Don't buy libs' line on guns

  • Follow Letters

Being a licensed gun dealer and supporter of the U.S. Constitution, I would like to clear things up for letter writer Melissa Sherwood (“Gun-bill result sickening,” May 3) of Aiken, S.C. She obviously has fallen for the “facts” that the liberal media tend to spew.

When someone buys a firearm online, it must be shipped to a licensed dealer at the local level. If a handgun is purchased, it must be shipped to a dealer in the same state as the buyer, because handguns cannot be sold over state lines.

The buyer must then go into the local store and fill out the paperwork required by the federal government. This paperwork is known as a Firearm Transaction Record, or a Form 4473. The dealer then calls the information in to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the required background check is completed. If a “proceed” message is received from the ATF, the sale may proceed, and the dealer usually collects a small fee from the buyer for their time.

The same is true at gun shows. There is not a time when a licensed dealer sells a gun at a gun show without conducting the proper and required government background check. The dealer then is required to keep these forms indefinitely and to give access to ATF agents during an investigation which may involve the purchaser or the firearm.

That is how it works, period. A dealer can be prosecuted and lose his or her business if found to be in noncompliance with these simple rules. What the government is trying to do is make sales between private citizens subject to a background check.

Comments (68) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
General Disarray
155
Points
General Disarray 05/07/13 - 12:49 pm
1
5
So most of you all prefer
Unpublished

So most of you all prefer America to maintain a 3rd World rate of gun homicide, and to do nothing about the fact that more people have been killed in the past 6 months, in America, by Americans WITH GUNS, than have been killed by terrorists in the last 12 years in America.

I'm actually with the gun-nutters on one point. "Assault weapon" is kind of a political nonsense term. I am in favor of banning *functions.* That is, Reagan banned fully automatic weapons, and I call that a good thing. Fully automatic is a function. Similarly, "high capacity magazine" is a function. We can draw the line rather arbitrarily, but 9 or 10 seems like a good number. Magazines that hold more than that are considered "high capacity," and are banned.

Rachel Maddow did a great breakdown of the Newtown Massacre, illustrating just how much more difficult it would have been if the only magazines available to the shooter had been 10 rounds. 14 reloads as opposed to... 4, I think. But whatever. The point is still well made. The idea is to ban things which make killing lots of humans very easy.

And as my own ideas go, I also think safety training is a good idea. Hell, you have to pass a test to get a driver's license. What's so difficult about passing a test to get a gun? This would serve the additional purpose of allowing trainers to spot "troubling" gun purchases, to add a delay time to purchases, and to create a chain of accountability within the gun retail industry.

KSL
134138
Points
KSL 05/07/13 - 01:14 pm
3
1
What if the trainers were

What if the trainers were gun hating libs who used their authority to keep guns out of the hands of citizens who should have the right to own guns?

Young Fred
17860
Points
Young Fred 05/07/13 - 01:15 pm
3
1
“So most of you all prefer

“So most of you all prefer America to maintain a 3rd World rate of gun homicide”

I suggest the rate of gun homicide would decrease dramatically if law-abiding citizens were allowed to own and carry guns anywhere in this country. Statistics would seam to bear this out.

Regardless, I don’t “prefer” a 3rd World anything. Most especially a 3rd World government which should frighten anyone much more than the rate of gun homicide, at least those whom are familiar with the history of this world.

KSL
134138
Points
KSL 05/07/13 - 01:19 pm
3
1
I have a problem with exactly

I have a problem with exactly how decision makers are selected, hired, appointed and what recourse people would have to appeal an unfair or vindictive decision.

General Disarray
155
Points
General Disarray 05/07/13 - 01:33 pm
1
3
Would gun control stop all
Unpublished

Would gun control stop all gun violence? Of course not. But it absolutely would reduce it. No question. Seat belt laws reduce fatalities considerably. Helmet laws reduce brain traumas considerably. Requiring drivers to learn to drive to get a licence makes them better, safer drivers on average and reduces accidents. Not only should you be required to register your guns every year you should also have to pass a written and practice test, get liability insurance, own a safe where you keep your guns when not being used, have to report stolen weapons within 24-48 hours of the discovery of theft, pass a background check, pass a basic psych eval like they admin to law enforcement.

With freedom comes responsibility and if you can't handle the responsibility you don't deserve the freedom.

myfather15
55764
Points
myfather15 05/07/13 - 01:35 pm
2
1
@General disarray

You wrote "I don't think we can truly be serious about doing that if we don't have a system for registering guns like we do for cars."

Aaaah yes; I'm quite sure felonious criminals are going to line up in mass to register their firearms, right? Hey, why don't you attend the next Hell's Angels meeting and tell them to register their firearms; or you could try MS-13, Monguls, Bloods, Crips, Ganster disciples, BGD; let me know how this turns out for you.

Now, try getting law abiding citizens to register their firearms. You just might be successful because THEY don't want to be criminals. But THEY aren't the ones who need to be monitored, now are they? As a law enforcement professional of 16 years, I would appreciate if people like t3bledsoe would stop trying to represent OUR views. You can trust me on this, the VAST majority of law enforcement officers around here, DO NOT believe as you believe Mr. Bledsoe.

General Disarray
155
Points
General Disarray 05/07/13 - 01:36 pm
1
3
In Switzerland every
Unpublished

In Switzerland every able-bodied Swiss male has to serve 2 years in the army (females can volunteer but are not required to serve). Also, the Swiss government supplies the ammo to the citizens. Ammo is not allowed in civilian households. If conflict occurs the government will supply ammo cashes immediately and mobilize the citizens to action. The Swiss are trained efficiently in the proper use of firearms. They don't treat their guns like toys but with respect for lethal tools they are. They don't take guns for granted it is seen as a privilege.

If only we in the US could adapt that attitude.

myfather15
55764
Points
myfather15 05/07/13 - 01:39 pm
2
1
@General disarray

Which of Rachel Maddow's suggestions would have PREVENTED Newtown? How about the gun bill? Which part of it would have PREVENTED the shooting? Since you appear to know more than the representatives who proposed the bill. Even they've admitted it would NOT have prevented ANY mass shooting of the last few years. So, please tell us again why we must give up our rights? Simply to appease left wingers? I think not!!

General Disarray
155
Points
General Disarray 05/07/13 - 01:40 pm
1
3
"Just you wait until the
Unpublished

"Just you wait until the government tries to come and take the rights you care about away!"

Yeah, I don't know anything about that. I, as a gay individual and a woman know absolutely nothing about what it's like to have my rights taken away. You've got me there.

General Disarray
155
Points
General Disarray 05/07/13 - 01:42 pm
1
3
The right to bear arms is the
Unpublished

The right to bear arms is the only one that draws the kind of absolutism we see among the hardcore gun-rights set. Most of us recognize that the right to free speech has certain limits. You can’t claim First Amendment protection for yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater, slandering someone or using “fighting words.” But Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently made news when he suggested that Americans may have the right to own Stinger hand-held missiles because they are portable, and therefore, unlike cannons, they count as arms that a person might “bear.” (How twisted is this view? During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union developed miniature nuclear weapons that could be carried in a backpack but that doesn't mean every Joe Redneck needs to own one.)

Another example: fearful gun-owners often say that “cars kill more people than guns but nobody’s trying to ban them.” But consider that there are many jurisdictions in which it is perfectly legal to shoot while intoxicated. Cars are certainly dangerous, but we have strict licensing requirements and it’s illegal to operate them under the influence everywhere in the United States. The same is true for boats and airplanes, but not firearms.

Or consider that the NRA constantly tells us that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” and then blocks any and every attempt to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people – things like expanded background checks, or closing the gun-show loophole. In fact, that loophole – which allows anyone who isn’t a full-time gun-merchant to sell weapons at gun shows without any background checks whatsoever – was pushed hard by the NRA back in the 1980s.

In 2007, the NRA went so far as to lobby the Bush administration to oppose a law that would have barred suspected terrorists from buying firearms. (Most intelligence experts say a Mumbai-style attack with small arms is one of the greatest terror threats we face, and last year an Al Qaeda spokesman encouraged “terrorists to use American gun shows to arm themselves” for such assaults.)

The good news is that while 47 percent of Americans say they own a gun, the overwhelming majority aren’t gun-nuts; they’re responsible people who worry about their kids getting caught in a cross-fire, who believe firearms should be handled safely and see it as perfectly reasonable to keep them out of the wrong hands

myfather15
55764
Points
myfather15 05/07/13 - 01:43 pm
3
1
@General disarray AGAIN

"If only we in the US could adapt that attitude."

Since you just stated yesterday that you live in Canada, I don't think WE IN THE US, would apply to you. So, feel free at any time to move from Canada to Switzerland; either way stay out of our business. You intentionally misguided interpretation of OUR Constitution, isn't exactly welcome with open arms.

KSL
134138
Points
KSL 05/07/13 - 01:50 pm
2
1
General D, just curious. Do

General D, just curious. Do you have kids?

myfather15
55764
Points
myfather15 05/07/13 - 01:52 pm
2
1
@t3bledsoe

"Well lets gather up the hundreds of thousands of registered .45s so we can match ballistics."

Really? So, because someone is killed with a .45; you're going to just "Gather" up my firearm to match it? What if they're killed in Chicago and I've got a rock solid alibi that I was nowhere near the area? Do you still get to simply "Gather" my firearm?

It's quite apparent that you have ZERO knowledge of how an actual criminal investigation works. Stop watching so much CSI, please. We DO NOT need to violate every person's rights in order to solve murders. We do it quite well without your suggestions.

See, it's because of people like this I STAND strong against registration. It's SCARY to think what the government would eventually do with such registration. If they know every single person who owns guns and exactly which guns; you would automatically become a suspect. They could also come into your home and seize your weapons when they pass the new legislation that bans the type you own.

myfather15
55764
Points
myfather15 05/07/13 - 01:57 pm
2
1
@General disarray

"I, as a gay individual and a woman know absolutely nothing about what it's like to have my rights taken away. You've got me there."

Well, I must first bring to attention that YOU said you live in Canada; BUT please explain what rights of YOURS have been taken away as a gay individual.

Please don't say your right to marry, since I don't recall that being a "right". Also, you have the EXACT same rights to marry as anyone else. I can't marry a person of the same sex either.

RMSHEFF
16627
Points
RMSHEFF 05/07/13 - 02:03 pm
4
1
You liberals never let facts get in your way

Liberals don't let facts get in their way in trying to dictate what other must do. If gun laws worked then why does California have the highest number of gun murders in 2011 with 1,220 — which makes up 68 percent of all murders in the state that year and equates to 3.25 murders per 100,000 people. California has some of the strictes gun laws.
Texas has a population of about 25.6 million and saw 699 total gun murders in 2011 — nearly half that of California — and a firearms murder rate of 2.91 per 100,000. Texas has twice as many gun as California.

The same is true for all the other states run by liberal democrats that have the most restrictive gun laws. Show me where in America that what you are proposing has ever worked. Which states are the safest to live?

Sean Moores
705
Points
Sean Moores 05/07/13 - 02:03 pm
3
0
@HA 12:40

You did not type "killed." Check your email. I included the original comment.

If you see [filtered word] in one of your comments, use the edit link and change the word or we will remove it.

Sean Moores
705
Points
Sean Moores 05/07/13 - 02:05 pm
3
0
"shot"

You intended to type "shot," but you must have had a typo.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/07/13 - 02:15 pm
5
1
Sorry. Predictive text on my
Unpublished

Sorry. Predictive text on my phone. I'll be more careful. Yikes.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/07/13 - 02:21 pm
6
1
General Disarray. Are there
Unpublished

General Disarray. Are there any other constitutional rights that you feel you should pass a test for before you can have them? I suppose you have no problem requiring a test in order to vote. It is a FACT that ill-informed voting can be very dangerous.

KSL
134138
Points
KSL 05/07/13 - 02:25 pm
3
1
I turned off predictive text

I turned off predictive text after it changed Azziz's name without me noticing it.

KSL
134138
Points
KSL 05/07/13 - 02:28 pm
6
1
Yes

Ill informed voters are being used to fundamentally change America.

Sean Moores
705
Points
Sean Moores 05/07/13 - 02:32 pm
3
0
No problem

No problem

Little Lamb
46855
Points
Little Lamb 05/07/13 - 02:40 pm
3
0
Predictive

Hey, KSL, the predictive text of Azziz's name might have been accurate!

:-)

Bizkit
32852
Points
Bizkit 05/07/13 - 03:26 pm
4
1
Third world country??? Where

Third world country??? Where do you get this stuff-oh yeah MSNBC which would have to be disqualified by Bodsat-Techfan (must be a Steeley Dan fan too) modus operandi of disqualifying venues. You can't compare other countries gun laws etc to America. It would be life comparing African-americans response to disaster with the Japanese-two different worlds and world-views. It's about freedom-you know the freedom to have an abortion, freedom of two gays to get hitched, and the freedom of people to own guns. I don't see how you can logically argue in favor of some freedoms at the expense of others. Regulating magazines is ludicrous when I can make a silencer or magazine as big as want in my work shop.-but that would be illegal. Of course it is illegal to kill people so illegal-smeagal when it comes to murder. Good grief people-where there is a will there is a way. You want to kill people-well guns, bombs, biological, nuclear. ad infinitum. Chasin' guns is chasin' rabbits and a fools delight. We need to address violence-especially in our youth. There are already too many guns available to address this with legislation-if we can then we can also deport every illegal immigrant in the US-because there are far fewer immigrants than guns. Look at these two youths that bombed Boston-not very sophisticated but it worked. Now just think if these two were more formally educated they would have been able to grow up any nerve toxin, made far more explosive and dangerous bombs-maybe even a dirty bomb. I remember decades ago our organic professor telling and showing us how easy it is to synthesize LSD and methamphetamine-I can only imagine what they are cookin' up nowadays.

KSL
134138
Points
KSL 05/07/13 - 03:40 pm
2
1
Little Lamb

Gottcha! LOL.

KSL
134138
Points
KSL 05/07/13 - 03:48 pm
2
1
Artwork

Judging from his artwork, he is definitely more interested in depicting parts of the female anatomy.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/07/13 - 03:55 pm
4
1
Let's see if they refute any
Unpublished

Let's see if they refute any of these facts......or as usual, just attack the source.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/06/the-firearms-statistics-that-...

Bizkit
32852
Points
Bizkit 05/07/13 - 04:02 pm
3
1
Guns aren't our problem but

Guns aren't our problem but we've just lost our compass. I think our technology has not only created much of our unemployment-machines do common labor jobs-but is now having an influence on our youth. They are disconnected from reality and plugged into the internet and cell phone instant communication. We are losing our biology interaction and studies already support young males being influenced by internet porno, violent videos and violent behavior, etc. We created the technology as a tool but now our youth are the tools. The Google effect is ever so notable-student don't put info to long term memory-why bother when you can instantly Google it, plagiarism is outta control and they don't understand what you mean when you tell them what it is-it's ridiculous over and over again yet still plagiarism-they see everything as if it is free on the internet-copyrightawhatawhootie????? All the info is like some Jungian collective unconscious pool of common info we can all share. Sheesh.

Bizkit
32852
Points
Bizkit 05/07/13 - 04:11 pm
3
1
So does this mean if you live

So does this mean if you live in a blue state with strict guns laws then you are more likely to get shot there?????? Oh the irony. hee,hee,hee. So it is a heinous conspiracy to spread their bad crime statistics to red states for political gain by spreadin' strict gun laws they spread crime which may hurt political ambitions????? Diabolical.

Bodhisattva
6464
Points
Bodhisattva 05/07/13 - 04:20 pm
2
2
Well, the right wingers have
Unpublished

Well, the right wingers have hit on a sure fire way to save towns, counties, states, and the country billions, if not trillions of dollars. We no longer need to pay councilmen, mayors, governors, state or national legislators, even the president, or any of their assistants. No police, prison guards, probation officers, it's almost endless. All we had to do was think of their simple logic before and it's mind boggling the amount we could have saved. Criminals don't follow the law therefore no laws are needed. We don't need gun laws because criminals don't follow gun laws. Heck, they don't follow speeding, rape, murder, embezzling laws either yet we've chosen to make these otherwise honest hardworking citizens into outlaws by choosing one activity in which they choose to participate and criminalizing it. How could an average citizen know those 20 AR's he sold to all of those nice gentlemen riding Harley's would be used in a crime? They were even health conscious advertising that they only drank 1% milk. Why in the world would we need background checks for used guns? No laws, no criminals, it's as simple as that.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs