Anopsis

No pics since August? C'mon, don't let this die! Chronofighter Diver Bell & Ross BR-02 111H 341 Egi Omega PO

and in typical 'gen-owner-fashion' nobody there even noticed.

Thanks Pugwash, I appreciate where you're coming from. I'm cool with it. Here's how the process works. We'll start with the assumption that he's picked out a gun, etc. Buyer fills out ATF form 4473. (PDF for review) Dealer reviews the form for completeness and verifies the appropriate questions are answered correctly. Dealer performs NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) check by contacting the FBI system directly by phone and will do the following: 1) Call a NICS operator and confirm his identity with his FFL number and dealer-selected password. 2) Provide the operator with the name, date-of-birth, sex and race of the potential buyer and the type of transfer--handgun or long gun. A buyer with a common name may, at his option, provide his Social Security number to help speed the check. 3) The system will check the data against its database of prohibited persons. If there is no "hit," the sale will be approved. The system will assign a NICS Transaction Number (NTN) to the approval. The dealer will log the NTN on the form 4473, and the transfer will proceed. 4) Partially completed forms 4473, where a proposed sale has been denied, will be required to be retained by the FFL per BATF regulations. 5) When a "hit" occurs, the dealer will receive instruction to delay the transaction. A "delay" response indicates that the check turned up information that requires further review by an analyst, who will contact the dealer by return call. While the law provides three business days for the FBI to respond, the FBI anticipates that virtually every delay will be handled within a day. If records require further investigation, the FBI may take up to three days to issue either a proceed or a denial. There will be an appeals process for purchasers who feel they were denied in error, and dealers will be furnished with forms for this process. If the check is successful the personally-identifying information given to the NICS center is destroyed by the FBI within 24 hours. The completed form 4473 remains in the dealer's filing system indefinitely. Note that no firearm(s) serial numbers were given to the NICS center, only the type was identified (hand gun or long gun). The SN is recorded on the 4473 which is retained by the dealer only. If everything goes smoothly the entire process takes about 10 minutes and the buyer goes out the door with the firearm. Now here's where things get interesting. There is no registry of firearms, so the only place the buyer's name and that gun's serial number are connected is on the 4473 in the dealer's records. Now let's suppose this gun (we'll say it's a Smith & Wesson) turned up at a crime scene. Here's how a firearms trace works. ATF contacts S&W and provides them with the SN of the firearm S&W reports that the firearm was sold to Davidson's Wholesale in Prescott, AZ (just tossing out examples here) ATF contacts Davidson's and asks for the purchaser of the S&W Davidson's reports that it was sold to The Gun Vault in Bowling Green, KY (my old store) ATF contacts The Gun Vault and requests the same information Dealer retrieves customer information from his records and provides it to the ATF. ATF contacts that person to inquire about the status of the S&W Buyer reports that he sold it to a pawn shop ATF contacts the pawn shop... etc. It's an incredibly long process but it prevents the government from maintaining a database of what we, as individuals, own. The resistance to the creation of a national registry is that if unconstitutional bans are enforced the government would have a list of who has what, making it much easier for them to raid/confiscate/etc. I hope you found this an interesting read, and please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers!

Of course you didn't, because guns aren't really gone there. Wow, just ... wow. You have now shown your true feelings on guns and enthusiasts. Only someone with a warped view of gun owners would even THINK that such an occurrence would be considered "glorious". No law-abiding gun owners are looking to be martyrs, I can promise you that. Oh, if that were only true. The anti-gunners in America are always looking for the next step with the ultimate goal of complete disarmament. Example: First "they" pushed that "assault rifles" were so deadly because they were capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute and were designed to "spray bullets". Our collective response was that a full-auto machinegun is illegal, and those guns with the APPEARANCE of "assault rifles" are in fact semi-auto guns that can only fire one shot with each pull of the trigger. Their response? Now they claim semi-autos are MORE DEADLY, because the slower rate of fire means that the shooter is more likely to hit his target rather than spraying around them. The well-known, well-publicized agenda of groups like The Violence Policy Center, the Brady Campaign, et al., is the total ban of all firearms. The big recent news is the overturning of the law in Washington DC that prohibited the owning of a handgun. You can't say "no-one is going to take away your handguns" because in some areas it has already occurred. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina there was a door-to-door illegal gun confiscation in New Orleans. An elderly woman was slammed to the ground in her home over her late husband's small revolver. "No one will be able to be armed. We will take all weapons. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." - New Orleans Mayor Nagin and Police Superintendent Compass. They are, and have been, since 1986. I'm new to this forum and I don't want to make myself an unwelcome guest, nor do I wish to be perceived as attempting to shout anyone down, so I think at this point we should agree to disagree and get back to talking about watches. It's obvious you nor I will change the other's mind!

I disagree that the point is invalidated, as they are hypothetical situations. What would you be willing to give up to reduce crime/global warming/whatever your cause? I am fully aware that the circumstances under which our country was born so tightly ingrain firearms into the American culture that most of us would never willingly give up those guns. I honestly believe that a mandatory, door-to-door confiscation of firearms in America would result in a revolution. I have guns that I made or bought and feel attached to for various reasons, but then I have guns my father and grandfather, etc. made that I would defend with my life. If a detail appeared at my front door and said "We're here for your guns, turn them over now" it would become an armed standoff. Those of us that are enthusiasts see the 2nd Amendment as the one that guarantees all others; something that our country was built upon and IS NOT open to negotiation or "re-interpretation".

Nice work! Are those chrono subdials at the bottom?

Ah, but this is the slippery slope of tightening restrictions - at what point do you lose rights so that you have none left? Are you willing to not be allowed cars if it means less motor vehicle accidents? Are you willing to not be allowed alcohol if it means less drunk drivers? Are you willing to not be allowed male genitalia if it means less rape? Okay, that one was a bit extreme but it serves to illustrate my point. That is a very valid point; perception is key. Growing up in rural America I have spent my entire life around guns. I have friends of varying origin that have never seen nor held an actual gun and are terrified of them. This is why I hate the fear-mongering of the general news media brought about by using sensationalistic statements such as the aforementioned 'hail of bullets' and the like. When a crime is committed with a firearm the media constantly refer to the criminal as "the gunman". If he used a knife would they call him "the knifeman"? Of course not. Regardless of his tools he's still a criminal. [/mediarant]

I'm not sure what you mean by real, but I'm aware most would consider me to be so. However I hope I'm not being perceived as attempting to 'shout anyone down'. I do have strong feelings regarding gun ownership and I love to debate it, but only in a polite, educated manner.

Right, so here's an idea - let's make it illegal to steal them and then use them in a crime! That will help! Just kidding, I know what you mean (I just couldn't help it). The old quote which still holds as true as ever is "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". Further tightening the gunlaws will only serve to restrict the law-abiding gunowners from obtaining them. It has no effect on criminals who, by definition, tend to have little regard for the law. Very rarely is it a one-owner, store-bought gun that a criminal uses.

I like this site: http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com They've been keeping an AR-15 under observation 24/7 for years, and it hasn't killed anyone yet. Whenever concealed carry laws have been passed in the states the anti-gunners start screaming about how it will become "the old west" with gunfights on every streetcorner or at every occurrence of 'road rage'. The fact is that licensed concealed-carriers are the safest of the lot. If someone has gone to the trouble and expense to get licensed to carry then they should have a good grasp on the weight of responsibility that comes with it. I tell my students that (back when my store was open) every day when I'm getting ready for work and put my gun in my holster, I think about the fact that by that night I may have had to take someone's life. That is a very somber, very sobering thought. It's a tremendous responsibility that cannot be taken lightly. I believe anyone who has been properly trained understands that the firearm is the last option, not the first.

60mm, 285g with sharp studs on the bezel. People who shouldn't own firearms can't. No felonies, no misdemeanors for domestic violence, etc. There are several rules and regs in place to address these things. Quite often a problem we have in the states is simple ignorance of the laws that are already on the books (such as my earlier post regarding machineguns). Many states require gunlocks or trigger locks, etc. If a kid steals a car and kills someone with it do people go after the parents for not taking proper steps to hide the keys? A Federal background check must be completed and passed in order to purchase a gun from any store. Also, as a dealer, I have the right to refuse to sell to anyone for any reason. I will say that I have exercised that right several times, too! As an aside, please do not take the friendly debate as hostile. I just enjoy the discourse.

I apologize for not being more clear. The term is MISUSED and the firearms I am talking about are being MISLABELED as such. From your quote above "selective-fire" does not apply to AR-15s, AK-"type" rifles, SKS, etc. that the general populace may own. I hear people say "I'm in favor of tighter gun laws, because I don't think anyone needs a machinegun." and I have to explain to them that Class III weapons have been tightly regulated since 1986 and are generally illegal for the general populace to own. The media sensationalizes a bank robbery by saying the perp used an "SKS assault rifle, which is designed to spray a deadly hail of bullets" when in actuality it's semi-auto with a 10 round attached mag. By your logic you don't need to own a collection of watches; "A" watch would suffice. But you have more than one... why? Are some better suited to a particular use than others? Do you simply like collecting them and appreciate them for their variety, style, etc.? These factors are the same regardless of what is being "collected". Having a collection of firearms or larger-caliber weapons should not be a factor. I can only shoot one gun at a time, so what's the concern about having more than one? And as for large caliber, please find a news article where someone committed a crime with a .50BMG... it just doesn't happen. No one commits a crime with a five-foot-long gun weighing ~35lbs. EDIT TO ADD: Here's a pic of me with my 'large caliber' weapon that you apparently don't think I should have. Gallery here: http://photobucket.com/anopsis_steyr

Superocean Steelfish today.

The media and the anti-gun community have created the term "assault rifle" as well. There is no such category of arms. What constitutes an assault rifle? A black finish? Some pro-gunners have suggested we refer to AR-15s and the like as "Homeland Defense" rifles. I personally like the ring of that. Very nice Delta Elite. I seldom see them looking this good anymore. I carry 230gr Winchester SXTs (RA45T - you know what the 'T' is. ) In our state this is addressed thusly: When defending one's self, a person may use deadly force based on how the situation appears to be, regardless of whether or not it is actually so. In defense of others it changes to what the situation factually is. This allows room to protect one's self and be wrong about the circumstances while creating some liability for acting in another's defense. The logic here is represented in this example: On a darkened street one night you encounter two individuals, one with a gun and appears to be about to shoot the other. While this may appear to be a crime in progress the actual situation is an undercover police officer is apprehending a dangerous criminal. If you acted according to how the situation appeared and shot the police officer then you are liable for it. Apologies to the OP for getting somewhat away from the roll of quarters but I am quite enjoying learning about these issues outside of the US!

Nice score! You could also just work for free, or hand your "pay" right back to them.