Anyone can buy guns, no questions asked
By Jeff Rossen
TODAY
updated 2/9/2012 7:39:05 AM ET
Some say it’s a major loophole in the law. At gun stores, you have to get a background check before you can buy a weapon. But online in most states, anyone from law-abiding citizens to dangerous criminals – even terrorists – can get just about any weapon they want, no questions asked. Our hidden camera investigation shows the deals going down in broad daylight, in suburban mall parking lots.
Hundreds of thousands of guns are for sale, on hundreds of websites. We responded and set up meetings at popular shopping malls. We bought everything from a police-grade pistol to a semiautomatic assault rifle. We did it over and over again, even hinting that our buyer is a criminal.
Within 12 hours, we bought eight dangerous guns – even a 50-caliber weapon so powerful it could take down a helicopter.
----------
NBC News hired Steve Barborini, a former supervisor for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to help with our investigation. Barborini said that the online sales loophole permits what he called “a weapons bazaar for criminals. There’s no background check: Anybody that has a murder conviction can simply log on, email someone, meet ’em in a parking lot, and buy a freaking AK-47.”
More: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46316454/ns/today-today_rossen_reports/#.TzRwJ12Rl_k
What gun control?
= new reply since forum marked as read
"You're making me a second-class citizen - I feel so oppressed by all this dang guvmint regulation. You can't stop all crime. Cite, please. It's all Bloomie's fault" 
IT'S A SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION OF LAW. LOOK UP THE WORDS YOU ARE USING.
Jesus fucking wept....
Make all sales outside of an authorized gun store illegal. That the internet is being used as a bazaar for gun sales is just absurd. We have no effective gun control in this country. And where is the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby on this? Attacking the reformers with stupid and base attacks. Wake up. To a lot of people this isn't a game on the internet.
Great that will fix things. 
quit looking through your broke glasses and you could see 
...do you think NBC and the City of New York are lying when they say that it is easy for criminals to obtain weapons in this way? 
My glasses are fine. Thank you very much.
...the reality is that we *choose* to not have effective gun control. Other Westernized countries do and the public policy evidence is there.
I would also note that the Court even in Heller gives governments broad power to regulate firearm ownership.
We're not talking about legislating morality, we're talking about responsible firearms policy consistent with "a well-regulated Militia."
I am still disturbed by the tremendous failure of bad laws last January in Tucson, and before that at Virginia Tech, and before that at Columbine...
...is that the laws we have now are poorly constructed and continue to fail at reducing gun crime.
...if the Republicans win in 2012. 
Time to make the Toons.
...I just think it's not the end all solution. I would support such a measure. I think since the arms industry is shielded the average American might as well be too. I just don't think it really addresses the main concern. I wish more gun owners were responsible like you, pipoman. Have a good weekend!
...and no I'm not going to get into it.
Government can do amazing things when people work together.
All you would have to do is go to licensed dealer and get a background check done. Furthermore, laws can't be made retroactively in most situations so no, I wouldn't be making a "criminal" out of you and your father-in-law. Do you think our current system is working?
But as others have stated, the notion that gunfire can't cripple a helicopter forcing it to crash or land defies the laws of physics.
...but to say that a .50 cal rifle couldn't do serious damage to a helicopter is false. I can link to a half-dozen reports of helicopters brought down by gunfire with ease. Seems like your complaint in that regard is off base. Now tell me why these weapons are needed in civilian hands...
- cite.
I don't need to shoot heroin to understand the foolishness of the endeavor either. Get over yourself. This is America, not ancient Rome, and we don't have a Praetorian Guard. 
Even .50 BMG MACHINE GUNS in pairs ("Ma Deuces" , fitted with complete rotational ability, is a poor weapon with which to bring down even aircraft with propellers; the Kudos to Doris Miller at Pearl Harbor not withstanding, but the Army tried it in the mid-50s, and junked the idea of using machine guns as ground-to-air weapons. What do you think the prospects are for a .50 caliber bolt action or even semi-auto .50 BMG? I assume you are talking of .50 BMG, and not the various .50, .54, .58 etc. calibers which were the stock in trade rifles of the Civil War, and not the .50 caliber handguns made in recent years.
Not much interested in the argument of "need," as you know from previous discussions about "need" in the Constitution. But for your information, the long-range characteristics of .50 BMG bolt rifles are utilized in long-range target competitions, and in the uncommon practice of hunting large game at extra-long range. The .50 caliber handguns are used almost exclusively for hunting and self-defense weapons for outdoor guides (bears). Currently, the record for long-range target shooting is held by a man using a .338 Lapua, a much "smaller" caliber than the .50 BMG.
...I can tell you that where there is a way, people will exploit it to the utmost effect. I agree that you don't need a .50 cal rifle to do it and that military helicopters on average today are better armored than their predecessors. The case for making these weapons illegal for civilian use is substantial.
and people aren't making much of a habit of that anyway, and when they do they don't use those scary-big-guns, then how exactly do you arrive at a "substantial" case for making these guns illegal?
..."Yes, the gun made it easier" - http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=10494
I think it's a compelling case that these guns are really fucking dangerous to a variety of soft-targets. I'm not going to go to great lengths to demonstrate something that is fairly obvious to anyone with a scintilla of worry about domestic security.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.php
unwarranted ad hominem attack? That's your case?
I just noticed you spouting in another forum about how people in Gun Control & RKBA need some sense slapped into them - if you think that's what you're doing here, you really need to recalibrate your self-image...
...and it found its way into the statues of the State of California.
Now tell me petronius why is the state of California wrong in its assessment of this weapon?
It's no secret most of DU has a pretty low opinion of this group.
I like how you accuse me of an ad hominem for saying that people concerned with domestic security ought to be concerned with these weapons and then throw one right back. "you really need to recalibrate your self-image..." - that has absolutely no relation to the topic at hand. Or how about this thread in which I was called a "scalawag" - http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=11149 - it cuts both ways dude.
Considering I was called a racist in this group today for pointing out racial dog-whistles in a right-wing article that was advising illegal behavior, yeah some people in this group need some sense slapped into them: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=14103
...but I think most Democrats agree that these weapons pose a serious domestic security threat in the wrong hands. (a) I always try to be polite to you too. Try and appreciate where many of us our coming from on this, most social scientists agree that there is a tremendous social cost from gun violence. This isn't a theoretical debate for many of us; this is flesh and blood. (b) I address relevant points. Maybe I'm unclear sometimes, but I think might point was rather clear. The possession of these weapons in unscrupulous hands is a more substantial threat than other types of weapons.
(I also just ran across "wheeee doggies!" I lol'd...
)absurdities . . .
I wonder what would happen if someone alerted on that post . . . not me, though.
not playing these reindeer games 
nope, not me.
of the porch and watch the fun... 
(<-- I just noticed the pumpkin winks; cool!)
...if a hunting rifle can do it with some luck. A .50 cal sniper rifle makes it even more easier. Why should we be backing things easier for those with criminal intent?
I disagree. First a .50 cal doesn't really make it easier.
The .50 gets a lot of attention just because it is BIG, as in high in mass. A high mass round is used to gain greater range. Sniper rifles have tremendous range because the sniper's typical job is to approach by stealth, send the round to the target and then leave undetected. It's that last part that gets easier with greater range. When you are far enough away that your position is not detectable, you are safer.
Of course those types of ranges limit accurate hits to only some very skilled individuals, usually military and law enforcement snipers. So it's not an issue that Bob the drug dealer can buy a .50 cal and kill someone a mile away because Bob the drug dealer has enough trouble shooting across the street.
- thank you for acknowledging the threat posed by these weapons to helicopters. »»for erroneously implying that .50 cal rifles in some way threaten helicopters more than any common hunting rifle. 
I love that word "glom".
Nuclear Unicorn.
....completely pass you by. I bet it didn't even ruffle the hairs on your head...
...in a building. And we're talking about a trained individual.
Please describe exactly the unique legitimate civilian use for this weapon.
You missed the memo...
You gonna work on banning those next?
Someone's been watching The Castle w/Robert Redford and James Gandolfini
I don't have that much spit right now.
With my current cold, however, I can probably do you a good deal in yellow phlegm. And maybe pink phlegm, too.
...what I do know is that video doesn't lie. There goes the whole idea that criminals can't easily obtain weapons under the current system. Sounds like we need some gun control reform
What's your point. Are you accusing NBC of running a fraudulent story? If you are, I suggested you contact NBC and make a complaint.
MSM would never run stories that contained unfactual, misleading, or outright false information.
They're bastions of righteousness, virtue, and truth. 
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1847322232?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAABQG3Vg~,V_GUfCcb0vbJS5HDzH1JKoJOAtUfNqwv&bctid=1459156622
Is it not this easy to get a dangerous fucking weapon?
...and until then asking questions that can't be answered really makes you look like you have a stick-up your you know what.
...describing the position of my side as hysterics, pretty much entitles my side to describe your side as lunacy.
...but others here on your side, yeah, they've posted some NRA-type stuff.
I think you're a little off-base in calling it hysterics though, it is factual. A few of the pro-gun posters have alleged that they are not without any proof to the contrary.
Complete with unsubtle scary music.
It was hysterical. People were advertising on-line that they had guns to sell, and they were looking for buyers. Buyers that would give them more than a gun dealer or pawn shop would.
The sellers weren't dealers, just average joes looking to turn guns back into cash so they could pay their mortgage or whatever. Or perhaps, even, they "saw the light" and decided to disavow gun ownership.
Regardless, this was treated as:
The tone of the narrator, the background music, the descriptions... all of the "Oh my God, you won't believe this! And you should be outraged!" variety.
That's my issue, as if this was some massive, hidden conspiracy by the NRA and the Koch Brothers to secretly overturn the law or something, when in fact private-sale laws have been in effect for decades and were unchanged and unaffected by the Brady Bill or the Assault Weapons Ban.
...and overblown piece of rhetoric the anti-gun side owns. They really need to look up the definition of "loophole" but I doubt such fact-based research is within the scope of those that can't let themselves be inconvenienced by technical accuracy. I'm certain the pearl clutchers would be horrified that I sold my XD40 to my father without a background check...
1. AK-47s are true assault rifles. An assault rifle is carbine length rifle operating by selection in either semi-auto or full-auto. They require special permits and tax stamps. If you own one and sell it in a parking lot without an FFL you're a fool.
2. Any small arms powerful enough to kill the pilot will take down a helicopter.
3. The police that I know favor the Glock 27. It is for sale at any gun shop to the public, no parking lot required.
4. A semiautomatic assault rifle is kind of like an honest politician, an oxymoron. Assault rifles come in select fire only.
Last a finally, none of us in the "gun nut club" sell to anyone with a terrorist ID badge, so they're going to have to deal with some of those "current and former NYC cops" or some such... who sold guns on the side.
My next stop is the "Have an idea for a future edition of Rossen Reports? We want to hear from you!" link. Maybe they'll entertain the idea of getting Mr. Rossen some training so in the future, he won't look like such an uninformed nebbish.
Naaahh.... It didn't get lost they sent it through a loophole.
How do the anti-gunners propose to close this so-called loophole? I'd love to hear a logical, practical mechanism for enforcement that even has a slight chance of seeing the light of day...
and any public nature is legitimacy, which provides a good public image to owning and bearing arms."
Exactly right -- and an understated point.
...then you might find something more recent. But that's .73 Caliber for a 12 gauge. I wonder when we'll see 60caliberterror.com come about due to the .600 Overkill cartridge/rifle becoming a popular DG tool...
And losing big.
