Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Senators say that the NRA is ready to cave on background checks. Anyone felt their hands recently?   (firstread.nbcnews.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, NRA, Democrats, background checks, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 12-step programs, gun registry, Chuck Schumer, NBC News  
•       •       •

5116 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 10:06 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



499 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-13 10:27:17 AM  

dittybopper: Have you never heard of "Prior Restraint"?

Explain to me why having to get government permission to exercise your right to own a gun is different from getting government permission to publish something.


Have you forgotten about Time, Place, and Manner regulations regarding the 1st? They clearly lay down precedent that our rights can be regulated regarding the time, place and manner in which we exercise them. There is also numerous case law regarding regulations for enumerated right in the constitution and bill of rights.

We can dance this dance if you want Ditty, I'll start dredging up case law if you want but the fact of the matter is that something like a background check is clearly within the powers of congress to enact, and the legislative to exact because ultimately it does not remove your right it only regulates when, where, and how you operate that right.

Mugato: You could have posted that earlier. I was just in a movie theater and thought it would be fun to yell "FIRE". Now they're calling the cops.


I thought it might be a good idea to go pitch a tent in the middle of the city and then complain when they remove me as a public nuisance that they are trampling on my right to peaceably assemble.
 
2013-03-13 10:27:50 AM  
I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm? Regarding the concern of 'neighbor-to-neighbor' (private sales), how does the seller know he is not selling to another 'James Holmes'? Wouldn't a seller want to know that?
 
2013-03-13 10:29:40 AM  

dittybopper: UberDave: On another note, where are you storing your black powder...or do you use pyrodex?

The ready supply is in the powder horn attached to the possibles bag, the 1 lb cans of it are downstairs in my old-fashioned chest that contains the various stuff that isn't in the shooting bag.

Possibles bag with powder horn is in the closet, away from the gun.

I have to use black powder because neither Triple 7 nor Pyrodex will reliably ignite in a flintlock.

I don't worry too much about leaving that stuff about because there is a specific sequence to load the gun, and unless you are knowledgeable about that sequence, pretty much nothing is going to happen.  Plus, you have to have some strength and a minimum size to be able to load it properly.

That, and unless you have built up the muscle memory to do it quickly, it's going to take you a while.  I can reload in something like 20 seconds, but I've practiced a lot, and reload time is important to me because I compete in timed events (primitive biathlons).

As far as the powder goes, so long as it's not contained, it's fairly safe to ignite.  It doesn't *KABOOM*, it just burns really, really fast.  I don't think you can get a *KABOOM* from any unrestricted black powder unless it's at least several tens of pounds, and you ignite it at the bottom of the pile.  Then you might get a bang, but it still wouldn't detonate, technically.



I realized questioning about pyrodex when you have a flintlock was kind of dumb.  :)

I'm just getting into muzzloading.  I hunted last season with a modern .50 using pyrodex (209 cap + pyrodex = no problems of course).  I almost have my Colonial .45 percussion lock finished (kit) and I'm about to order some 3f and was wondering about storing it per regulations.  You can get 30 grain charges of pyrodex for pistols but I want to go loose powder.  I'm torn between just keeping it locked away in a safe place in the house (not within regulations), or storing it over at my parent's house where I can store it within regs.  I know it's not a big deal but I have a munitions background and know quite a bit about explosives and the storage of said explosives so the stickler in me is hard to suppress.

And speaking of regulations, I wish it was easier for businesses to sell black powder.  I live in the largest city in Texas and *no one* sells it here.
 
2013-03-13 10:30:06 AM  

dittybopper: The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte. You don't get to pick and chose what you want. If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".


Where have you been?  The Bill of Rights has been more violated than Tiffany Tits in Backdoor Sluts XVII; the NRA's moral high ground has been a running gag for years.  The NRA let Congress dismantle habeas corpus without so much as a sneeze.  And if the government can imprison you indefinitely without cause, the 2nd Amendment is worth as much as toilet paper.  Habeas corpus was considered by our Founding Fathers to be such an essential right that it wasn't even in the Bill of Rights -- it was such a no-brainer that they didn't miss the chance to put it in the Constitution's first draft.  Did anyone -- ANYONE in that gargantuan group manage to put 2 and 2 together?  You can be a "law-abiding citizen" with a gun and be thrown in jail for failure to pay a parking ticket.  And go to jail you will, because all the use of the gun gets you is a date with SWAT and a bunch of other charges that have nothing to do with possessing the gun and everything to do with using it against the friendly badged fellows dropping by to show you just how much your precious rights are worth to them.  Now granted I haven't heard something to that effect happening, but if "slippery slopes" are what they're afraid of, it's one hell of a whopper.  Technically the government now doesn't even need gun control laws to put all gun owners in jail (because they can put anyone in jail), and for all the "protecting our freedoms" hoopla they're supposedly about, the historical precedent for actually using said weapons in defense of freedom is atrocious.

I'd take the NRA's arguments a lot more seriously if they gave any indication that they knew or cared about what the hell they were doing.  The 2nd Amendment is the least important right as far as actually owning weapons goes -- the 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th, 14th and habeas corpus are ALL far more important -- so you'd think the NRA would fight for those tooth and nail.  But if they're Constitutional scholars then my name is Mickey Mouse.
 
2013-03-13 10:30:34 AM  

Bravo Two: dittybopper: Rurouni: Umm...Texan here - I'm pretty sure they already do background checks...even here. I know this because I wait at a Cabela's for 2 hours a few months ago while they ran my friend's background with the ATF...

If you buy from a dealer, they are required by federal law.

This is about making it required for *ALL* transactions, even between private individuals.

Easy answer: Only states can write in that proviso, since the federal government only has the authority to regulate interstate transactions, not internal transactions.


Yeah, like the Commerce Clause is any barrier to that.   The Supreme Court has already ruled that activity that happens purely within a single state (like the growing and smoking of pot for purely personal use) can be criminalized under the Commerce Clause.
 
2013-03-13 10:30:37 AM  
So not only do we have the NRA denying this.... This from the actual blog makes it pretty laughable.


Senators negotiating a bill mandating background checks for all gun buyers are privately expecting the National Rifle Association not to fight the measure -- provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks, NBC News has learned.


So do the checks but never be required to be able to prove you did. Brilliant.
 
2013-03-13 10:30:40 AM  

Thunderpipes: I am as strong a supporter of the 2nd amendment as there is. All my weapons needed a check. I don't see the problem with that.

But..... I see the slippery slope thing. First the background check stuff, then something else, then something else, then like that moron Democrat idea to make buying ammo require anger management courses, etc....

And yet, to elect politicians, asking for ID is a sin, according to the same people who want gun control.


If "voter fraud" ever becomes a real thing, like criminals who shouldn't have guns obtaining them easily actually is, we'll talk.
 
2013-03-13 10:31:28 AM  

dittybopper: vpb: Nope.  Even voting requires regiatration.

Nice to see the Violence Policy Center weighing in.  So, is this Tom, Kristen, or Josh?  You never answered my question.

Voting isn't an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights, btw, so it's not exactly analogous, but you knew that, didn't you?

You don't have to pass a background check every time you vote, either.  I know, because I vote.

Stop trying to equate the two things.  If you could guarantee me that a simple registration that would never be used to disenfranchise a person from their right to own a firearm could be possible, I *MIGHT* go for something like that, after a lobotomy that removes all of my historical knowledge about how registration has been used for confiscations elsewhere, and how it's been used for "soft" confiscations even here in the US.

/Soft confiscation is the outlawing of possession of something, without just compensation, on the theory that you could sell it to someone in an area where they aren't outlawed.


Although added later than the Bill of Rights, the constitution declares voting to be a right. Just because it wasn't added at the beginning doesn't mean it is less important or less of a right than any of the things mentioned in the first ten amendments.

Voting is exactly analogous. They are both rights; voting maybe moreso as it's mentioned in more than one amendment.
 
2013-03-13 10:31:50 AM  

weave: dittybopper: No they didn't:

Damn it. I got all excited, thinking I was actually seeing a compromise where both sides drop their more radical stands and move to the center.


Uh, a "radical stance" from the gun control lobby would be the demand that we ban all future weapon sales and declare the NRA a terrorist organization.

One side is really far from the center in this case.  Guess which one it is.
 
2013-03-13 10:32:05 AM  

ferretman: I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm? Regarding the concern of 'neighbor-to-neighbor' (private sales), how does the seller know he is not selling to another 'James Holmes'? Wouldn't a seller want to know that?


In the end, civil liabilities will probably crop up. You can sell a car to a mentally-ill person because a car has numerous uses. You will probably will be held to have civil liabilities for selling a gun to a mentally-ill person who goes out and kills with the gun.

It's probably coming. Lawyers need money. The only thing that has prevented it so far is private sellers--at least some of them--don't have a lot of assets to take away in civil court. But gunshow sellers probably do.
 
2013-03-13 10:32:39 AM  
Only a matter of time until that nut is cracked.

And there will be no popular uprising, you're not very popular.
 
2013-03-13 10:33:06 AM  

jso2897: Thunderpipes: I am as strong a supporter of the 2nd amendment as there is. All my weapons needed a check. I don't see the problem with that.

But..... I see the slippery slope thing. First the background check stuff, then something else, then something else, then like that moron Democrat idea to make buying ammo require anger management courses, etc....

And yet, to elect politicians, asking for ID is a sin, according to the same people who want gun control.

If "voter fraud" ever becomes a real thing, like criminals who shouldn't have guns obtaining them easily actually is, we'll talk.


Like Melowese Richardson  who just got indicted for voting 6 times, for Obama? A democratic poll worker no less? Oh, they are investigating more widespread voter fraud there as well?
 
2013-03-13 10:33:41 AM  

Mark Ratner: Background checks still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.


It might have made a difference in Aurora and at Virginia Tech.

Also, Link
 
2013-03-13 10:34:10 AM  

dittybopper: No they didn't:

An article appearing today on NBCNews.com is falsely reporting that NRA will not oppose legislation being negotiated in the U.S. Senate that would mandate background checks for all gun purchasers.

The posted on NBCNews.com alleges that NRA will not oppose expanding the background check system to include all private firearm sales, "provided the legislation does not require private gun sellers to maintain records of the checks".  This statement is completely untrue.  The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.


Straight from the Horse's mouth:

Statement from Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director, regarding inaccurate NBC story alleging that NRA won't oppose background check bill


Just like how the NRA was against mandatory trigger locks as an infringement of the Second Amendment?

They dropped that opposition when the bill requiring trigger locks also  immunized gun makers against lawsuits.

You know - because they're for gun owners, not the gun industry.
 
2013-03-13 10:34:18 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: In the end, civil liabilities will probably crop up. You can sell a car to a mentally-ill person because a car has numerous uses. You will probably will be held to have civil liabilities for selling a gun to a mentally-ill person who goes out and kills with the gun.


Gun insurance.

its coming, just give it time.
 
2013-03-13 10:34:47 AM  

jso2897: Thunderpipes: I am as strong a supporter of the 2nd amendment as there is. All my weapons needed a check. I don't see the problem with that.

But..... I see the slippery slope thing. First the background check stuff, then something else, then something else, then like that moron Democrat idea to make buying ammo require anger management courses, etc....

And yet, to elect politicians, asking for ID is a sin, according to the same people who want gun control.

If "voter fraud" ever becomes a real thing, like criminals who shouldn't have guns obtaining them easily actually is, we'll talk.


Don't question the analogy.  It's a flawless analogy.  I came up with it myself.  I am a master of logic.
 
2013-03-13 10:35:14 AM  

ferretman: I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm? Regarding the concern of 'neighbor-to-neighbor' (private sales), how does the seller know he is not selling to another 'James Holmes'? Wouldn't a seller want to know that?


From your profile, you're in New Jersey. Those are state-level requirements.

Most states have relatively few state-level laws and defer to the feds. The feds say, in essence, "if you buy a gun from a licensed dealer (i.e. a gun shop), you must undergo a background check".

Your concern for private sales is a valid one, but from what I've read most private transfers are not between random strangers: most are between family members, good friends, or other people who know each other well. It's already illegal to transfer firearms to those prohibited from owning them and it's impossible for anyone (even with a background check!) to predict the future actions of someone else.
 
2013-03-13 10:35:45 AM  

ferretman: I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm? Regarding the concern of 'neighbor-to-neighbor' (private sales), how does the seller know he is not selling to another 'James Holmes'? Wouldn't a seller want to know that?


So did I, at the gun store. But you can go to a gun show wearing a Hannibal Lecter mask and blood soaked overalls and buy an M-16.
 
2013-03-13 10:35:59 AM  

dittybopper: MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte. You don't get to pick and chose what you want. If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.

Or have you forgotten how SCOTUS works?

Have you never heard of "Prior Restraint"?

Explain to me why having to get government permission to exercise your right to own a gun is different from getting government permission to publish something.


normally we some stuff in common, our love of firearms and bushcraft for example, so i am giving all due respect...

You have to get permission from the government to own and operate a vehicle and the process to do those is a lot more invasive than to own a firearm...
 
2013-03-13 10:36:15 AM  

TheShavingofOccam123: ferretman: I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm? Regarding the concern of 'neighbor-to-neighbor' (private sales), how does the seller know he is not selling to another 'James Holmes'? Wouldn't a seller want to know that?

In the end, civil liabilities will probably crop up. You can sell a car to a mentally-ill person because a car has numerous uses. You will probably will be held to have civil liabilities for selling a gun to a mentally-ill person who goes out and kills with the gun.

It's probably coming. Lawyers need money. The only thing that has prevented it so far is private sellers--at least some of them--don't have a lot of assets to take away in civil court. But gunshow sellers probably do.


Medical records and fingerprints are not always, and should not be the norm.

Think the people who wrote the Constitution were for the idea that the government has to investigate and book you for you to earn one of the most important rights? Why don't we collect medical records and fingerprint voters, or the press, or protesters?
 
2013-03-13 10:36:15 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: Have you never heard of "Prior Restraint"?

Explain to me why having to get government permission to exercise your right to own a gun is different from getting government permission to publish something.

Have you forgotten about Time, Place, and Manner regulations regarding the 1st? They clearly lay down precedent that our rights can be regulated regarding the time, place and manner in which we exercise them. There is also numerous case law regarding regulations for enumerated right in the constitution and bill of rights.

We can dance this dance if you want Ditty, I'll start dredging up case law if you want but the fact of the matter is that something like a background check is clearly within the powers of congress to enact, and the legislative to exact because ultimately it does not remove your right it only regulates when, where, and how you operate that right.

Mugato: You could have posted that earlier. I was just in a movie theater and thought it would be fun to yell "FIRE". Now they're calling the cops.

I thought it might be a good idea to go pitch a tent in the middle of the city and then complain when they remove me as a public nuisance that they are trampling on my right to peaceably assemble.


What time, place, and manner restrictions could possibly pertain to the simple act of purchasing a gun?

We don't place time, place, and manner restrictions on purchasing a computer, camera, or a newspaper, or something like that.  They merely narrowly define the circumstances where you can't use them, like in a court room, or a SCIF, or a jail.

That's more analogous to the restrictions against taking a gun into a school, or a government office building or court room.  No body has a problem with laws like that, BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND YOU *KNOW* THAT.
 
2013-03-13 10:36:44 AM  
Meawhile,

occupycorporatism.com

3.bp.blogspot.com

occupycorporatism.com

assets.nydailynews.com
 
2013-03-13 10:36:59 AM  
Good to know our 4th branch of Government is willing to negotiate.
 
2013-03-13 10:38:06 AM  

dittybopper: It was done in a slimy manner, too: Senator Schumer introduced the bill 2 week ago, but it had no substance, it was merely a statement of general principles.

He introduced the actual text of the bill as an amendment yesterday, right before the vote.


Holy fark, that's scummy.  Seriously a scumbag move.

Introduce an essentially blank bill, then an "amendment" which is virtually the entire text of the bill right before the actual vote?

That's as bad, or worse, than those "poison pill" amendments that get stuck on bills like the Republicans tacking ". . .and repeal Obamacare" onto everything.
 
2013-03-13 10:38:56 AM  

dr_blasto: Although added later than the Bill of Rights, the constitution declares voting to be a right. Just because it wasn't added at the beginning doesn't mean it is less important or less of a right than any of the things mentioned in the first ten amendments.

Voting is exactly analogous. They are both rights; voting maybe moreso as it's mentioned in more than one amendment.


Then I assume you would have no problem with showing a picture ID and having a quick instant background check done on you when you vote, just to make sure you are who you say you are, that you still live in that particular political subdivision, and that you are still eligible to vote, right?
 
2013-03-13 10:39:06 AM  

Mugato: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.

You could have posted that earlier. I was just in a movie theater and thought it would be fun to yell "FIRE". Now they're calling the cops.


So your method of speech is not limited(voice, pen, keyboard, etc...), but your use of speech is?

My use of the RKBA is currently limited(brandishing a firearm, threatening with a firearm, committing a murder with a firearm), now they want to limit my method of the RKBA(type of firearm, capacity of magazine, things that go up and pistol grips).
 
2013-03-13 10:39:13 AM  

CeroX: dittybopper: MyKingdomForYourHorse: dittybopper: The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte. You don't get to pick and chose what you want. If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Every right enumerated can be subjected to regulation and restriction from the 1st all the on through the rest.

Or have you forgotten how SCOTUS works?

Have you never heard of "Prior Restraint"?

Explain to me why having to get government permission to exercise your right to own a gun is different from getting government permission to publish something.

normally we some stuff in common, our love of firearms and bushcraft for example, so i am giving all due respect...

You have to get permission from the government to own and operate a vehicle and the process to do those is a lot more invasive than to own a firearm...


Invasive? I mail in a form with the VIN number, bill of sale. No background check needed. Drivers' license? I pass a test when I am 16. Good for life. Renew it online every 4 years.  All of that is also optional, and not anywhere in the Constitution.
 
2013-03-13 10:39:32 AM  
The NRA;
For universal background checks before they were against them.
 
2013-03-13 10:39:54 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Also, Link


touche...but the article mentioned the Sandy Hook shooting as to why more is trying to be done to prevent future mass shootings. Like someone commented above, I thought you already had to go through a pretty extensive background check to legally buy a gun.
 
2013-03-13 10:40:03 AM  
extras.mnginteractive.com

a.abcnews.com

rhhr.files.wordpress.com

www.lostrepublic.us

Disarm law abiding Americans. Continue militarizing police. Seems legit.
 
2013-03-13 10:40:05 AM  

Mugato: ferretman: I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm? Regarding the concern of 'neighbor-to-neighbor' (private sales), how does the seller know he is not selling to another 'James Holmes'? Wouldn't a seller want to know that?

So did I, at the gun store. But you can go to a gun show wearing a Hannibal Lecter mask and blood soaked overalls and buy an M-16.


Nice derp.
 
2013-03-13 10:40:15 AM  

dittybopper: mysticcat: Oh, and fark the NRA

/gun owner

Oh, you're one of *THOSE*.

I bet you hated that they water-down the law on armor-piercing bullets, didn't you?  Never mind that as originally written it would have banned every center-fire rifle.


If you mean "one of those" people who sees the NRA as a shill for the firearms industry rather than a group with the public interest at heart, then yes,I'm one of those.

The final straw for me was when they poured several hundred thousand dollars into a  local state representative race to defeat a candidate with a long record of excellent public service simply because she voted to table a measure on "guns in trunks" at the workplace.  The installed a moron who had run several businesses into bankruptcy, instead.  That kind of unyielding capricious power is not good for society.
 
2013-03-13 10:41:44 AM  
This group disagrees on background checks: They wanna take our guns!

s3.vidimg02.popscreen.com
 
2013-03-13 10:41:46 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Mark Ratner: Background checks still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.

It might have made a difference in Aurora and at Virginia Tech.

Also, Link


Except that Cho went through background checks and I am pretty sure that SSB did as well.
 
2013-03-13 10:42:07 AM  

Thunderpipes: TheShavingofOccam123: ferretman: I am confused. As a recent gun owner, I had to undergo a background check, release mental health files and get finger-printed. Is this not the norm? Regarding the concern of 'neighbor-to-neighbor' (private sales), how does the seller know he is not selling to another 'James Holmes'? Wouldn't a seller want to know that?

In the end, civil liabilities will probably crop up. You can sell a car to a mentally-ill person because a car has numerous uses. You will probably will be held to have civil liabilities for selling a gun to a mentally-ill person who goes out and kills with the gun.

It's probably coming. Lawyers need money. The only thing that has prevented it so far is private sellers--at least some of them--don't have a lot of assets to take away in civil court. But gunshow sellers probably do.

Medical records and fingerprints are not always, and should not be the norm.

Think the people who wrote the Constitution were for the idea that the government has to investigate and book you for you to earn one of the most important rights?


 To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


They were for the idea of Congress and the States controlling the militia, obviously. Even arming the militia.
 
2013-03-13 10:42:13 AM  
Background checks do not "infringe" on any right to bear arms. All background checks do is reveal whom is disqualified from owning a firearm. It is the laws that disqualify individuals from gun ownership that do the infringing.

Simply put, any argument that background checks are unconstitutional ignores the plain language of the 2nd amendment.
 
2013-03-13 10:42:14 AM  

Mugato: But you can go to a gun show wearing a Hannibal Lecter mask and blood soaked overalls and buy an M-16.


No, you can't.
 
2013-03-13 10:43:08 AM  

dittybopper: How requiring government approval prior to getting an abortion?


Are you kidding me? Seriously? HAVE YOU SEEN THE DAMN LAWS THE REPUBS ARE PASSING IN RED STATES!?!?! You really think that right now I can just walk into my local Planned Parenthood and walk out baby-free without the Government intruding on that? Like forcing a woman to watch and listen to an ultrasound, making her wait at least 24 hours (the new fashion is laws that make her wait 72, NOT COUNTING WEEKENDS OR HOLIDAYS), trasnvaginal ultrasounds which force ultrasound wands up a woman's vagina whether she wants to have the procedure or not?

You are a moron of the highest degree. Go back to your cave, you troll.
 
2013-03-13 10:43:23 AM  

Mark Ratner: Background checks still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.


she shouldve had her weapons in a safe, as i recall. that wouldve done it.

dittybopper coming up with hypothetical use cases as to why BG checks or legislation against straw purchases is no good is unconvincing. There are always use cases where legislation, when its discussed in bullet point format, will fail. thats why laws are so complicated and debated by lawyers and have so many sub clauses etc etc...

coming up with a hypothetical scenario where something may fail is not rhetorically convincing. Nor is it pragmatic, it just makes one appear obstructionist.

 i have a safe full of C&R weapons. I check the safe ... a lot. I love cleaning stuff, checking for rust.. if someone broke into my house and robbed my safe youre damn straight id know about it in a day, and so would you. Not wanting to try to strengthen safeguards against straw purchases because "someone might become a victim if their stuff is robbed while theyre on vacation" is pretty easily fixed, you have a provisional clause in the law which states if the owner can prove he was on vacay at the time of the theft/crime its not applicable. or something like this.

indeed, while firearm ownership is a RIGHT it is also a huge RESPONSIBILITY, and if we want to exercise our rights in this regard, this has responsibilities attached to it, too. And if you have the Right to own a gun, we must accept the responsibility to secure it so mentally deranged and thieves cant steal them and commit crimes with them. And if they do, and we are unaware of the guns being stolen, thats negligence. If you have a collection, its your responsibility to know whats up with it and keep it inventoried.
 
2013-03-13 10:43:27 AM  

dittybopper: dr_blasto: Although added later than the Bill of Rights, the constitution declares voting to be a right. Just because it wasn't added at the beginning doesn't mean it is less important or less of a right than any of the things mentioned in the first ten amendments.

Voting is exactly analogous. They are both rights; voting maybe moreso as it's mentioned in more than one amendment.

Then I assume you would have no problem with showing a picture ID and having a quick instant background check done on you when you vote, just to make sure you are who you say you are, that you still live in that particular political subdivision, and that you are still eligible to vote, right?


Which is more rampant, voter fraud or homicide? I would bet my house on voter fraud. Which has more impact on me, guns or politicians? Politicians by a mile. Sure, I could get gunned down in a random drive by here in dangerous Vermont. But I see my taxes going up year after year for sure. (Burlington and Winooski ship in hundreds of African refugees and their families on full aid, and they are somehow voting, imagine that). We have a few homicides a year at most. Bet you we have thousands of cases of voter fraud.
 
2013-03-13 10:43:28 AM  

dragonchild: The NRA let Congress dismantle habeas corpus without so much as a sneeze.


The NRA is a one issue group, they defend the second amendment. Your outrage should be directed at the ACLU who defends every right but the right to keep and bear arms.
 
2013-03-13 10:43:35 AM  

jso2897: If "voter fraud" ever becomes a real thing, like criminals who shouldn't have guns obtaining them easily actually is, we'll talk.


Yeah, it isn't like some poll worker in Ohio will vote 6 times or more.
 
2013-03-13 10:43:53 AM  
images.topix.com
 
2013-03-13 10:44:50 AM  

dittybopper: SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks

Bad idea.  Very bad idea.  That turns what is an enumerated right into a government granted privilege.  Would you argue the same thing for a computer and internet connection?  That you must get government permission to post on the internet so that they know you aren't a subversive?  Or how about requiring a background check before you can assert your rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?  How requiring government approval prior to getting an abortion?

The Bill of Rights isn't a la carte.  You don't get to pick and chose what you want.  If you seriously weaken the Second Amendment, you weaken *ALL* of the Bill of Rights, because people can say "Hey, we did it with *THIS* one, why can't we do it with the other one?".

Plus, there are numerous difficulties in implementing it.   You can do it under the general police powers at the state level, but it gets a bit dicier at the federal level, because you have to rationalize it under the Commerce Clause.  You can make that argument, and it might fly, but it's not a slam dunk.

Then you have the "You can make your own gun" loophole.  It's legal, and thousands of people do it every year.   It's only going to become easier with 3D printing of major parts.  For example, Defense Distributed just tested an AR-15 lower receiver (the part that is legally the gun) that they printed out on a 3D printer to over 600 rounds of full power ammunition.

Besides that, building something like a semi-auto handgun or a revolver only requires the ability to make a frame, and to purchase all the other parts, which are uncontrolled.  Anyone with some decent used machine tools can do that now. I know someone who made a Colt Commander-style 1911 from spare parts, and a rough casting of the frame.  He used mainly a drill press, a grinder, and hand files.

2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, acciden ...


Welcome to my favorite's list.
 
2013-03-13 10:46:00 AM  

dittybopper: mysticcat: Oh, and fark the NRA

/gun owner

Oh, you're one of *THOSE*.

I bet you hated that they water-down the law on armor-piercing bullets, didn't you?  Never mind that as originally written it would have banned every center-fire rifle.


Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Setting aside politics for a moment - there's an opportunity to do some cool tech things. Like, if I have a gun, and I want to sell it to someone, I could get a private key tied to both my name and the serial number of the gun from any, lets say fire department because we have them everywhere and they're pretty neutral. The buyer could get another unique number valid for a few days showing that they have the legal right to buy a gun.

Then, I meet someone over the internet who wants to buy the gun, drive over to see them, type their unique key into my phone, see their driver's license pic pop up on my phone, and know they aren't a felon without needing to know anything else about them, even their name. They type my number in and see my picture with the serial number of the gun, so they know it's not stolen, I legally have it, etc. You could do it from anywhere (and at a library, fire station, etc).

I mean, yeah, it has lots of holes - it relies on two people wanting to engage in a legal transaction, but pretty much any regulation would require that anyway. And I'm sure people would think of better things. Like if you got a key, and then your key was signed with the other person's key on transfer, you could have proof you sold a gun to someone without any registration. If the cops came knocking on your door, you could just show them a digital certificate.


This.  I don't have a problem with background checks at all.  Current technology could make them instant and unobtrusive, and like regular background checks they don't need to keep a federal record of your gun either.

In fact, if I were to sell a gun on a website or at a show, I would want to do a check of who the person is.  It would just make me feel better.
 
2013-03-13 10:46:21 AM  
The same NBC that made up a video showing George Zimmerman executing TrayTray the Angelic from 30 feet away?

The same NBC that also re-edited a 911 call to "show" that Zimmerman's first thought was that "he's black"?

Uh huh.  Going to rush out and cancel my NRA membership over this article for fo SHU!
 
2013-03-13 10:46:26 AM  

Mugato: So did I, at the gun store. But you can go to a gun show wearing a Hannibal Lecter mask and blood soaked overalls and buy an M-16.


It is a felony to purchase an NFA item without proper documentation and tax stamp from the ATF.
 
2013-03-13 10:46:51 AM  

Dadoody: [extras.mnginteractive.com image 600x330]

[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

[rhhr.files.wordpress.com image 410x350]

[www.lostrepublic.us image 480x360]

Disarm law abiding Americans. Continue militarizing police. Seems legit.


Why do libs like you hate our men and women in uniform out there protecting us?  Without the troops, Saddam Hussein could just waltz in here and make you eat cous cous.  Mexicans would charge across our borders and put eggs on the cous cous - forming some horrific huevos rancheros cous cous type fusion dish.  Do you want to eat that?

That's why I thank the Department of Homeland Security out there protecting our homeland from evil-doers that create things like North Korean tacos.
 
2013-03-13 10:47:15 AM  

Father_Jack: she shouldve had her weapons in a safe, as i recall. that wouldve done it.


Is there evidence that she didn't? I live in Europe so I don't follow all the details in the news, but as far as I've read nobody's reported any details about how the firearms were stored or how the shooter gained access to the safe. (Most gun safes are not difficult to force open with basic hand tools, his mother may have told him where the key is or what the combination was [that is, he could be authorized to open the safe], or he could have discovered the key or combination through other means.)
 
2013-03-13 10:49:22 AM  

dittybopper: That's more analogous to the restrictions against taking a gun into a school, or a government office building or court room. No body has a problem with laws like that, BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND YOU *KNOW* THAT.


Actually that is exactly what we are talking about, you just refuse to accept reality.

But that's ok, most ardent proponents of the 2nd often are out of touch with the reality of supreme court case law and how it can effect enumerated rights in the constitution and bill of rights.

Giltric: My use of the RKBA is currently limited(brandishing a firearm, threatening with a firearm, committing a murder with a firearm), now they want to limit my method of the RKBA(type of firearm, capacity of magazine, things that go up and pistol grips).


And yes they do, and yes it is completely constitutional because ultimately they could limit everyone to a one shot powder only musket and it would pass constitutional muster because technically speaking you can still operate your right to keep and bear arms. No where in there is a clause that assures you can have whatever arms you want.

Because honestly if that were the case, I would so totally be driving to work in a Soviet made T-80U. You can get them relatively cheap on the world wide market.
 
Displayed 50 of 499 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report