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 50
    More: Interesting, NRA, Democrats, background checks, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, 12-step programs, gun registry, Chuck Schumer, NBC News  
•       •       •

5089 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 10:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-13 09:16:35 AM
11 votes:

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, accidental shootings, and self-defense.

They already collect that data.  So does the CDC.

3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)

Very, very bad idea.

I have a gun safe in my closet.  Mostly, it doesn't get opened for months at a time, because I shoot a flintlock longrifle for the most part, and it hangs on my wall because it looks so damned good.

So, what happens if someone steals my guns without me knowing?  I'm an instant felon with no way to prove otherwise.  And it wouldn't be all that hard to do, either:  I keep a spare key for it in a non-obvious place so the distaffbopper can get to it, but even if they don't discover that, the lock itself isn't all that hard to pick.

Then too, what if you go on vacation for a month, someone breaks in, steals your guns, and kills someone with it before you even know you were robbed?

How would you enforce it against guns that don't have serial numbers, like home-made guns?   Remember how I pointed out that those are only going to become more common?  How would you enforce it against guns made before 1968?  I have a rifle sitting in my safe that doesn't have a serial number, because it was made before the Gun Control Act of 1968 required it of all guns.

In the end, though, what good would it do?  How would this stop crime?  All it would do is criminalize the victims of crime.

It wouldn't stop trafficking of guns, it would just shift it to other methods.  After all, NYC and NYS have very strict handgun laws, and criminals still get guns in NY, and despite the propaganda you might hear, the #1 source for guns seized in NYC is NYC.
2013-03-13 08:21:22 AM
8 votes:
My desires:

1. Universal background checks
2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, accidental shootings, and self-defense.
3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)
2013-03-13 10:13:23 AM
4 votes:
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.
2013-03-13 09:52:50 AM
4 votes:
I can't understand how "background checks"  = "taking away our gun rights!!!"
2013-03-13 08:45:20 AM
4 votes:

dittybopper: The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system.


Isn't that a contradiction of terms? How do you know that they're law abiding citizens without a background check?
2013-03-13 08:19:02 AM
3 votes:
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
2013-03-13 01:43:28 PM
2 votes:

justtray: Now please go on about Califnoria SKS. Make sure you read the history of it first so you can realize that legal weapons have never been confiscated, and even the illegal ones were reimbursed as a buyback program.


Well, now you're just playing fast and lose with things and trying to put one over on people.  True, no "legal" SKS rifles were ever confiscated.  That's because California changed their mind on what was a "legal" weapon, then confiscated them.

California passed the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act, which made SKS model rifles with detachable magazines illegal to sell, but legal to own... if you were stupid enough to register them with the state.  Of course, the California government being composed of people that know nothing at all about firearms, they never realized the difference between a fixed magazine SKS and a detachable magazine SKS is a flat headed screwdriver.   One embarrassing legal loss to James Dingman later, Calif passed AB 48, which theoretically gave immunity to people that Cali had confused as criminals because they didn't know squat about firearms... then in 1997 promptly said, "Oops, nevermind... they're illegal after all, turn them in immediately."

So yes, you are right... sort of.  No "legal" guns were ever seized.  They were all declared illegal, then the poor saps who were stupid enough to register them had to turn them all in or be arrested.

And yes, that does mean that registration has led to confiscation in the United States.
2013-03-13 11:35:39 AM
2 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: I need a license, insurance, and registration to drive a car.

Why not my guns?


Because they're different.

Cars:
- The primary cause of death, injury, and property damage for cars is accidental, indicating that drivers need a basic level of training to reduce accidents. A license serves this purpose.
- Insurance covers liability for accidental death, injury, or property damage caused by one's vehicle.
- Registration serves to identify the owner for tax purposes, but does not otherwise contribute to public safety.

Guns:
- The primary cause of death, injury, and property damage for guns is intentional and criminal. Licensing wouldn't really have much of an effect, as criminals wouldn't get a license. Accidents involving guns are at or near record lows and are already quite rare, statistically speaking. It's unlikely that a license would have any meaningful effect in that regard.
- Insurance does not cover intentional acts. Existing homeowners/renters insurance already covers liability due to accidental death, injury, or property damage relating to guns.
- What purpose would registering guns serve? Criminals cannot be compelled to register their guns and even if it was required, they wouldn't. Several states have licensing requirements and there's no evidence that such measures have any effect on crime. Canada abandoned their national registry of rifles and shotguns because it was expensive to operate and ineffective at reducing crime. It also only had a ~30% compliance rate -- I doubt that compliance rates in the US would be any higher.
2013-03-13 10:54:20 AM
2 votes:

MyKingdomForYourHorse: No where in there is a clause that assures you can have whatever arms you want.


There is precedent in Miller v US. The justices declared that the citizens may own firearms that are in common use. With millions upon millions of ARs in use by law enforcement agencies, the military and civillians I would claim that I am assured the ability to own an AR.
2013-03-13 10:40:15 AM
2 votes:

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 10:30:06 AM
2 votes:

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 10:20:10 AM
2 votes:
Oh, and what branch of the government is the NRA?

Oh, they're not, they're just a trade group?

Then f*ck them.
2013-03-13 10:13:34 AM
2 votes:
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.
2013-03-13 10:12:40 AM
2 votes:
Here's the delineation of Congressional powers regarding the militia,quoted directly from the Constitution:

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;


Seems like the Constitution grants all kinds of controls to Congress and to the States.
2013-03-13 09:40:24 AM
2 votes:

Mugato: dittybopper: 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?

You're already not allowed to buy a gun if you're a felon. That's already on the books. So WTF are you talking about?


Once you are required to get government permission with zero legal exceptions, what is to stop them from tightening the restrictions for those allowed to buy them?

Do you know all the categories for people who aren't allowed to own guns right now?  It's more expansive than you might think:

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwisedispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing orhaving reasonable cause to believe that such person -(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any courtof, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding oneyear;(2) is a fugitive from justice;(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlledsubstance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled SubstancesAct (21 U.S.C. 802));(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has beencommitted to any mental institution;(5) who, being an alien -(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has beenadmitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (asthat term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigrationand Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));(6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces underdishonorable conditions;(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, hasrenounced his citizenship;(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person fromharassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of suchperson or child of such intimate partner or person, or engagingin other conduct that would place an intimate partner inreasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, exceptthat this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that -(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person receivedactual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity toparticipate; and(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents acredible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partneror child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempteduse, or threatened use of physical force against such intimatepartner or child that would reasonably be expected to causebodily injury; or(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime ofdomestic violence.
Look at those last few:  You can lose your gun rights upon conviction of certain misdemeanors.

Hell, you can lose them, at least temporarily, pretty much without any due process at all, if someone decides to get a restraining order against you.  That's fairly common in nasty divorce cases.

What is to stop them from passing a law saying "Hey, if you are on Prozac or other psychoactive drugs, you can't own a gun"?  That's similar to the restrictions on the mentally ill, and drug abusers.  What if they decide to extend it to anyone who's been convicted of any violent misdemeanor?  Ever got into a fist-fight?   After all, we already ban people for life who have been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, so why not extend it to all violent misdemeanors?

It just opens up the possibility of a slippery slope, which is a valid concern here, as slippery slopes related to gun ownership have happened in New York (both state and city), California, Chicago, Washington DC, and in other countries such as the United Kingdom.
2013-03-13 09:27:55 AM
2 votes:

kbronsito: The NRA denies being part of any agreement. "We do not take positions on hypotheticals. We will make our position known if and when legislation is introduced," said Chris Cox

Isn't every position adopted by the NRA based on a hypothetical scenario where any regulation to limit firearms will lead to a brutal dictatorship being set up in America?


The text of the legislation was introduced into the committee yesterday, and it passed with a straight party-line 10-8 vote.

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.

That seems to be the standard tactic for anti-gun politicians these days.
2013-03-13 09:20:01 AM
2 votes:

dittybopper: 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?


You're already not allowed to buy a gun if you're a felon. That's already on the books. So WTF are you talking about?
2013-03-13 02:44:29 PM
1 votes:

justtray: GUTSU: So the government telling you "hand it over or get rid of it" isn't confiscation? What farking world do you live on?

The argument was registration leading to confiscation. I don't see how that occurred in this case. Are you making an argument that weapons should never be allowed to be deemed illegal?

I don't see how the registration had anything to do with the law made later on to deem certain weapons illegal. No one went door to door, and only one person, who classified themselves as an irresponsible criminal had anything taken from them, by your source.

Help me to understand here. I'm not really interested in arguing the semantic meaning of confiscation, especially if you've decided it's going to mean whatever it has to.


The registration was put into place promising those that registered that it wouldn't be used for confiscation. 30 years later, the NYPD had a list of names and addresses of people that owned 'assault weapons'. Which then then called and said "Hand them in, or get rid of them or else we'll kick down your door and arrest you"

How the fark isn't that registration leading to confiscation? Are you farking daft?
2013-03-13 01:54:49 PM
1 votes:

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Have you forgotten about Time, Place, and Manner regulations regarding the 1st?


I especially like how earlier examples of the slippery-slope effect are used to justify later ones.  That's downright skillful.
2013-03-13 01:32:33 PM
1 votes:

justtray: GUTSU: How would universal background checks even work? Complete registration of every single firearm in the country. Anything less and the law would amount to nothing.

It's a really shiatty idea that opens the door for confiscation, and trust me they're gunning for it.
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-york-governor-confiscation-of-gu ns -could-be-an-option

Ah yes the slippery slope logical fallacy. A solid go to. I used my psychic powers to predict this invalid argument about 50 posts ago.

Now please go on about Califnoria SKS. Make sure you read the history of it first so you can realize that legal weapons have never been confiscated, and even the illegal ones were reimbursed as a buyback program.


You do realize that the NYPD used a registry made in the 60's to confiscate weapons in the 90's right? Also, how is it a "slippery slope" when the governor himself said "Confiscation could be an option" That's not me being paranoid, the guy who ramrodded the NY SAFE act into existence said that.
2013-03-13 12:48:08 PM
1 votes:
Sides A and B are at extremes of an issue.
Side A decides to compromise a bit on their position to reach a solution.
Side B uses this as fodder to 'prove' that side A is wrong, gets even more extreme in their views.
Eventual compromise more heavily favors B because side A compromised.

And that's how it works in the United States.

Here's a very simplified example.
You have 50 people want hamburgers, 50 people want pizza.
One person on the hamburger side says "I wouldn't mind having pizza half the time if it means we can have hamburgers half the time."
Pizza side claims victory because it's now 50.5 votes for pizza and 49.5 votes for hamburgers. EVERYONE gets pizza.
2013-03-13 12:45:36 PM
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: The only thing I can see working at all, is somehow making mentally screwed up people be flagged and denied upon a background check. Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters were loons, and known to be loons. Even then, dubious as to any law has the ability to stop them from getting weapons outside legal channels.

You mean like Dorner?

Background check for the military. Top secret is a bit more vigous of a check. Scared some of my teachers.

Background check when he became a cop.

Seems like background checks work.
2013-03-13 12:05:54 PM
1 votes:

Thunderpipes: Why not just outright ban anything that could hurt you, or is bad for you?

I remember a movie about that. Sex can kill you. Candy. Swearing. Guns. Ban em all!!


I know your throwing a straw man out there but its a good diversion to bring up the law of unintended consequences. When we had locations ban trans fats in this nation and the general switch from those trans fats many companies, restaurants, etc.. switched to use palm oil. Palm oil is primarily manufactured in the south east Asia area and many who produce it are land stripping areas of forest to increase palm oil production.

So with our intent to protect American consumers and try to get them a healthier product, we doomed rain forests across south east Asia.

Resume your bickering
2013-03-13 11:33:04 AM
1 votes:

Mr_Fabulous: dittybopper: 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 depends. Are computers killing 10,000 Americans every year?


No, but they probably transmit far more pornographic pictures of children.  Anyone can just walk into any store in the country and walk with a camera, computer, and network equipment.  Even a 3 time convicted sex offender can have high speed internet straight to their house.

Not to mention the millions of households with high speed internet, digital cameras, and computers that have children living in them.

We need sensible camera control and we need it now.
2013-03-13 11:32:16 AM
1 votes:

RedT: This text is now purple: RedT: And, quite frankly as a policeman's wife and multiple gun owner, (fark you ditty) I cannot think of a good reason why there shouldn't be strict liability when your gun is involved in a criminal or accidental.

So long as it doesn't apply to the thin blue line, right?

Because under your thinking, your husband should be spending weeks in jail if he's ever involved in a shooting incident, until he can be conclusively proven to be innocent. And being unable to legally possess a firearm, he should be terminated from his position for failure to qualify.

Two things:
1) Strict liability is a civil matter, not criminal,so it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but liability.
and,
2) Serously?? You DON"T think this is the case NOW? Do you think cops just shoot people, then head to the next call while clapping the dust off their hands?
There hasn't been a police shooting death in my town in over 15 years that did not involve a FEDERAL investigation after all of the local and state investigations.  After a shooting cops are immediately pulled off the street.  This city's average payout is 1 million dollars for every police shooting because that is generally cheaper than the cost of litigation, so yeah, that is STRICT liability on police shootings.

Wow, just, wow.



latimesblogs.latimes.com

Yes we have seen it time and time again....most recently twice in the los angeles area where 2 different sets of cops opened fire without warning on 2 different vehicles that did not match the description of the vehicle they were looking for neither did either of the white occupants match the description of the black man they were looking for. The chief of police blamed it on stress......that should make everyone feel better...stressed police officers shooting people willy nilly.

In NY back in August, there was a situation where 9 innocent bystanders were shot by police and the police tried to blame it on the suspect they were chasing.
2013-03-13 11:27:34 AM
1 votes:
I will only feel safe when all Constitutional rights are limited by registration and background checks.

Only rich people, cops, and criminals should posses guns.
2013-03-13 11:26:17 AM
1 votes:
I'm ok with this as long as we enforce background checks on alcohol purchases to make sure you're not a violent drunk and have no DUIs.

/bonus: not even in the Bill of Rights
2013-03-13 11:02:28 AM
1 votes:

Father_Jack: im not 100% sure either, i live in europe too. :)


*reads profile* Oddly enough, I'm also from the SF Bay Area (Peninsula) and live in Bern. We should get beer sometime.

i seem to remember they not being stored correctly, however. And i dont know what sort of gunsafes youve seen but the ones im familiar with would not be easy to open. Admittedly tho you could well be right since it was a family member. its difficult to see how any amount of legislation palatable to the US electorate would've stopped this tbh.

You'd be surprised (YouTube). Most gun "safes" are UL-listed as "residential security containers" and are rated for 5 minutes against basic hand tools. Most of the ones you'll find at retail shops are relatively thin sheet metal wrapped around drywall to reduce damage from fire. They serve well to keep out children, fools, and curious people but do little against a determined bad guy.
2013-03-13 10:59:55 AM
1 votes:
Have not been an NRA member in over 15 years. Time to renew my membership. This Independent is moving farther away from the Democratic party.
2013-03-13 10:57:09 AM
1 votes:

K-jack: 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.


Sorry, you don't qualify to post on the internet.  Please turn in your unregistered and illegal computer at the nearest police station.
2013-03-13 10:53:39 AM
1 votes:
Dear America,

You do know that you don't HAVE to give a shiat about what the NRA has to say about anything, right?

The NRA doesn't even represent the opinions of NRA members.

Seriously.  Just laugh at the dinks.  You'll feel better and good things will happen.

Sincerely,
Humanity
2013-03-13 10:52:04 AM
1 votes:

weave: Damn it. I got all excited, thinking I was actually seeing a compromise


An oldie but goodie from a few compromises ago :
dl.dropbox.com

/I'd say if people want another gun control compromise, they should consider giving something back first.
2013-03-13 10:50:24 AM
1 votes:

dittybopper: RedT: SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks
2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, accidental shootings, and self-defense.
3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)

And
4.  Strict Liability for Gun Owners (if your gun shoots someone you have liability regardless of your preventative measures (or lack thereof), just like if someone drowns in your pool)

Wow.  You *REALLY* hate gun owners, don't you?

And no, pool owners aren't subject to strict liability.  If you take reasonable measures (fence, etc.) you aren't liable if some drunk kid jumps the fence and downs in your pool.


Uh, yeah, ok I hate gun owners because I want them to be responsible - hell, all I've heard from the rabid pro-gun crowd is how responsible every gun owner ever has always been.

The doctrine of strict liability allocates the presumption of responsibility for certain types of accidents to the defendant instead of the plaintiff. A gun is an attractive nuisance (even to a LOT of adults, as I have witnessed "responsible adults" who know nothing about guns pick them up without checking if they are loaded and looking down the barrel, pointing at shiat they have no intention of shooting, etc...)

For this reason I do believe that if you are going to have something so inherently dangerous, yet so irresistible, you should also have strict liability where the standard is a lot higher than "[sob**sob**] I didn't think Timmy would find my gun!" because ignorant non-gun owners and children can get just as shot, and your gun should be secure against theft to a lot higher standard than you secure your jewelry.  Strict Liability is NOT absolute liability, it just means YOU have to prove it was not your fault

And, quite frankly as a policeman's wife and multiple gun owner, (fark you ditty) I cannot think of a good reason why there shouldn't be strict liability when your gun is involved in a criminal or accidental.

/AAIRL
//Ditty, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable restriction on gun possession or ownership that you would concede, so we're done here.
2013-03-13 10:46:21 AM
1 votes:
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 10:40:03 AM
1 votes:
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 10:39:13 AM
1 votes:

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 10:33:06 AM
1 votes:

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 10:26:29 AM
1 votes:

EyeballKid: Oh, and what branch of the government is the NRA?

Oh, they're not, they're just a trade group?

Then f*ck them.


Like the NEA, AFL-CIO? NRA is tiny compared to those giants.
2013-03-13 10:26:13 AM
1 votes:
Background checks still wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.
2013-03-13 10:25:23 AM
1 votes:

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.


And Feinstien wants to make that illegal altogether. No more passing on weapons to your heirs, even very expensive collectables, if they so much as have a bayonet lug. She wants you to turn those over to the government when your grandpa dies.

It is all just a bunch of crap to slowly erode the rights of gun owners until it is too expensive and difficult to do so. Then you have a much more docile and subjugated population. Of course, all evidence shows none of that reduces gun crime, but who cares about that little bit?
2013-03-13 10:25:12 AM
1 votes:
This is part of the asinine "enforce the existing laws" mantra.

Step 1: Pass a "gun law".
Step 1a: Remove all accountability and record keeping from the law.
Step 2: Refuse to fund whatever enforcement mechanisms the law does have.
Step 3: Claim the "new laws" aren't being enforced (Profit!)

This has happened multiple times in this realm.  It's hollow rhetoric that many of you conservative farkers fall for and vomit forth again and again.

I guess this shouldn't come as a surprise, it's what happens whenever lobbyists are allowed to write their own bills.
2013-03-13 10:22:32 AM
1 votes:

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.


Were you required to wear a ball gag prior to entering the theater, to prevent you from *FALSELY* yelling fire?  No?

Then it's not the same thing.
2013-03-13 10:22:18 AM
1 votes:

SurfaceTension: My desires:

1. Universal background checks
2. Funding for the FBI to collect statistics on gun crimes so we know how often they are used in intentional shootings, accidental shootings, and self-defense.
3. Laws that say that if you purchase a gun, unless you sell the gun or report it stolen, if it is proven that that weapon was used in a crime, you are charged with a felony. That's even if you are not connected in any other way with the actual crime. (intended to reduce straw purchases)


And
4.  Strict Liability for Gun Owners (if your gun shoots someone you have liability regardless of your preventative measures (or lack thereof), just like if someone drowns in your pool)
2013-03-13 10:17:28 AM
1 votes:
NRA already denied this. That's what you get for relying on blogs for news.

I'll happily trade gun background checks in all 50 states today with Voter ID in all 50 states today. I have nothing to hide. And, I want my purchase when I pay for it, not after a waiting period. You checked me, gimme my stuff now.
2013-03-13 10:17:04 AM
1 votes:

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.


This!  People act like guns are dangerous what with the bullets that come out of them very quickly and the killing people and whatnot.

But what about the danger of electing Kenyan Muslims who use our Constitution like a piece of TOILET PAPER!  That's far more dangerous than ANY weapon.

www.familysecuritymatters.org

Look at the way he berates our freedom!

/call me, fox news, i'm available on weekends
2013-03-13 10:13:29 AM
1 votes:

vpb: dittybopper:
Hell, you can lose them, at least temporarily, pretty much without any due process at all, if someone decides to get a restraining order against you.  That's fairly common in nasty divorce cases.

What is to stop them from passing a law saying "Hey, if you are on Prozac or other psychoactive drugs, you can't own a gun"?  That's similar to the restrictions on the mentally ill, and drug abusers.  What if they decide to extend it to anyone who's been convicted of any violent misdemeanor?  Ever got into a fist-fight?   After all, we already ban people for life who have been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, so why not extend it to all violent misdemeanors?


Nothing, which is good.  Those court orders are due process and they are handed down for a reason.  There were too many people getting killed in nasty divorces and domestic violence incidents.


So you admit that this is just a first step, then?  I'm right to be worried about a slippery slope?
2013-03-13 10:04:28 AM
1 votes:

vernonFL: I can't understand how "background checks"  = "taking away our gun rights!!!"


Try looking at it as though you're completely. illogical and paranoid, or part of the TINY minority who opposes background checks.
2013-03-13 09:57:42 AM
1 votes:

Mugato: dittybopper: Once you are required to get government permission with zero legal exceptions, what is to stop them from tightening the restrictions for those allowed to buy them?

And gay marriage will lead to people marrying their pet turtles. There's no arguing against the slippery slope argument. But all the background check thing would do is be sure the laws already on the books are enforced. If they can't check out someone, then why even have the restrictions in the first place?


Because you can charge people with violations of the law when you find them.

Personally, I don't have a problem with gay marriage.  I don't want the government in my bedroom or in my gun safe.  I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

Slippery slopes are a real concern, btw.

Pretty much *NONE* of the current federal laws were in place when I was born, and here we are arguing for even *MORE* laws.  Is this going to be the end?  Can you seriously argue that in the affirmative?

Whether you want to admit it or not, we are currently *IN* a slippery slope situation.
2013-03-13 09:54:04 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-13 09:47:20 AM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report