Who do you imagine has the job of monitoring what people buy?

For federal background checks pursuant to firearms purchases, it is actually part of the implementation that no individual information is retained.

----
As of July 2004, approved purchaser information must be destroyed within 24 hours of the official NICS response to the dealer. This destruction requirement has been imposed in appropriations bills as part of the so-called “Tiahrt Amendments,” named after their chief proponent Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS). As a result, ATF inspectors are no longer able to compare the information on file with the dealer to the information the dealer submitted to NICS.
----

The NSA wouldn't be at my door the next day?

I would figure this would go double for a few dozen long guns AND bomb material.

Where were you when I needed you?

It's the ATF that has to do with such things. It's important to get your agencies right. However, what sort of bomb-making material are you talking about? It's unlikely that anyone would be tracking many types of explosive-capable materials closely enough to see any pattern.

Perhaps they should be, but they are not.

idea that the NSA was spying on all of us and seeing everything we type as Eddie Snowden claimed. I recall that era when DU was sure that they were spying on all of us. Thus it should make sense they would know someone was stockpiling weapons. LOL.

Weird.

I can buy all the ingredients to make a Timothy Mcvey type bomb. The Nitrate fertilizer will be tracked but no Feds will come looking me up.

Same with guns. I have a CC license and am even exempt from a wait period.

Please do not confuse my explaining the situation as agreeing with it. I favor much tougher gun laws.

If ANYONE was going to be at your door, it would be either FBI or BATF.

Seriously, look at this.

Here's a pound of sulfur:

Yellow Sulfur Powder "Greenway Biotech Brand" 1 Pound



https://www.amazon.com/Yellow-Sulfur-Powder-Greenway-Biotech/dp/B00HARCM7K/ref=sr_1_2_sspa?ie=UTF8&qid=1507066909&sr=8-2-spons&keywords=sulfur&psc=1


Take a look at:

Customers who bought this item also bought

1 LB - Eckart German Blackhead 5413 Super H Aluminum Powder, 3 Micron

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/21LklYWffYL._AC_UL160_SR160,160_.jpg

The Science Company, NC-9871, Potassium Nitrate, (Saltpeter), 500g

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41gbli-ZDHL._AC_UL160_SR160,160_.jpg

Wrisky 1Rolls 99.95% 25g 70ft Magnesium Ribbon High Purity Lab Chemicals New

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71eB3uKlrRL._AC_UL160_SR160,160_.jpg

CHARCOAL, AIR FLOAT - 1 lb

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81Dx%2BuQWQKL._AC_UL160_SR160,160_.jpg


WTF do you think people are buying sulfur, potassium nitrate, and charcoal FOR?

If you don't know how to make a bomb, Amazon is happy to teach you. It's so common that Amazon will suggest you buy the rest of the ingredients.

profile, which let's be honest, is what is going to raise red flags normally with the FBI. He purchased the guns and ammo all legally. He was a wealthy older white male with multiple houses and a pilot's license (to fly small planes). There are lots of gun types who collect large amounts of weapons over time, which this guy did -- he didn't buy everything all at once. Also, that "bomb making material" was in fact legal to purchase.

Question's already been answered. Ain't no need to pile on. Pick your battles.

Tiahrt and his wife Vicki had three children, Jessica, John and Luke. On July 24, 2004, the Tiahrt's youngest child, sixteen year-old Luke, died of an apparent suicide by gunshot at the family home in Virginia.

Half the police procedurals on tv use that comparison as part of investigations.

someone would be monitoring my purchases via a national, connected database. I don't think they care what gum or toothpaste that I buy..but I can't kill people with that.

fuck the 2nd amendment

before the cops come round your way...

Sorry but some of this has to go to whomever sold him this stuff. The guy who sold Dylan Roof his weapon too. That was due to a technical glitch and gun friendly laws.


Did he buy from different locations?

He wasn't on any watch-lists. And very lax gun laws in NV. He probably could have stocked an arsenal and no one would notice. This too will be forgotten and no one will do a damn thing to change it.

It's insanity.

This week it's 59 Dead & 500+ Injured.

Cheer up. Next week might not be as bad.

Getting shot was not enough for Scalise to change his opinion.

He'd do it all over again, just to protect his 2nd Amendment right, and the right of the guy who shot him.

That is why nothing will ever change in America. Get used to it.

Money for gun manufacturers, so they lobby for looser gun laws
And the billionaires that run the GOP spend money inflaming gun tensions too because it gets gun lovers to vote for tax cuts on the rich.


Money money money. Get money out of politics and see how quickly gun laws become sane.

Records of gun buys are for if you use them illegally and for returns if stolen.

Red flags would only pop up with many bought at one location.

. . . and that would get more scrutiny than me purchasing the material to MAKE said weaponry.

Damn.

Think and pray any of us don't become winners of the "When the Shooting Starts" lottery.

Or the device that makes semi-automatics into a full automatic?

Those two items aren't going to be used out in the desert just for fun.

What, do we just wait until the innocent "good guy with a gun" becomes a domestic terrorist . . . and then when the next bloodbath happens, keep asking the same goddamned question over and over and over again "What could we have done to prevent this?"

Are all these words just a roundabout way of saying "There is absolutely nothing at all that can be done, so don't even bother TRYING"?

in well regulated, locked up militias.

their existence just men in general have their way, that we should ignore the constitution now?

Ratification. Can you provide some?

English.

Why are you arguing that?

abortion rights before Roe, what examples of citizen rights after being arrested before Miranda, separate but equal being struck down before Brown?

Do I need to go on?

We make sure they don't.

What makes you think they can monitor Joe Blow in Nevada with no suspicious ties?

Even at that, apparently the coward went to several different dealers to assemble his arsenal, on the off chance that one or another of them might get suspicious if he went there exclusively. That's apparently all a terrorist needs to do to avoid drawing any attention to himself before he puts his plan into action. The system is like that by design:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/10/3/1703667/-Las-Vegas-shooter-had-42-guns-thousands-of-rounds-of-ammo-and-no-red-flags#read-more

We can't regulate the guns.
We can't get rid of the guns.
We can't track who buys an arsenal.
There's no political will to make health care less expensive and more accessible.

So, more dead kids. And concert attendees. And women. And people at work.

But I'm going to keep fighting for some regulations on this out-of-control militia terrorizing our citizens.

It's even worse than we thought.

someone to act patriotically.

But they can, just like how in the hell are we not tracking gun purchases, but we dont.

purchase any type of weapon known to man kind. But,you might have to meet the Guy out in the sticks some where to complete the deal.

Been to Gun Shows out in the Boonies,anything goes my friends.

Would support a nation wide gun registry? No way. And no way a majority of the members of the Democratic Party would support it.

But they do not and will not. But there are other effective ways of reducing gun violence that does not include the government keeping lists of gun owners.

The republicans party of Florida knows I am a member of the Democratic Party. I really do not them knowing if and how many guns I own. Would you?

why would it bother you if anyone, Republicans or Democrats, knew how many guns you had?

I'd very much prefer to know which of my neighbors is armed. This would be a problem for you?

Would you like a list of all your valuable jewellery available to the public?

ok. That tells me how serious you are.

In fact, I've had my house broken into and jewelry stolen. It sucked. But at least I know that it wasn't used to kill anyone. One of the side effects of high gun ownership is they fall into the hands of criminals when they're stolen. That's why marketing them as self-defense is so grossly irresponsible. I also know the difference between a weapon and things that aren't weapons, which is why it would make no sense to require a jewelry registry.

that is information you would like to be available to everyone?

Buying guns isn't mandatory. Nor are many of the other things that potentially invite crime yet we do them anyway. Buying a big flashy home, you might as well hang up the Come Rob Me, I've Got LOTS of Nice Things! sign. Yet the McMansion industry thrives, doesn't it? Somehow I think a registry wouldn't be the end of the world for gun owners either.

not tracking gun sales.

Let me put it this way - I support most gun control measure but you will lose my support if your ultimate goal is registration. As long as guns are legal it is no one's business how many I have.

it is amazing how important they are to some.

I will continue my journey with some Buffalo Trace this evening.

These people won't be doing anything anymore http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-las-vegas-shootings-victims-list-20171002-htmlstory.html

work with gun owners to actually do something or rigidly demand total capitulation. Because if you sit in your corner all morally pure but not actually changing anything, then it looks like you bear some responsibility.

I am willing to accept many gun controls laws but not registration. We should still be able to work together.

It's anyone who thinks there should be no restrictions and regulations whatsoever on guns. Gun owners who actually understand what guns are and have no difficulty telling the difference between guns and not-guns, and therefore get that some regulation is necessary? I have no problem with them.

And we should be able to find common ground.

You seem to have difficulty in the categorization area I was talking about. I get squicky with those odd equations. Guns aren't the same as jewelry, or pots and pans, or bunny slippers. They're deadly weapons. Gun owners who don't respect that are a danger to themselves and others. They're also more likely to dismiss the violence they cause in society. They think, it's not the guns' fault! I have no common cause with that mentality.

I have never harmed a living thing in those 40 years. I see your mind is closed. Have a good evening.

And good job on 40 years of not hurting anyone. Really, that's great. It still doesn't change my mind that guns are dangerous.

How about a list available only to law enforcement?

to law enforcement?

Just as doctors and pharmacies are required to keep track of narcotics.

You don't have a problem with government requiring that pharmacies keep and report an inventory of their controlled substances, do you?

It has no impact on suicides which make up 60% of gun deaths.

It has no impact on mass shootings - they are crazy guys who usually end up dead.

It will not have an impact on violent criminals - they have tens of millions of unregistered guns to choose from.

Why is registration such a panacea?

But as I see it, it would help make a bad situation better in two ways.

First, it would enable authorities to flag people who are stockpiling weapons such as those used in Las Vegas. If even one mass shooter is stopped by a visit from the authorities, we're better off.

Second, it helps defuse tense situations involving law enforcement. Many years ago a friend of mine had a psychotic break, and began trashing his apartment, heaving his TV out the window, smashing everything he could, howling, spouting gibberish, and generally acting crazy. The police were called by his neighbors. I was, coincidentally, on my way over there when the police arrived. They saw I knew the guy. Their first question to me was "IS THERE A GUN IN THE HOUSE?" I told them I didn't know (because I didn't). They went in with weapons drawn. Luckily my friend was restrained and taken to a hospital without serious injury to anyone. But if the police had known with a reasonable certainty that there were no firearms in the house, they wouldn't have felt a need to have theirs ready. I'm sure similar scenarios play out all the time.

As for gun death by suicide, a registry would enable us to flag people with a history of clinical depression, for instance, people who have been hospitalized as a danger to themselves within the last ten years. Stopping even one such person from obtaining easier access to a firearm might well be a life saver.

So you oppose even a list open only to law enforcement? Your original objection was you didn't want to be targeted for burglary.

Yes, there are tens of millions of unregistered weapons now available, thanks to the tireless efforts of advocates such as yourself.

We have to start somewhere. National registration is a start. There are other reforms we could take as well. None would be a "panacea"--something of a straw man argument right there--but doing NOTHING--our typical response, certainly will not help either.

Perhaps you could provide a list of five reforms that would alleviate the need for registration? Reforms that would have the impact you seem to desire?

it is a violation of privacy.

Non-negotiable in my case. There are many other gun control laws I will help you pass. Not that one.

And, presumably, in the case of every potential mass murderer out there today.

So, what other gun control laws do you support?

don't support AWBs and registration. The rest I will support.

I live in a blue state with strict gun laws and low levels of gun violence.

I live in a blue state as well, with a gun violence rate well below the national average and far below that of red states with lax regulations.

So, what bills would you be willing to support today?

without some form of registration?

Presumably, my state has a list somewhere of all licensed drivers. If there's no list to cross check, how do you ensure that people aren't evading the law, or simply faking their licensing?

The same with mandatory training. I go in to buy sixteen semi-automatic rifles. The dealer says, do you have a license? And proof of mandatory training? And I say sure, and whip out a phony license and a phony certificate of training. Or I produce nothing at all except my word. How is a dealer supposed to know I'm not lying, unless there's a data base out there of people with licenses and who have fulfilled the training requirement, (and hence, a list of those who own or have the potential to own a firearm?)

Mag size limits, absolutely. How about limits on range and caliber? And when you say UBS, can I assume you mean at gun shows and private person to person sales as well?

They have been doing it for decades. Same for Massachusetts.

Educate me.

How do Massachusetts and Illinois enforce mandatory licensing and training without any form of registration?

While I'm at it, I have to say I find your admission that gun safes are so easily compromised rather shocking. So the situation is even worse than I thought. Even "responsible" gun owners are putting us all at greater risk by providing relatively easy access to firearms to criminals who might break into their homes. A more or less steady and dependable pipeline from legal gun owners to criminals. So I should now take any argument about "securing" legally purchased guns with a grain of salt.

Wonderful.

you get the license first before you can legally purchase a gun. No license no sale.

So it looks like protecting the privacy of gun owners might have public safety ramifications. You are catching on.

you have a list of people who possibly (probably) own guns, which law enforcement can consult.

Okay, I can live with that.

And from what you're saying, the private ownership of guns, especially those kept in homes, also presents us with very serious public safety issues, issues I wish the gun lobby would seriously address.

I'm assuming that in Illinois and Massachusetts then it's a crime for a licensed gun owner to sell or loan or in any way make his gun or guns available to non-licensed folk? And there is a considerable criminal penalty for those that do?

but if they are too expensive people will ignore them - no one is going to pay $500 for a safe to store a $100 gun.

If "responsible" "legal" gun owners aren't willing to ensure that their weapons don't end up in the hands of criminals, why shouldn't we consider them as at least partly responsible for the mayhem caused by those using their weapons in subsequent crimes?

Point of information: my brother-in-law was murdered by a car-jacker who used a gun bought by a "responsible" "legal" gun owner who evidently didn't do enough to secure his weapon.

Second point of information: my partner's grandfather was shot dead on his own property by a "responsible" gun owner who mistook him for a deer.

Last edited Wed Oct 4, 2017, 08:20 AM - Edit history (1)

Without severely impacting hunting. What exactly did you have in mind? Nothing bigger than a .22?

But they've changed their positions before. Hopefully, they will on this one.

Sell. A sad state of affairs, but there it is.

at least that's been my experience in these discussions.

The irony is that it now sounds like having guns can make you MORE liable to be burglarized.

Go figure.

I'd keep them in a safe deposit box, with the rest of my valuables. Or a locker at a gun club.

That's what I do with what (little) jewelry I have of any value.

They are not indestructible. Less than 30 minutes for a skilled thief.

can provide us a reasonable guarantee their weapon might not be stolen and used to kill someone.

Hardly a great talking point for those who say keeping guns at home isn't a potential danger to us all.

And please don't come back with the usual "frying pans, knives, hatchets, swimming pools, garden hoses etc. etc." are just ass. dangerous.

No one, to my knowledge, has killed or seriously wounded hundreds and hundreds of people within the space of an hour with a frying pan.

So you oppose even a list open only to law enforcement?

the government has no need to know.

Most members of the Democratic Party, including me support much stricter gun laws.

But a majority of the Democratic Party, as reflected by our platform, believe we have a constitutional right to own guns.

I do not support any government having a list of people choosing to exercise a fundamental right.

Before you think me a total gunner, I support many restrictions that I think pass 2nd amendment muster.

But where I live pretty much everyone owns a gun, often for hunting but also for various reasons.

Thank you for the polite manner of your question. I hope I have answered in kind. I really hate it when we good members of the Democratic Party magnify our differences to level of disparagement we express for republicans.

Have a nice evening.