No one in charge at ATF?

Post Reply New Topic

I heard on Rachel Maddow last night that since senatorial Republicans had made the directorship of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fire Arms a position appointed by that body years ago, the ATF has been left without permanent leadership. Seriously! The temporary acting director is a part time bureaucrat, and they have been left so understaffed that there often is no one to even answer the phone!
Leaving the ATF castrated obviously was done to placate the Republican party's allies among gun advocates, but at what cost? Essentially, enforcing gun control laws - among other matters - was what they did. Is it just a coincidence that there has been a rash of gun violence (not just Lanza and Holmes, but also Zimmerman) since the Bureau had had their feet cut out from under them?
Please, discuss...

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The ATF is a bad mix of evil and stupid, and they use it to pass volumes and volumes of regulations that were never reviewed by any democratically elected legislators..until after the fact, and then they have to defund things like Fast and Furious and that shotgun import ban.

The BATF is one agency we'd be better off without.
Kraichgauer, why not just go ahead and take the anti-gun position you yearn to and stop tap-dancing around it with little tidbits like this?

I'm actually not anti-gun. In fact, I've gone shooting with friends before, and it was a very enjoyable experience. I don't have a problem with law abiding, sane people owning guns. I just think many gun rights advocates insist gun rights are absolute, without taking into consideration that no right is - or should be - absolute. And the simple fact is, arming teachers with guns to stop insane killers probably will just end in more children being gunned down - but this time by friendly fire. And yet, gun advocates have endorsed this very idea - along with the notion that owning a gun is a God given right, or that the people must be armed to fight the military when freedom is taken away by the government. I'm sorry, but those are absolutely nutty ideas. And despite what these same gun advocates say, horrific shootings that have taken place around the country is because of an availability of firearms. And no, it's not just criminals and lunatics who take lives, but also people whose blood is up, who don't want to back down in a confrontation, and who otherwise would have used their fists. And by the way, all that talk about Old West gun culture is disingenuous at best - in my part of the country, the west, despite the fact that guns were common place, towns had had strictly enforced gun control laws, and they'd hire dangerous men like Wyatt Earp or Wild Bill Hickok to enforce those laws.
Any how, if the presence of the ATF could prevent more gun deaths, I say let them back into the game. I hardly see the NRA or GOA as doing anything legitimately constrictive. And no, saying movie goers and teachers should be armed isn't the answer.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Having read down through the whole thing it sure appears that you ARE anti-gun.
Advocating mental competency testing? It puts too much arbitrary power where we don’t want it and can easily be a tool of abuse. Gun ownership is a right not a privilege.
Gun purchases and ownership is already regulated more than you think. We sort of grudgingly accept these little (or not so little) infringements but there is a limit. As far as God given rights, yes, most of us do believe that it is an indelible right of all men (and women) to have the means to protect themselves since this is, in essence, the right to exist. The constitution really doesn’t give anyone this right but confirms it as a right that will be honored in the US.
I’ve stated over and over that only teaches and other school employees that have a concealed carry permit should be armed IF AND ONLY IF THEY WANT TO BE. That or armed security guards but those cost money and will probably be the first thing to go if the budget has to be tightened.
The idea is to change the school’s soft target status to one that’s much more risky to would be active shooters.
The number of accidents from licensed concealed carriers is so minute as to be nearly dismissible as a public safety concern. A school student stands a much better chance of choking to death on a chicken bone in the cafeteria or getting run over by a bus in the parking lot. Work on those other risks instead.

The reason shootings take place isn’t because of the availability of guns but because of a lack of personal responsibility and accountability, lack of values, lack of mental health issues being addressed, and apparently the lack of legally armed citizens to stop them when the above fail.
The question of armed against the government should be a thread in itself.
If you think the NRA has not had a positive impact on preventing gun related deaths you don’t know enough about them to comment. The NRA has been instrumental in saving lives by enhancing and teaching firearms safety and championing for the right to self-protection.
The Brady Campaign (formerly HCI) does nothing but bleet “gunz-r-baaaaad” and wait eagerly for another massacre so they can hold up another example.
Don’t get me started on the ATF.

Why couldn't gun ownership/use be a test right, such as being licensed to drive a motor vehicle. To get the permit or license one would have to be of age, not a convicted felon or inmate of a psychiatric clinic and one would have to pass tests practical and written. If the thing could be administered fairly and in a non-corrupt manner (no bribing the testers) that should answer the objections or fears that many people have concerning firearms.

In Switzerland and Israel where men of a certain age are obliged to perform militia duty, possession of automatic and semi-automatic fire arms is widespread, but there is no sign of excessive homicide by use of firearms. So merely having the firearm is no sure predictor that it will be misused. And in the context of a militia (presumable legal and well ordered) there is training and discipline for firearm use.

ruveyn

That sounds absolutely reasonable to me.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

In order to have armed guards on duty at schools, Republicans will have to do something that makes them rather want to eat dog s**t - and that's raise taxes. But the lives of our children are more important than buying a motor boat or snow mobile, er.. I mean snow machine.
Actually, as a matter of fact, I'm delighted that the NRA teaches gun safety courses. But as ruveyn suggests, there should be gun licensing comparable to a driving test, which would disqualify felons and mentally ill persons, before one can own a gun.
And while self defense is everyone's right, owning a gun isn't a right granted from God. There are gun advocates who have absolutely made this a religious issue beyond the point of sanity.
And no, I don't think guns are themselves bad, but as they are meant specifically to kill, their use is limited only to that scope, and it's absurd to think otherwise.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

/\. /\
I'm on my iphone now but you're both gonna get it when I get home to my laptop.

I wouldn't expect otherwise.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Ruveyn wrote:

Driving a car is a licensed privilege. The right to bear arms is a right. Really, if there was as much scrutiny and as many attacks on driving and cars as on gun ownership and guns it would be nigh impossible to pass any kind of written or practical driving test.
Besides, why give the government anything else to f**k up and waste money on?


Those counties are actually stricter on gun laws than we’re led to believe.

Kraichgauer wrote:

Spoken like someone that can’t afford a snow mobile and/or boat. Yeah, I already said that armed guards would be expensive. After a while of nothing happening to justify their existence the accounting bean counters would want to stop that program. I know how bean counters work and it’s all about the buck.

/\ Read what I said about that.

And I can see their point, given the nuttiness of the anti-gun side.

They make guns for various tasks. Some are designed specifically for target shooting . It helps to know a little before making an assertion like "for killing only".

So you don't want your right to own a gun infringed upon? But do you feel the same way about the right to vote (IE - voter suppression through demanding ID of voters unable to purchase said ID due to poverty or disability)?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Who wouldn't want more gun safety?

I think everyone agrees on that.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I'm willing to present my drivers licence (and CCW for handguns), fill out an ATF form 4473, and pay $5 for a NICS check for each gun purchase so I don't see why voters have an issue merely presenting some kind of ID to vote.

Gun safety as in what?
I'm all for firearms safety training in all levels of school and it would actually save lives.
However, I'm against laws to fix what's not broke at the expense of my rights.