Comments on: Gun Sales: Will The "Loophole" Close?

60 Minutes: Fear Of Tighter Gun Control May Be Contributing To Big Rise In Gun Sales

[agsforever]

good point bodlin. I teach anyone whom I invite into my house that all my guns are loaded. all the time. I teach and warn them that they are not to handle any firearm thinking that it is not loaded. that they should assume every firearm they touch is loaded. that they should never let the muzzle of the firearm cover anything they don't want to destroy. and that they are to KEEP their finger off the trigger until they are ready to destroy that object. if there are very young (pre-school) kids involved, I teach them, if you see a gun, please get your parent or an adult before touching it. I teach them that no gun is a toy and is never to be treated as such. including BB guns and paintball guns. (water pistols, i don't know about). if you have young kids that visit other kids houses where the parents may have firearms, ask those kids and the parents whether they teach the same rules. if they don't, don't let the kids go there.

an "unloaded" firearm is one of the most dangerous objects on earth. similarly a dull knife, or an improperly maintained screwdriver or other tool.

[agsforever]

wtally, there ain't no gun show loophole. there isn't any gun show loophole. there can't be any gun show loophole.

your comment that "it's mostly crazies who patronize these shows." is an insult and a slur. I doubt your statement that you are a gun owner and a gun lover. You state you buy all your guns over the internet. don't think so. unless you have a federal firearms license. and comply with all requirements of federal law. if you are getting them without compliance with these unconstitutional laws, you, sir or madam, are one of the worst offenders.

[agsforever]

huh? comment appears to be in French. Please provide translation.

[agsforever]

wolf, why should private citizens be forced to get police permission to exercise a constitutional right? this is like being forced to get police permission to vote for a particular candidate. no difference.

Xj2k1, best thing to do is not sell to anyone you don't know personally. and I mean know. their character, their police record. everything.

[agsforever]

good post fatking. unfortunately, there are some neo-nazis who claim they support the right to keep and bear arms. Idolize adolph hitler. and such. they are despicable scum. they have no business in our society. but, the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees them the same right of free speech that CBS news uses to attack the rights of gun-owners. The Nazi party controls the democrats in this country. and is as racist as they come. they have the gall to state that they support the right to keep and bear arms. but only for their own little clique. Jews, blacks, mexicans, italians, russians, chinese, ****, other orientals need not apply. they aren't smart enough and aren't the right color. Most responsible gun owners, including many WWII veterans, and veterans of other wars, despise these neo nazis.

[agsforever]

erasmus, are you afraid, basically of guns? do you fear them. are you insecure because other people freely own them? and enjoy using them, not as you say to Kill other people, or even kill animals, but for shooting paper targets, tin cans and clay targets (all inanimate objects, BTW) simply because they enjoy challenging themselves to do something well. who are u to tell such people they can't do that. are you god?

you state there are a million unstable people that are able to buy a gun legally. so what. until they commit some violent act against another person, they are just as entitled to have a firearm as anyone else. obviously, you've never tried to buy a firearm in this country. if bought from a licensed dealer you have to answer 13 questions, all but one with "NO" and you must answer the other with "YES" or you can't buy the gun. It is a felony offense to buy the weapon. you give name, home address and state of residence. then the dealer (and only a licensed dealer) must call the FBI and get permission for you to exercise your constitutional right of owning a gun. You pinpoint the problem in your final statement. the only people who obey such unconstitutional laws are those who would not break the law anyway. criminals don't obey gun control laws any more than they obey any other laws. so why have the stupid laws. the only people who support such laws, anyway, are racist. they don't trust blacks, latinos, italians, etc, or anyone but themselves with firearms. after all, those people might use the weapons to defend themselves against a tyrannical action by the government.

I know plenty of children who have been brought up with guns that I would rather have in my presence with a firearm than many adults who are so afraid of and hate guns so much they never learned how to handle them safely. I do agree with you that firearms safety training and marksmanship training should be made a mandatory requirement in US for graduation from an accredited high school. you haven't been in us much. most states have laws that say if a firearm is left where a child or unknowledgeable adult can have access to it the owner will be prosecuted. such laws are also unconstitutional. they infringe on the right of privacy. if i had kids and a wife, i would teach them three basic rules--1) ALWAYS treat EVERY gun as if it is loaded at ALL times; 2) NEVER let the muzzle of the firearm cover anything you don't wish to destroy; and 3) KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOU ARE READY TO DESTROY THE OBJECT. NO EXCEPTIONS AT ANY TIME.

[agsforever]

Donald, the issue is not need. it is about freedom. if any firearm can be banned on the basis of looks, then all can be. there can be no compromise on this. none whatsoever. you are flat wrong when you state that NOBODY (except the police ) needs an assault rifle. first, the firearms pictured in the 60 minutes hit piece were NOT, repeat NOT assault rifles. they were semiautomatic look-alikes of military weapons. (semiautomatic means that they fire only one shot with each function of the trigger, when operating as designed). true assault rifles/weapons are those which are designed to fire as long as the trigger mechanism is depresse, and as long as the feeding device feeds ammunition into the chamber. they may also, by operation of a select-fire lever, fire one round at a time. or they may be limited to firing not more than three cartridges when the trigger is depressed.

many people choose to own semiautomatic copies of military rifles because it is the least expensive method to learning how to shoot such weapons. as we, as US citizens, not only have the right, but the responsibility to do. so that we can defend ourselves against tyrannical actions by the government, or from armed invasions by another country. Do you need a cell phone. do you need a car that will do 170 mph? do you need a computer with 2 GB of ram and a 4 GHz processor? do you need anything except a roof over your head and a balanced diet of not more than 1250 calories per day? and, maybe, minimal clothing?

talking about need is a bunch of a**wipe.

[agsforever]

freefalle, laws banning either type of weapon/firearm will still be unconstitutional, as long as the 2nd amendment has not been repealed according to constitution. the guns themselves don't kill anyone. never have. never will. it is the people who use them who kill. always has been. always will. the cosmetics of any firearm are just that. if any of them can be banned, all can be. the purpose of the 2nd amendment is the defense of freedom. always has been. always will be.

[agsforever]

let's see, Saturn. 1993. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agents invade a home/compound in middle of night in which many people lived, including children, with weapons blazing (videotaped). No search warrant served. "Purpose" was to arrest one person alleged to have converted/allowed to be converted at least one semi-automatic AR-15 into a fully-automatic weapon, an "illegal" act. The residents resisted, as most people would resist, the home invasion. Three or four ATF agents died, one or two residents (?). A 51 day "siege" followed, in which all gas, electricity was cut off to compound. on last day of siege, ATF/FBI agents, with military help (illegal at the time) saturated compound with more than enough tear gas to knock out a soldier wearing a protective suit. U.S. Army tanks from Fort Hood, Texas were used (an illegal action at the time) to knock down the walls of the compound. During this action, the only means of heat in the compound, gasoline-fired heaters, were knocked over. fire ensued. all but 6 or 7 of residents died, suffocated and or burned alive by the fire. This included 23 children. a total of 82 deaths. their civil rights were violated. the one resident the ATF was after could have been arrested at any time in the year before the initial raid. The 6 or 7 survivors of the raid were tried in state court on murder charges. They were acquitted. they had only protected their home and family from armed invaders. they were charged, tried, and convicted on weapons charges. the weapons exhibited on courthouse steps as evidence by US Attorney General's office personnel looked like brand-new firearms. they did not look like they had been through a fire. some doubts remain (still) whether those firearms were even in the compound in the first place. The same engineering company hired by NASA to investigate the Challenger disaster offered to X-ray the weapons allegedly recovered from the compound to determine if they had, in fact been illegally converted to fire in full-auto mode. U.S. prosecutors refused access to the firearms to all agents of defense attorneys, a violation of the defendants' civil rights. Eric Holder, Clinton's Attorney Generals chief assistant, is now attorney general of US.

many other examples abound of threats by federal, state and local governments, and private organizations (such as corporations) to gun ownership. 5000 character limit prohibits going into them all. you just choose to ignore these threats saturn. they do exist. they aren't just extremist's views. they are fact.

1994, clinton signed into law a so-called "assault weapon" ban. unneeded. based on lies. didn't work. 1995, laws passed to prohibit persons convicted of misdemeanor offenses from owning firearms/ammunition, keep new fully-automatic weapons from being manufactured/sold/or traded in US (already against law to buy or sell without a license),

[agsforever]

az, actually, the 2nd amendment can be repealed. using the constitutionally-required method. that is, approval of a bill repealing the amendment by two-thirds of each house (67 of 100 Senators and 292 of 438 representatives), approval by president, or over-ride of veto as outlined in Constitution, submittal to states and approval of said amendment by three-fourths of states, either by both houses of state legislature and governor's signature or by direct election, as required by each state. hope that never happens. but liberal democrats and republicans want to repeal it by legislation or judicial fiat. NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.

[agsforever]

problem is, saturn, the privilege of owning a car and driving it is just that, a privilege. it is not a right that existed before the adoption of the Constitution of the U.S. it is not a right that is guaranteed in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states "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 last phrase is particularly important. it means that no level of government can enact any law that touches (reduces, sets arbitrary requirements, limits or prohibits) the right of every individual who wishes to own and or carry "arms" (of any type). There are rules and restrictions for governing inter-personal behavior. They are called the Ten Commandments. Our laws against robbery, murder, rape and other violent crimes are based upon the Ten Commandments. Yet, like the Ten Commandments, they are ignored by many people. Why do anti-gunners, including you,saturn, think that criminals, who intentionally break laws against robbery, murder, rape and other crimes, are going to be deterred from their crimes by the enactment of more gun control laws? including the registration of firearms and getting police permission to exercise a constitutionally-protected right? Firearms safety training and marksmanship should be made mandatory to all public school children, except those who, themselves, have a religious or moral objection to having a firearm. and passing a safety test and marksmanship requirement should be mandatory for all persons graduating from public schools, again, unless an individual student (not his/her parents) has a religious or moral objection to firearms.

[agsforever]

scheibeh, why have the gun laws at all, if they aren't being enforced? BTW, all gun laws are unconstitutional. they infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. the laws against robbery, murder, rape and other violent crimes were not being enforced properly in the 30s when the unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934 was enacted. and in 1968 when the unconstitutional Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted/signed into law. before 1968, thousands, if not millions, of firearms were sold, traded or transferred between individuals who may or may not have lived in the same state. no federal regulation, because such was considered to be unconstitutional. could even order firearms from Sears, Montgomery Wards, etc through the mail. (up until 1934 could order even fully-automatic weapons through the mail). but because democrats who didn't trust Italian-Americans, blacks, latinos and other minority groups with firearms of any kind, they enacted gun control laws. sole intent of such laws is to keep guns out of the hands of "undesirables", which to democrats means 1) any minority, 2) people who don't agree with their view of society; 3) people who aren't as "intelligent" as the democratic party elite is (just about everyone else.). GUN CONTROL LAWS ARE INHERENTLY AND UNAVOIDABLY RACIST! All are unconstitutional. All should be repealed and abolished. all records of firearms transactions obtained under the provisions of these unconstitutional laws should be destroyed, whether paper, film, video, or other electronic means.

[agsforever]

falsehood. Where is your source for claim that 10,000 died in a year without any proper access to health care. they had access (public hospitals, Medicare, medicaid) they chose not to use it. (If true, prove it's true please). people lose homes over medical bills (not if they save). but anyway, it is not government's responsibility to care for those who don't/won't care for themselves.

boy, talk about run-ons. "The greed of guns money and just control of the wealth of this is Nation (sic) is beyond the average American to be able to control it for some one trying to pay there (sic) own bill for that freedom." HUH??? what you trying to say? that it's government's responsibiity to steal money at gunpoint from those who can and do pay to those who can't? where do you get authorization for that?

[agsforever]

Since when, erasmus, does US gov't not listen to people who write to them? those who bother to write are listened to. those who don't, aren't. Health care is available to everyone in US who will pay for it. and even to those who don't. so keep your opinion to yourself. Americans don't want your programs in our country.

[agsforever]

erasmus, where do you get the idea that US government does not work for its citizens (not its subjects, as in Canada). What is your source for statement of people in USA dying for lack of health care? What business is it of government to provide that care for any one individual? Just as it is not the business of governement to provide police protection to any one individual (unless they pay for it, like Ted Kennedy, George Soros, Queen Elizabeth II, etc.) YOu claim that US government is not responsive to our needs in US. WRONG. we have right to petition the government for redress of grievances in our constitution. and government responds, except where, like Canada, the bureacrats have taken over. How is government to stop racism? the more laws that are passed against it, the more racism is reinforced. hate crime laws do nothing except make racism worse.

You claim that black people had to live in their own neighborhoods. Did it ever occur to you that blacks, like other ethnic groups, might prefer to live in a community where they know each other? ANd your charge that black people, or any other minority groups, are FORCED by government edict to live in such neighborhoods is no more true in this country than it is in Canada and Great Britain. If a black, latino, oriental or American Indian wishes to live in any neighborhood he/she wishes to, and has the income to pay for the housing and all associated costs, they do. no one can stop them. what other people do afterwards is not government action.

unlike GB, it is legal in this country for citizens to use lethal force to defend themselves if they, or any other reasonable person, believe that their life, or the life of another person, is in immediate danger if a criminals action is not stopped right then and there. best available means of doing so is with a firearm. most people are not skilled in unarmed combat. and most unarmed combat instructors teach that if an assailant is armed with a firearm, you "might as well kiss your a** goodbye." there are violent people. and violent means are sometimes necessary to control them. doesn't count the many times that handguns/rifles have bee used to keep a bear, cougar, coyote or wolf from injuring/killing a human being.

erasmus, there are violent people in the world, even in Canada, Great Britain and Australia. and violent criminals who know that their prey (victims, targets) is unarmed and it is illegal for their prey to resist if the criminals commit a crime against them, are far more likely to use weapons in the commission of their crimes. unless somehow they are stopped. unfortunately, even in Canada, GB and Australia, the cops can't be everywhere. and it is a person's responsibility to protect himself or herself and family members. using whatever degree of force is necessary.

[agsforever]

falsehood, please learn to spell, or use a spell checker before you post. the subject is the "right to keep and bear (NOT "BARE") arms". "Bear" means to "carry about on ones person." "Bare" means "to remove a covering from an object, such as skin."

In response to your falsehood that the National Rifle Association is not about the right to keep and bear arms, if that's what you meant, the NRA is the largest pro-gun rights organization in the US. more than 4 million dues-paying members. These members joined the organization in order to have a more effective voice in Congress and state legislatures. they are NOT a shill of the gun manufacturers. most members have no connection with manufacturers of firearms or ammunition, or any other type of sporting gear. they do care about the loss of their freedom, as represented by anti-gun laws, all of which are unconstitutional. or what is it about the second amendment you seem to refuse to understand? What does the alleged fact that 10,000 americans died without any access to health care have to do with the loss of freedom? You complain no one goes to DC to protest. NRA members are very vocal in writing to Congressmen, Senators and the President. (Whether any of these perjurers take the time to read such letters is another question.) but what you want is for people who believe in freedom to protest for your agenda, which has no basis in the constitution. yes, as Christians we should care for one another's needs. but that is not the government's domain. it was not ceded to the government in the Constitution of the United States. I and most other NRA members contribute what money we can to charitable causes, including food banks and things like Habitat for Humanity, when we can. We invest time in our local community to help those who can't help themselves. but for people who can work, and don't, or who don't manage their own money properly to say they have a "right" or an "entitlement" to have the Federal government (that is, working taxpayers) pay for the things they refuse to provide for themselves is rubbish, at best. it is not the government's responsibility. did U.S. government help Galveston texas rebuild after a hurricane blew it away in 1900. NOT. did U.S. government help San Francisco, CA rebuild after earthquakes destroyed much of it in 1906? NO. did U.S. government help people (except U.S. Armed FOrces members) in the Spanish Influenza epidemic in 1918. NO. your diatribe is filled with falsehoods. you state that "freedom is a privelege." WRONG. it is one of the most basic of human rights. without which all other rights don't mean a thing. Many NRA members are veterans of one or more wars. do you think they haven't paid a price for their freedom? The reason the constitution was enacted and approved was to help protect freedom. your problem is that you, deep down, really hate and fear real freedom. the many things you gripe about in your diatribe have nothing to do with these real freedoms. the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. you are not guaranteed life, liberty or that you will find happiness. but you have the right to pursue it.

you ask what NRA has done to "stop this carnage of violence with firearms" and answer "Nothing." You are completely wrong. The NRA hasa always provided firearms training for anyone who wishes to take it. Has provided the "Eddie Eagle" firearms safety training for pre-schoolers and 1st through 4th graders in public schools for any school that wishes to use it. as a result, accidental firearms deaths of people of all ages, including children (up through the age of 18) have dropped to all time lows in the last several years (at least as long as such things have been tracked, since about 1920-1930). Fewer than 1,000 accidental deaths occurred in 2008, last year for which stats are available. NRA has long advocated the strict enforcement of laws against robbery, rape, murder and other violent crimes, and mandatory imprisonment for each offense. that is the most it can do, legally. NRA instructors have trained thousands of policemen, including FBI agents, in marksmanship courses and gun safety. and have helped US ARmy and Marines re-establish marksmanship training for their troops in World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam and the First Gulf War. and many civilian members of the "unorganized militia" have benefited from such training.

[agsforever]

erasmus, using personal arguments such as "gun lovers are ignorant morons" shows the weakness of your arguments. come to Texas, where we have the right to keep and bear arms. there are some areas in Texas, yes, where it is not safe to go after dark. but no anti-gun laws will protect you if you go there. only your own firearms carried on your person can do that. average response time for police to respond to an "emergency" (life or death) call in USA is on the order of 20 minutes in urban areas, more in rural (and Texas is mostly rural, in land area). so what are you going to do, if you don't have a weapon. cower and whimper, "please don't kill me" as a guy armed with a baseball bat or a knife beats you sensless or cuts you up? or if you are a 110 pound female and your assailant is a 6 foot 6 inch 250 pound plus gorilla that is not even armed, as far as you can see? US citizens, unlike Canadian "slaves" have the right to walk anywhere in the USA without fear because we have the right to bear arms. Canadian "slaves" are subjects of the british crown, and must do everything the dominion government, the arm of the british queen in Canada tells them to do. Britain has already made it illegal in Britain for a resident to resist someone who invades their home to rob them or kill them. are you willing to submit to such a law in canada. your country is heading the right way to do that. if it has not already done so. The gun registration progam in canada led to the confiscation of thousands of guns, and yes, it was confiscation, even if the canadian gov't "paid" you to turn your weapons in, until it was abandoned because it was too expensive. you are a british/canadian subject. you have no right to criticize the U.S. you complain that something like 10,000 people die in US because they lack medical care every year. so how come more than a million canadians come to US every year to get medical care their government will not, or cannot, give them? do they perhaps think that US health care is superior to Canadian medical care? why should a government be asked to do those things people aren't willing to do for themselves. it is armed robbery for a government to take taxpayer money for which a taxpayer has worked, to give it to someone who hasn't or won't worked for any reason whatsoever. it is armed robbery, even if the person can't work. it is not authorized by our constitution, except in the minds of socialistic, power-grabbing do-nothings who want government "freeebies" without paying for it.

[agsforever]

good idea rjm. provide a list on this post, or elsewhere, that all persons who care about freedom can access, even if they don't have a DVR or VHS tape of the 60 minutes program.

[agsforever]

most of these shooters were, or had been, on drugs like Prozac, which now bears warning labels that overuse by young teens may trigger murderous rages. why don't we ban prozac? and drugs like it?

[agsforever]

problem with your suggestion, rivkalivni, is that the second amendment was enacted that so that the government would never have a monopoly of force. This includes police, special security and, of course the armed forces. Weapons in the hands of private citizens at the time of the Second Amendment were at least equal to, and in many cases superior to, those issued to members of the U.S. Army and Marines. and to police officers and sheriffs. the same principle should apply to modern firearms. we citizens should have access to any weapon that is used by U.S. military. period.

if your suggestion were to be implemented then typewriters (both manual and electric), ball point pens, fountain pens, the internet, the linotype printing press, telephones, camcorders, Ipods, television, radio, etc would be banned because they didn't exist when the First Amendment was adopted. same principle. oh yeah, also cars and motorcycles and airplanes. none existed at time constitution was adopted. and we'd have to do away with modern medical education and equipment--no mris, no x-ray machines, etc. not in existence in 1789. we would all be walking or riding horses, maybe some riding in leather-sprung carriages. only manually-operated, manually-set printing presses allowed. all pictures done by hand--no cameras allowed.