead of making an extra trip to get it right now. I was impressed, & then noticed that there was a string hanging out of the fly.

Looking around, I saw that all of the waiters had the same string hanging from their flies. So, before he walked off, I asked the waiter, Excuse me, but can you tell me why you have that string hanging from your fly?'

'Oh,certainly!' Then he lowered his voice. 'Not everyone is so observant. That consulting firm I mentioned also taught us how to save time in the restroom.

By tying this string to the tip of our you-know-what, we can pull it out without touching it & eliminate the need to wash our hands, shortening the time spent in the restroom by 76.39%.'

I asked quietly, 'After you get it out, how do you put your 'you-know what' back in your pants?' 'Well,' he whispered, 'I don't know about the others, but I use the spoon.'

A little bit of sanity is not what liberals understand. They want a reason to regulate and destroy our constitutional rights. Along with many other constitutional rights. The liberals do not want to follow the constitution.

This article gives the impression that anyone can go on the internet and order a gun without verification of who they are, whether they are Felons, have a restraining order on them,or for some other reason do not qualify to own a firearm.

This is patently untrue. Gunbroker.com, along with any of the online sources, require that the firearm is sent to a FFL holder, who then must run the individual through the NCIS data base to check for eligibility. Further, if it is a pistol, it must be held by the FFL for 72 hours after the individual has filled in the paperwork to make sure that they pass the background check. repeat - You cannot go online and have a firearm directly sent to you, or anyone else that is not a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer !

The way this is written obfuscates the facts. What they did was go online to find people in a given geographic area that had a firearm for sale and then arranged to meet face to face to make the sell. This is person to person. The same results could be had from a newspaper ad or an ad posted on the board at your local Super Market.

What they presume to do is interject more Federal laws between individuals. That is a NO GO!

Perhaps we should take a closer look at what the Federal Government is doing in the way of illegal activities related to Gun Control. Google Fast and Furious and educate yourself.

Great reply, Ralph. As the 2nd Amendment says,"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

J in TX-3820227.......Have you not ever read it, or do you just feel that it is your job to "edit" the Constitution. If you are going to quote it, quote the whole paragraph, not just the parts you like.

True, justme. But I am required to pass tests get a driver's license, have insurance, state license plates, city stickers. and so on. Not a perfect system, (none are) but many people are not permitted to drive, and I'm glad for it. Dangerous felons & crazies should not be able to buy a gun so easily, and sellers should be held responsible. Thats all. If nothing else, it would raise the price for illegal sales, price many of them out of the market.

And yet every single day hundreds of people across America, with drivers licences, kill people with those cars... But there isn't a huge outcry to ban those cars now are there?

Keen... and there is nothing noted in the Constitution regarding a drivers license the last time I read it. (And I DID read it recently)

What you're failing to recognize is the simple fact that regardless of what law you pass, CRIMINALS will do whetever they need or want to in order to circumvent the law.

Most drugs are illegal. Hell, go to any High School and buy some.

Drinking and driving are illegal... need I say more about that?

Insider trading is illegal... ok, except for the people that write the laws (until last week anyway).. go figure.

Many things are illegal, murder, rape, sodomy, child pornography... there isn't a law written that isn't broken by those intent on BREAKING the LAW.. That's why they're called criminals.

Really? My nephew, who has three DWI's, purchased a car, and drove without a license for over a year before he was caught. Paid cash and drove without Insurance or regisrtation. This happens every day, even though you are "Required to pass tests, get a drivers license, have insurance, state license plates, city stickers and so on." What's the difference? If I would have known, I personally would have turned his a$$ in.

Keen, it would also raise the price for legal sales, which vastly outnumber illegal sales. Are you in favor of what TSA is doing to every flyer, just on the off-chance they might catch some granny with her sewing scissors?

Keen- You do not need any of that where I am to buy a used car in a private sale. Only to drive one legally. I see it all the time another 4 or 5 time convicted drunk with a lifetime license suspension has a long list of driving while license suspended offenses gets a slap on the hand. There have been a couple cases recently where innocent people were killed by intoxicated drivers with previous offenses and they are still out walking the streets. Where is the outcry in the media? It makes the local news for 30 seconds and goes away.

There are already laws prohibiting felons from buying guns but criminals do not obey the laws. Look at New York as an example. Handguns are illegal to possess without a license. They can't be bought or sold without having a badge or an almost impossible to get state permit yet all the criminals seem to find them on the street without a problem.

All the laws do is make it harder and more expensive for law abiding citizens.

@keen - really? You have to pass a test and have insurance to buy a car from someone off Craigslist? Or from an ad in the Sunday paper? Because that is what this is. Yes, to buy a car from a dealer they look at your driver's license, but guess what they don't do, they don't call the state to ensure the license is valid. And yes, they look at your insurance card to see if it is current, but they don't call the insurance company to ensure the insurance is up to date.

There are much more stringent laws regulating the sale of firearms, by a licensed dealer, than there are to buy a car. In fact, there are more stringent laws to buy a gun from a private person than there are a car. The truth is, the moment these "buyers" told the seller they couldn't pass a background check, the seller broke the law by continuing with the sale. However, there are no laws saying you cannot sell a car to an unlicensed driver.

No kidding! The last time I checked, the maximum range is only a little over one and a half miles and that's when the bullet is ready to fall out of the sky on its own. This author is ignorant of actual ballistics. My suggestion for his next article is printing his own retirement. He's clueless.

Thats the problem with lemmings. They believe anything they are told. So if the guy telling them this stuff is an idiot (AKA the author) then their facts are wrong too. But since the propoganda supports ther unfounded agenda. It's a fact...

Stupid people believe stupid things and usually make stupid decisions... Its a good thing some of these people have a piece of paper hanging on the wall telling the world how smart they are. No one would believe it otherwise

Great choice, I own two .50 cal rifles. One is a antique muzzle loader from the 1800's (actually a .54 cal) hawkins, the other a Barret Semi Auto for long range target competitions. Great weapons both.

Actually, the successor round to the Black Talon is readily available and in common use with police departments everywhere, but it is no longer called the Black Talon. And it was no more deadly than any other hollow point round, just the victim of an unjustified media frenzy that claimed they were "cop killers" that were designed to penetrate protective vests (not true, by the way.) I would be very much surprised if there were any police force in the United States that does not use hollow point ammo. They are more likely to stop an armed assailant, less likely to overpenetrate and cause injury to bystanders, and less likely to ricochet (with the risk of unintended injury). And police and self defense experts will tell you the same thing--a jfully jacketed pistol round is not very effective in stopping a concerted attack.

You know this of course! You are not making it up are you? I didn't think so. You'd never make up a fantastic story to make a point just to trash the media unjustafiably would you....never!!

More liberal paranoia about guns. The gun purchases they made were communicated online, but they were not purchased through gun sales websites, they were arranged through emails in response to ads. So is the government going to scour all the email traffic to hunt down citizens that want to sell their property. Is this why the liberals wanted permission in the new FAA funding bill to fly unmanned drones over US territory, similar to the unmanned surveillance flights that the CIA and US Air Force are flying over Afghanistan and Pakistan. Oh, wait. Aren't they firing missiles from those drones and killing people? Is that what's coming next? "We saw him in the act of committing a crime so we blew him up"?

In 1789 when the US Constitution was ratified and became law it was legal for any citizen to own any weapon they could afford. Many citizens had their own cannons, as did merchant ships. The framers of the Constitution envisioned the Second Amendment as ensuring the citizens right to protect themselves from their own government's abuses.

I'm a little confused at why this writer is not focusing on reporting the Justice Department's approval of firearm sales almost directly to Mexican drug cartels. Our own government is a much larger threat to our safety than the private sale of personally owned firearms.

Another antigun propoganda article disguised as real news... I guess this is the kind of crap, propoganda and bs you have to write when you really have nothing else to write about. What next, an interview with Wiley Coyote on how his family were killed for sheep attacks ??? I think this article as value though. It would make a good comic strip in the funny papers.... They could call it "Libby Handwringer"

I'm a serious liberal and god damn do I love my guns!

I think there is a lot of paranoia that goes around on every side. Many of my liberal ilk like to foster paranoia about guns and I find that on the other side, there seems to be those who like to foster paranoia about the prohibition of guns. It's a politcal issue which both sides find their uses for. Though not always grounded in fact.

Here's a fact: NEVER in my life have I had any difficulty in obtaining a firearm. I've always had them.

This doesn't mean I take my rights for granted...I certainly do not. When serious threats to the Second Ammendment crop up I take notice. But I try to stay away from a lot of the hyperbole that surrounds this issue.

I did not know this starting my gun sales business as we speak

The entire article was a lie. If you don't believe me, try it..

"police-grade pistol" Yeah I cringed when I saw that lol. It's another one of those scary terms meant to drive fear into the hearts of the ignorant.

That, along with a "semiautomatic assault rifle," as if such weapons are inherently more dangerous that any old semiautomatic rifle because of the way they look. OR the BS about the .50 cal. Yeah I am sure it could toss a round "5 miles" but it is not accurate at distances beyond a mile or so-that's jut lobbing lead. And no helicopter has ever been brought down in the US by a .50 cal, nor has one ever been used in the commission of a crime, but the are a favorite target of gun banners nonetheless.

The numbers game is misleading as well. Yes the number is accurate, but then again 3 times that many people are killed in auto accidents every day, and 25 times that many are injured.

I'm curious, just whatinhell is a "police grade pistol?" And what is a semiautomatic assault rifle? Assault rifles were invented to be select fire for use in close quarters battle. The "assault rifle ban" which expired not so long ago dealt with rifles that had large magazines, a pistol grip(!) and a bayonet lug. Have you heard of any drive-by bayonettings lately???

I wish just once that someone would bring logic and reason into this argument, rather than emotion and panic.

Barry a police grade pistol is the one your civilian leaders with no firearms experiance buy for the police. The term can be used in the same way as Cop killer bullets,assault weapon, weapons cache, and anyother made up term to make firearms and their owners look bad.

ChamberDoc...I have never heard the word police grade pistol. I have heard of police grade rounds. military rounds, and civilian rounds. Police grade rounds are the same as military rounds. The brass is heavier and the amount of gun powder is higher. Example a 50 cal military round uses 826 grs. and a civilian round can only use 423grs. If you put 826 grs in a civilian round brass it will cause the shooter a world of hurt.

There is also a difference in the AR-15 and the AR-16. One is for military use only and fires on full auto (rock and roll) or semi-auto and the other only fires on semi-auto.