... doesn't know what she's* talking about. In the article Guns blazin', she writes up some of the usual lies misconceptions put out by those who would ban guns:
Recognizing the dangers posed by assault weapons, Congress in 1994 passed the Federal Assault Weapons Act, which restricted the sale of assault weapons in the United States.Wrong. Any "assualt weapon" made before 1994 was still legal for sale. Add to that the whole cosmetic aspect of the ban, and it effectively banned nothing.
Additionally, Indiana does not require universal background checks on gun sales. As a result, residents who purchase guns over the Internet or at gun shows are not subjected to any checks or verification.The only guns not subject to background checks are person-to-person sales. The majority of gun sales at gun shows are by dealers and background checks are done. If you'd ever been to a gun show, you'd know this. Same for internet sales. You can't "buy a gun over the internet" without it being shipped to a dealer to complete the transaction. Before the weapon is transferred to the buyer, a - you guessed it - background check is done.
Perhaps more alarming is that the state does not require guns to be registered with law enforcement agencies, making it harder to trace criminals.How would registering a lawfully purchased gun make it easier to trace criminals? Criminals don't lawfully obtain guns.
So, when gun-owners whine about how Democrats want to take away their guns, I only wish that were true. In reality, the current political debate has been very kind to Second Amendment activists.I'm sure you do, but I can't help but wonder: If you would actually do some hands-on research on the subject (up to and including shooting a gun), would you feel the same way?
UPDATE: Ahab has more.
* apologies if I got the gender wrong.
8 comments:
As soon as I started reading, I knew I needed my hip boots to continue.
Can we get donations together so we can buy him/her a clue?
Or is she/he just taking up space?
Taking up space at an institute of higher learning, I'm afraid.
I disagree. Frankly, they're just taking up space.
All the money in the world would not be able to buy them a clue.
Do all second amendment activists resort to violence in order to solve their problems?! While I have addressed everyone's concerns in the comments section on the IDS website, I would like to ask- when exactly did I mention that I support banning guns? I certainly don't remember writing that since I am of the opinion that banning guns is pointless. BTW, I am, indeed, a woman.
who resorted to any violence anywhere? methinks the lady doth protest a remarkable lot.
Technically, one *can* purchase firearms over the internet. One needs a Class 03 FFL (Curios and Relics), which means one must submit to a full body cavity search (figuratively) by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
But a C&R holder can purchase a firearm, a handgun even, via the internet.
Not without checks, mind you - the entity selling the firearm runs the 4473 form and a NICS check before the gun ships.
Just FYI...
Indira,
There hasn't been any violence advocated or mentioned here. The only thing I did was point out the inaccuracies in your posting.
I also never accused you of wanting to ban all guns, however I doubt you'd be against the idea.
And, Jay is right in pointing out that it is possible to buy a gun over the internet. What's not possible is to do so (legally) without government oversight.
Also, just to defend my point, a C&R licensee could be considered a "dealer" for the sake of my argument. =)
Mayhaps she is referring to some of the more... umm... extreme gun rights folks posting comments at her article on idsnews (you know, the ones we wish would learn to tone the rhetoric down). I mean, if a few gun rights folks are violent, we must all be.
Post a Comment