Wonder how they will spin this

[Deleted]

www.nraila.org/articles/20180105/you-ve-got-fail-investigation-into-online-gun-sales-backfires-on-gun-controllers

You’ve Got Fail: Investigation into Online Gun Sales Backfires on Gun Controllers

Friday, January 5, 2018

In yet another embarrassment for the gun control lobby, a government investigation of online gun sales designed to determine “whether private sellers would knowingly sell a firearm to an individual prohibited from possessing one” determined that … no, actually, they would not.

In 72 attempts undertaken over 2 ½ years, undercover agents trying to buy guns through readily-accessible Internet sites failed exactly 100% of the time to complete a sale when the seller had reason to believe the buyer was prohibited or lived in another state.

Ironically, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report -- “Internet Firearm Sales: ATF Enforcement Efforts and Outcomes of GAO Covert Testing” – was commissioned by three staunchly anti-gun members of Congress. Leading the charge was Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who was joined by Sens. Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

*******************

56 sellers outright refused to complete a transaction once it was clear the shipping address was across state lines or the "buyer" was prohibited from owning firearms

For 5 tests, accounts set up on forums were "banned" after we disclosed our prohibited statue

In 9 tests, agents determined the seller was trying to scam the agent

In 2 tests, agents paid sellers for firearms that did not ship.

*******************

Agents did purchase 2 firearms from sellers on a Dark Web marketplace as a result of 7 attempts.

www.gao.gov/assets/690/688535.pdf

[Walter]

That is a good example then that restrictions currently in place have done a good job, no?
So why do you complain about these restrictions?
Are they not succeeding in what we all want to see? Would not fewer restrictions have a negative effect?
Would not further rules similarly close other methods of obtaining guns illicitly?
What is the problem?

[roxalot]

Didn't take long to get your answer.. LOL

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2018 0:16:29 GMT -5 Walter said:

That is a good example then that restrictions currently in place have done a good job, no?
So why do you complain about these restrictions?
Are they not succeeding in what we all want to see? Would not fewer restrictions have a negative effect?
Would not further rules similarly close other methods of obtaining guns illicitly?
What is the problem?

No one is complaining about the background checks already in place.
This ATF test proves that we don't need MORE background checks.   It proves what conservatives have always known .............  we value our rights to own guns, and we are NOT going to deliberately violate the trust that the public has in us to buy, sell, or trade in firearms within LEGAL LIMITS.

Now ............  tell me what law is going to stop ME, the burglar, from selling a gun I stole from John Innocent to Larry Lawbreaker, who I know from my many drug buys from him?
Go ahead ..............  let's see the law that will stop THAT.

Your turn.   Write your magic law.   I can't wait to see how fast I can tear it apart.

[Walter]

Jan 8, 2018 11:35:58 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

Jan 8, 2018 0:16:29 GMT -5 Walter said:

That is a good example then that restrictions currently in place have done a good job, no?
So why do you complain about these restrictions?
Are they not succeeding in what we all want to see? Would not fewer restrictions have a negative effect?
Would not further rules similarly close other methods of obtaining guns illicitly?
What is the problem?

No one is complaining about the background checks already in place.
This ATF test proves that we don't need MORE background checks.   It proves what conservatives have always known .............  we value our rights to own guns, and we are NOT going to deliberately violate the trust that the public has in us to buy, sell, or trade in firearms within LEGAL LIMITS.

Now ............  tell me what law is going to stop ME, the burglar, from selling a gun I stole from John Innocent to Larry Lawbreaker, who I know from my many drug buys from him?
Go ahead ..............  let's see the law that will stop THAT.

Your turn.   Write your magic law.   I can't wait to see how fast I can tear it apart.

You mean the law that requires John to keep his gun, at all times, in a gun safe that is bolted to the floor when he leaves home?
How's Larry going to steal the gun now unless he's willing to steal the entire safe, try a home invasion robbery or if John is a negligent gun owner and deserving of a fine and/or jail time?

Mind you, I'm not advocating such a law, but you challenged me to write one, so there it is. Won't stop all theft of course, but like the background checks, it will stop a good percentage.

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2018 17:30:56 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jan 8, 2018 11:35:58 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

No one is complaining about the background checks already in place.
This ATF test proves that we don't need MORE background checks.   It proves what conservatives have always known .............  we value our rights to own guns, and we are NOT going to deliberately violate the trust that the public has in us to buy, sell, or trade in firearms within LEGAL LIMITS.

Now ............  tell me what law is going to stop ME, the burglar, from selling a gun I stole from John Innocent to Larry Lawbreaker, who I know from my many drug buys from him?
Go ahead ..............  let's see the law that will stop THAT.

Your turn.   Write your magic law.   I can't wait to see how fast I can tear it apart.

You mean the law that requires John to keep his gun, at all times, in a gun safe that is bolted to the floor when he leaves home?
How's Larry going to steal the gun now unless he's willing to steal the entire safe, try a home invasion robbery or if John is a negligent gun owner and deserving of a fine and/or jail time?

Mind you, I'm not advocating such a law, but you challenged me to write one, so there it is. Won't stop all theft of course, but like the background checks, it will stop a good percentage.

Would that be the same law that requires people to lock up all their medications, household cleaning supplies, sharp gardening/lawn tools, and cover every electrical outlet in their homes, so that curious kids can't harm themselves?
That one was easy to shoot down.

Now, try again.  Create a REALISTIC law that is constitutional, and doesn't turn every homeowner in the U.S. into an instant criminal. 
You gave the typical lieberal response ........ make laws that criminalize everyday, normal behavior, and punish innocent people.

[Deleted]

Jan 8, 2018 17:30:56 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jan 8, 2018 11:35:58 GMT -5 @muttthemaster said:

No one is complaining about the background checks already in place.
This ATF test proves that we don't need MORE background checks.   It proves what conservatives have always known .............  we value our rights to own guns, and we are NOT going to deliberately violate the trust that the public has in us to buy, sell, or trade in firearms within LEGAL LIMITS.

Now ............  tell me what law is going to stop ME, the burglar, from selling a gun I stole from John Innocent to Larry Lawbreaker, who I know from my many drug buys from him?
Go ahead ..............  let's see the law that will stop THAT.

Your turn.   Write your magic law.   I can't wait to see how fast I can tear it apart.

You mean the law that requires John to keep his gun, at all times, in a gun safe that is bolted to the floor when he leaves home?
How's Larry going to steal the gun now unless he's willing to steal the entire safe, try a home invasion robbery or if John is a negligent gun owner and deserving of a fine and/or jail time?

Mind you, I'm not advocating such a law, but you challenged me to write one, so there it is. Won't stop all theft of course, but like the background checks, it will stop a good percentage.

You really have no idea how easy it is to get into a typical home safe, do you?

[Buckeye Dale]

Jan 7, 2018 23:20:45 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

www.nraila.org/articles/20180105/you-ve-got-fail-investigation-into-online-gun-sales-backfires-on-gun-controllers

You’ve Got Fail: Investigation into Online Gun Sales Backfires on Gun Controllers

Friday, January 5, 2018

In yet another embarrassment for the gun control lobby, a government investigation of online gun sales designed to determine “whether private sellers would knowingly sell a firearm to an individual prohibited from possessing one” determined that … no, actually, they would not.

In 72 attempts undertaken over 2 ½ years, undercover agents trying to buy guns through readily-accessible Internet sites failed exactly 100% of the time to complete a sale when the seller had reason to believe the buyer was prohibited or lived in another state.

Ironically, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report -- “Internet Firearm Sales: ATF Enforcement Efforts and Outcomes of GAO Covert Testing” – was commissioned by three staunchly anti-gun members of Congress. Leading the charge was Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who was joined by Sens. Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

*******************

56 sellers outright refused to complete a transaction once it was clear the shipping address was across state lines or the "buyer" was prohibited from owning firearms

For 5 tests, accounts set up on forums were "banned" after we disclosed our prohibited statue

In 9 tests, agents determined the seller was trying to scam the agent

In 2 tests, agents paid sellers for firearms that did not ship.

*******************

Agents did purchase 2 firearms from sellers on a Dark Web marketplace as a result of 7 attempts.

www.gao.gov/assets/690/688535.pdf

<iframe width="33.83999999999992" height="15.039999999999964" style="position: absolute; width: 33.84px; height: 15.04px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 0px; top: 0px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_70595609"></iframe>

<iframe width="33.83999999999992" height="15.039999999999964" style="position: absolute; width: 33.84px; height: 15.04px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1618px; top: -712px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_53475709"></iframe>

<iframe width="33.83999999999992" height="15.039999999999964" style="position: absolute; width: 33.84px; height: 15.04px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 10px; top: -26px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_41311329"></iframe>

<iframe width="33.83999999999992" height="15.039999999999964" style="position: absolute; width: 33.84px; height: 15.04px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1618px; top: -26px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_28044830"></iframe>

The government admitted they were wrong?  So QUICKLY?  
Damn, that was fast...and they were furious, I'm  sure.

[Buckeye Dale]

Jan 9, 2018 6:53:36 GMT -5 Buckeye Dale said:

Jan 7, 2018 23:20:45 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

www.nraila.org/articles/20180105/you-ve-got-fail-investigation-into-online-gun-sales-backfires-on-gun-controllers

You’ve Got Fail: Investigation into Online Gun Sales Backfires on Gun Controllers

Friday, January 5, 2018

In yet another embarrassment for the gun control lobby, a government investigation of online gun sales designed to determine “whether private sellers would knowingly sell a firearm to an individual prohibited from possessing one” determined that … no, actually, they would not.

In 72 attempts undertaken over 2 ½ years, undercover agents trying to buy guns through readily-accessible Internet sites failed exactly 100% of the time to complete a sale when the seller had reason to believe the buyer was prohibited or lived in another state.

Ironically, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report -- “Internet Firearm Sales: ATF Enforcement Efforts and Outcomes of GAO Covert Testing” – was commissioned by three staunchly anti-gun members of Congress. Leading the charge was Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who was joined by Sens. Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

*******************

56 sellers outright refused to complete a transaction once it was clear the shipping address was across state lines or the "buyer" was prohibited from owning firearms

For 5 tests, accounts set up on forums were "banned" after we disclosed our prohibited statue

In 9 tests, agents determined the seller was trying to scam the agent

In 2 tests, agents paid sellers for firearms that did not ship.

*******************

Agents did purchase 2 firearms from sellers on a Dark Web marketplace as a result of 7 attempts.

www.gao.gov/assets/690/688535.pdf

<iframe width="33.83999999999992" height="15.039999999999964" style="position: absolute; width: 33.84px; height: 15.04px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 0px; top: 0px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_70595609"></iframe>

<iframe width="33.83999999999992" height="15.039999999999964" style="position: absolute; width: 33.84px; height: 15.04px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1618px; top: -712px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_53475709"></iframe>

<iframe width="33.83999999999992" height="15.039999999999964" style="position: absolute; width: 33.84px; height: 15.04px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 10px; top: -26px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_41311329"></iframe>

<iframe width="33.83999999999992" height="15.039999999999964" style="position: absolute; width: 33.84px; height: 15.04px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1618px; top: -26px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_28044830"></iframe>

The government admitted they were wrong?  So QUICKLY?  
Damn, that was fast...and they were furious, I'm  sure.

DAMN...it did it again...

[daleko]

Jan 8, 2018 17:30:56 GMT -5 Walter said:

Mind you, I'm not advocating such a law, but you challenged me to write one, so there it is. Won't stop all theft of course, but like the background checks, it will stop a good percentage.

The Constitution and SCOTUS decisions, I'd guess, prevents the reduction of crime and firearm deaths by 2/3.