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.
Note: forcing pagination mode for this thread because of the high number of comments. (why?)

(Business Insider)   Gun Control background check passes 54-46. Oh wait, did we say pass? How is that filibuster reform working out for ya?   ( businessinsider.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Senate, Mark Begich, human beings, filibusters, Dan Malloy, Heidi Heitkamp, Martin O'Malley, Max Baucus  
•       •       •

4132 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2013 at 4:40 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest

 
2013-04-17 04:41:58 PM  
fireden.netView Full Size
 
2013-04-17 04:42:27 PM  
Only in America could a policy that 90% of the public supports get killed.
 
2013-04-17 04:42:44 PM  
It'a a great day in America when the majority no longer rules, and a minority of small-minded terrorists get what they want.
 
2013-04-17 04:43:19 PM  

Woman in Senate balcony shouts "shame on you!" after BG checks bill goes down.

- jennifer bendery (@jbendery) April 17, 2013

Sandy Hook parents were in the gallery, hoping that would matter. Wayne Lapierre wasn't, knowing it wouldn't.

- Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) April 17, 2013
 
2013-04-17 04:43:20 PM  

dittybopper: [fireden.net image 596x329]


we know
 
2013-04-17 04:43:36 PM  
If they wanted it to pass they should have come up with a snappy acronym that alluded to more freedoms for everyone and was the exact opposite of the intent of the bill.
 
2013-04-17 04:43:38 PM  
Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?
 
2013-04-17 04:44:21 PM  

dittybopper: [fireden.net image 596x329]


Not a big fan of representative democracy, are you?

Look, no one is going to take your goddamn guns.  They just want to make sure you aren't a psychopath.
 
2013-04-17 04:44:23 PM  

CPennypacker: dittybopper: [fireden.net image 596x329]

we know


It's always the mentally ill who are the strongest supporters of owning guns with no limitations.
 
2013-04-17 04:44:29 PM  
So the takeaway from this is that a little ricin works wonders on the legislative process.
 
2013-04-17 04:44:32 PM  
fark you in 1.
 
2013-04-17 04:44:38 PM  

Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?


Because shut up, you evil Communist, that's why.
 
2013-04-17 04:44:46 PM  
Remember anti-gun control advocates.

If we get to an even higher level of body counts for these random events like Aurora or Sandy Hook, eventually the country could reach a point where the most draconian of anti-gun measures actually passes.

Perhaps you should rethink your "No changes to gun laws ever unless they loosen restrictions" mantra.

This background checks thing was a minor change that could have placated many people for years to come, but no, can't do that.
 
2013-04-17 04:45:09 PM  

Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?


Because Jesus.
 
2013-04-17 04:45:12 PM  

Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?


Because of the UN Agenda 21 is a hidden attempt to confiscate guns and Future Hitler will use it to take over America and such as.
 
2013-04-17 04:45:16 PM  

Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?


Because 10% of the population doesn't want them.
 
2013-04-17 04:45:36 PM  

Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?


It hurts people's feelings.

/Seriously, that's the reason.
 
2013-04-17 04:45:38 PM  
I thought that the initial bill had passed a filibuster (due to fourteen Republican Senators voting for cloture). The article itself states that the failed vote was for an amendment to the bill (which itself requires a 60-vote majority), and not to end a filibuster.

I would like to know how the amendment proposed to "expand" background checks beyond the expansion already mandated by the bill itself before I form an opinion on it. Unlike many extremists, I neither believe advocacy of improving regulation of firearm sales to be equivalent to confiscating all firearms nor do I believe opposing "assault weapons bans" to be tantamount to excusing the deaths of children.
 
2013-04-17 04:45:42 PM  

dittybopper: [fireden.net image 596x329]



Yes... we'd hate for crazy people to not be able to buy guns.
 
2013-04-17 04:45:43 PM  

Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?


Because Socialism.
 
2013-04-17 04:45:54 PM  

Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?


Because the Tree of Liberty needs to be watered by the blood of schoolchildren, duh. It's the same as throwing children into a volcano to appease the volcano-god.
 
2013-04-17 04:45:56 PM  
truthdig.comView Full Size
 
2013-04-17 04:46:17 PM  

kronicfeld: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Because 10% of the population the gun manufacturing lobby doesn't want them.


FTFReality
 
2013-04-17 04:46:19 PM  

Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?


Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.
 
2013-04-17 04:47:11 PM  

netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.


ugh
 
2013-04-17 04:47:30 PM  

CPennypacker: ugh


Clearly he's the real victim here.
 
2013-04-17 04:47:36 PM  

Dimensio: I thought that the initial bill had passed a filibuster (due to fourteen Republican Senators voting for cloture).


Nope.  The gracious vote we got from Republicans was just to START debate on the bill.  Most of the GOP didn't even want the bill discussed on the floor.

Today's vote was to END debate.  It failed, meaning that the bill was defeated by filibuster.
 
2013-04-17 04:47:49 PM  

netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.


A right that specifically is allowed to be "well regulated".
 
2013-04-17 04:48:02 PM  
wcvb.comView Full Size



fireden.netView Full Size
 
2013-04-17 04:48:23 PM  

Dimensio: I thought that the initial bill had passed a filibuster (due to fourteen Republican Senators voting for cloture). The article itself states that the failed vote was for an amendment to the bill (which itself requires a 60-vote majority), and not to end a filibuster.

I would like to know how the amendment proposed to "expand" background checks beyond the expansion already mandated by the bill itself before I form an opinion on it. Unlike many extremists, I neither believe advocacy of improving regulation of firearm sales to be equivalent to confiscating all firearms nor do I believe opposing "assault weapons bans" to be tantamount to excusing the deaths of children.


The original bill that was brought to the floor for debate had Senator Schumer's version of expanding background checks. If this amendment were accepted, it would strike Schumer's text and replace it with Manchin and Toomey's text. And since you can filibuster amendments to bills in the Senate, they had to call for cloture before taking an actual vote on the amendment. 54 votes is not enough to achieve cloture, so they cannot hold a vote on whether to accept the amendment.
 
2013-04-17 04:48:54 PM  

netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.


"Keep and bear" is the right, not "buy."

They should fix this through commerce.
 
2013-04-17 04:48:57 PM  

netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.


your constitutional rights aren't unrestricted. see: shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.
 
2013-04-17 04:48:57 PM  
Biden looks thrilled.

static3.businessinsider.comView Full Size
 
2013-04-17 04:49:01 PM  

Hollie Maea: Dimensio: I thought that the initial bill had passed a filibuster (due to fourteen Republican Senators voting for cloture).

Nope.  The gracious vote we got from Republicans was just to START debate on the bill.  Most of the GOP didn't even want the bill discussed on the floor.

Today's vote was to END debate.  It failed, meaning that the bill was defeated by filibuster.


For what reason, then, does the linked article claim the vote to have been for an "amendment"? What, exactly, was to be amended?
 
2013-04-17 04:49:54 PM  
phyrkrakr:

That right there is some good cartoonery.
 
2013-04-17 04:49:56 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.

"Keep and bear" is the right, not "buy." "sell."

They should fix this through commerce.


ftfm.
 
2013-04-17 04:50:08 PM  
Don't just look at Newtown. Look at Aurora. Look at Tucson. Look at Virginia Tech. Look at countless other high-profile examples of mass shootings over the past decade or so. What is the common thread? These incidents were perpetrated by people who were farked in the head. And in some cases, it was well-known to both authorities and health care officials that these people were farked in the head.

Opponents of bringing back the assault weapons ban claimed that it wouldn't do any good, because the ban would not have prohibited most of the weapons used in these recent attacks. Okay, fine. Similar comments have been made about bans on high-capacity magazines. All right, whatever.

But surely a reasonable person can be forgiven for believing that we could come together and figure out a way to keep firearms out of the hands of criminally and violently insane people, right? More stringent background checks could have prevented some of these people from buying the weapons that they later used to kill scores of innocent people, right? Even the NRA and its current president have been supportive of this kind of legislation in years past. Surely we could have at least accomplished this, right?

No.

The United States Senate has this afternoon given decent Americans and their families a giant middle finger. And we should avail ourselves of the opportunity to give it right back to them when re-election time comes around.
 
2013-04-17 04:50:09 PM  
Also, this bill banned ZERO weapons. There is no assault weapons ban. Any discussion about an AWB is a canard that distracts from the discussion as to why so many are against attempts to limit gun violence.

In this thread I am employing the Bush Doctrine - preemptive attacks on the Fark Militia's talking points.
 
2013-04-17 04:50:37 PM  
tyranny of the minority. farking-A.
 
2013-04-17 04:50:43 PM  
F*cking cowards
 
2013-04-17 04:50:53 PM  
Oh, and...

SHAME.
 
2013-04-17 04:51:11 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Also, this bill banned ZERO weapons. There is no assault weapons ban. Any discussion about an AWB is a canard that distracts from the discussion as to why so many are against attempts to limit gun violence.

In this thread I am employing the Bush Doctrine - preemptive attacks on the Fark Militia's talking points.


There was also no "federal registry of firearms" despite Ted Cruz's insistence it was one.
 
2013-04-17 04:51:12 PM  

Dimensio: Hollie Maea: Dimensio: I thought that the initial bill had passed a filibuster (due to fourteen Republican Senators voting for cloture).

Nope.  The gracious vote we got from Republicans was just to START debate on the bill.  Most of the GOP didn't even want the bill discussed on the floor.

Today's vote was to END debate.  It failed, meaning that the bill was defeated by filibuster.

For what reason, then, does the linked article claim the vote to have been for an "amendment"? What, exactly, was to be amended?


The final "compromise" bill (Manchin-Toomey) was developed during the amendment process that was started when the bill was brought up for debate (with the vote that passed with 14 GOP).
 
2013-04-17 04:51:12 PM  

Fart_Machine: Because of the UN Agenda 21 is a hidden attempt to confiscate guns


WTF is hidden about it? They've got a statue out front of a gun tied in a knot.
 
2013-04-17 04:51:24 PM  

netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.


We already do that with voting rights. If you're an incarcerated felon, you can't vote period. If you've served your sentence as a felon, there are some states where you can't vote period. What is that if not a background check?
 
2013-04-17 04:51:39 PM  

Hollie Maea: dittybopper: [fireden.net image 596x329]

Not a big fan of representative democracy, are you?

Look, no one is going to take your goddamn guns.  They just want to make sure you aren't a psychopath.


You are appealing to the reason of individuals who think Obama is a Kenyan born homosexual, dog eating communist. People who love the constitution so much they want to repeal the 14th amendment. (just to clarify thats the one that allows us citizens to vote in our senators as opposed to them being chosen by state legislatures) And my personal favorite the people who want to ban abortion and make contraceptives harder to acquire yet can't seem to quit wetting the bed over welfare mothers. Good luck.
 
2013-04-17 04:52:15 PM  

Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?


Because a lot of gun nuts couldn't pass them.
 
2013-04-17 04:52:43 PM  

meat0918: Uranus Is Huge!: Also, this bill banned ZERO weapons. There is no assault weapons ban. Any discussion about an AWB is a canard that distracts from the discussion as to why so many are against attempts to limit gun violence.

In this thread I am employing the Bush Doctrine - preemptive attacks on the Fark Militia's talking points.

There was also no "federal registry of firearms" despite Ted Cruz's insistence it was one.


I would bet that Visa/MC/Amex already have a pretty good registry of firearms owners.
 
2013-04-17 04:52:58 PM  

netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.



Like showing papers in order to vote?
 
2013-04-17 04:53:05 PM  

Hollie Maea: Dimensio: Hollie Maea: Dimensio: I thought that the initial bill had passed a filibuster (due to fourteen Republican Senators voting for cloture).

Nope.  The gracious vote we got from Republicans was just to START debate on the bill.  Most of the GOP didn't even want the bill discussed on the floor.

Today's vote was to END debate.  It failed, meaning that the bill was defeated by filibuster.

For what reason, then, does the linked article claim the vote to have been for an "amendment"? What, exactly, was to be amended?

The final "compromise" bill (Manchin-Toomey) was developed during the amendment process that was started when the bill was brought up for debate (with the vote that passed with 14 GOP).


Note that there were other options developed during the amendment process (such as Cruz-Grassley) but the one that was just filibustered was the only one that had a chance of passing (except that it didn't).
 
2013-04-17 04:53:32 PM  

Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?


Because it doesn't stop pressure cookers, therefore it's useless to do anything.
 
2013-04-17 04:53:36 PM  

Triumph: Fart_Machine: Because of the UN Agenda 21 is a hidden attempt to confiscate guns

WTF is hidden about it? They've got a statue out front of a gun tied in a knot.


Jesus farking Christ.

The UN has a statue of a gun tied in a knot. That's your argument? Really???

REALLY?
 
2013-04-17 04:53:41 PM  
The amendments they are voting on are being voted nay by dmeocrats, they are not restrictive enbough and did not contain UBC, the amendments let people transfer firearms without background checks between family and friends that you know well enough to not need a background check.


The more restrictive amendments and bill is to come.
 
2013-04-17 04:53:44 PM  
A lot of gun control proposals are stupid. Expanding background checks will actually impact crime. It's a good idea. Nothing gets taken away from gun owners. What's the big deal? There's no slippery slope to the government seizing people's guns here. There is no rationale for opposing this other than "if libs are for it, I'm against it".
 
2013-04-17 04:54:00 PM  
A real nut who wants a gun will buy a Chinese made AK knockoff right off the docks in San Francisco.  But whatever helps you sleep at night.
 
2013-04-17 04:54:59 PM  

Silly Jesus: [www.themainewire.com image 640x498]


So the "Law abiding citizen" failed a background check?  Why's that?
 
2013-04-17 04:55:15 PM  

Silly Jesus: [www.themainewire.com image 640x498]


so the law-abiding citizen in that pic failed a background check?
 
2013-04-17 04:55:18 PM  

FlashHarry: tyranny of the minority. farking-A.


I think the most interesting thing here is that the article is just rolls with the assumption that it now takes a supermajority to pass anything through the senate. It just says, without further explanation, that the measure "failed 54-46".
 
2013-04-17 04:55:21 PM  

netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.


If only one issue voters cared so fervently about the absolutism of the 1st or 4th amendment from 2000-2008.

20 children mowed down?  The price of democracy.     Nipple slip at the Superbowl?   OMGZ TAKE EVERYONE OFF THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES I FIND OBJECTIONABLE OR DISTASTEFUL !!   WON"T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
 
2013-04-17 04:55:52 PM  
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.comView Full Size

assets.nydailynews.comView Full Size



fireden.netView Full Size
 
2013-04-17 04:56:34 PM  

FlashHarry: Silly Jesus: [www.themainewire.com image 640x498]

so the law-abiding citizen in that pic failed a background check?


I can type quotations faster than you can type a hyphen ;)
 
2013-04-17 04:56:47 PM  

Hollie Maea: Silly Jesus: [www.themainewire.com image 640x498]

So the "Law abiding citizen" failed a background check?  Why's that?


Look, just because he sent a few rambling letters threatening to kill the president and he thinks his mailbox is telling him to murder everyone who works at Home Depot doesn't mean he shouldn't have as many guns as he can afford. What are you, some kind of communist?
 
2013-04-17 04:57:02 PM  

vernonFL: [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 272x185]
[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x456]


[fireden.net image 596x329]


Freedom is a bit messy.....
 
2013-04-17 04:57:26 PM  

Hollie Maea: I can type quotations faster than you can type a hyphen ;)


lol!
 
2013-04-17 04:57:36 PM  

meat0918: If we get to an even higher level of body counts for these random events like Aurora or Sandy Hook, eventually the country could reach a point where the most draconian of anti-gun measures actually passes.


And when they are challenged in court and are struck down because you decided it's easier to ignore the Constitution than to amend it...?
 
2013-04-17 04:57:46 PM  

Blues_X: netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.


Like showing papers in order to vote?


It's possible to be against both.
 
2013-04-17 04:58:32 PM  

netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.


Like, say, vote?

Oh, but that doesn't count because immigrants.
 
2013-04-17 04:58:44 PM  

A procedural rule in the Senate, not in the Constitution, puts the minority in control of everything.

- Chris Dashiell (@cdashiell) April 17, 2013



We are exceptional.
 
2013-04-17 04:58:51 PM  

Blues_X: netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.


Like showing papers in order to vote?


Annnnd we have a winner.

Your color shall be "Cyan 2".
 
2013-04-17 04:58:55 PM  

Hollie Maea: Look, no one is going to take your goddamn guns. They just want to make sure you aren't a psychopath.


Why are you against letting psychopaths have guns? They are citizens, too.
 
2013-04-17 04:59:02 PM  

Silly Jesus: Which massacre would have been stopped by this new legislation?


It isn't meant to stop massacres that already happened.

It is meant to make them less likely to occur in the future.

Difficult concept, I know.
 
2013-04-17 04:59:09 PM  

FlashHarry: netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.

your constitutional rights aren't unrestricted. see: shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.


Yet our vocal cords aren't preemptively cut.
 
2013-04-17 04:59:45 PM  
I still think they should call their bluff and make them ACTUALLY filibuster, not just fold when they threaten to.  This goes for both parties.  Get your damned phone books out and hold the floor.
 
2013-04-17 04:59:54 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2013-04-17 05:00:13 PM  

meat0918: kronicfeld: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Because 10% of the population the gun manufacturing lobby doesn't want them.

FTFReality


I'm sure the gun lobby is within that 10%, so you're both right.
 
2013-04-17 05:00:23 PM  

Silly Jesus: Which massacre would have been stopped by this new legislation?


I think the goal would be to prevent future massacres.
 
2013-04-17 05:00:27 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: It'a a great day in America when the majority no longer rules, and a minority of small-minded terrorists get what they want.


i201.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2013-04-17 05:00:34 PM  

gilgigamesh: FlashHarry: tyranny of the minority. farking-A.

I think the most interesting thing here is that the article is just rolls with the assumption that it now takes a supermajority to pass anything through the senate. It just says, without further explanation, that the measure "failed 54-46".


Actually, upon further reading, it appears that the leadership of both parties agreed to a 60-vote threshold in these cases as a way to avoid wasting floor time with holding cloture votes and then votes for acceptance or rejection on each amendment. Of course, condensing the two votes into one may not have been necessary with more far-reaching filibuster reform, but that's beside the point for this case. Failing 54-46 is the correct way to describe this vote.
 
2013-04-17 05:00:38 PM  
if it wasn't so farking unintuitive to make curved text in GIMP I'd change that to "background checks" but eh
 
2013-04-17 05:01:14 PM  
Background checks will pass eventually.  Unfortunately it's going to take more children's blood and suffering families.
 
2013-04-17 05:01:16 PM  

Silly Jesus: Which massacre would have been stopped by this new legislation?


You're trying too hard n00b. Stop jerking yourself off all over these threads and come back when that piece of gray matter masquerading as a brain actually produces a cognizant thought.
 
2013-04-17 05:01:30 PM  

Silly Jesus: Because a background check would have stopped his mother from buying the guns that he stole after he killed her?


In the Newtown case, probably not. I don't know. What about all the other past and future cases?
 
2013-04-17 05:01:32 PM  

violentsalvation: FlashHarry: netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.

your constitutional rights aren't unrestricted. see: shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.

Yet our vocal cords aren't preemptively cut.


what the fark are you talking about? this is a BACKGROUND CHECK. it does not ban ANYTHING. NOBODY IS COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS.
 
2013-04-17 05:01:33 PM  

netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.


Or how about get equal protection under the law?

Oh, but that doesn't count because teh gays.
 
2013-04-17 05:02:18 PM  

ScaryBottles: RobertBruce: A real nut who wants a gun will buy a Chinese made AK knockoff right off the docks in San Francisco.  But whatever helps you sleep at night.

Yeah I mean why bother having laws if people are just going to break them anyway am I right? No sale asswipe.


See, There's your true colors.  You don't care about the people determined to get a weapon by any means necessary, you only care about regulating the lives of the majority of good people.
 
2013-04-17 05:02:22 PM  

netizencain: Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.


Because Newton was merely an exercise of constitutional rights.
 
2013-04-17 05:02:34 PM  
Leahy-Collins voting now....

then comes Cornyn on CCW, then comes Feinstein on mag bansand AWB, then comes Burr on vets/guns, then comes Lautenberg/Blumenthal on mag bans, then comes Barrasso on soemthing or other, then comes Harken/Alexander on mental health.


The first amendment might have actually been the UBC. Hard following 8 different stories and typing while driving and rolling a cigarette.
 
2013-04-17 05:03:02 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: It'a a great day in America when the majority no longer rules, and a minority of small-minded terrorists get what they want.


Uh huh... you sound reasonable.

meat0918: Remember anti-gun control advocates.

If we get to an even higher level of body counts for these random events like Aurora or Sandy Hook, eventually the country could reach a point where the most draconian of anti-gun measures actually passes.

Perhaps you should rethink your "No changes to gun laws ever unless they loosen restrictions" mantra.

This background checks thing was a minor change that could have placated many people for years to come, but no, can't do that.


Okay, you're right. I'll give up my rights.

meat0918: kronicfeld: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Because 10% of the population the gun manufacturing lobby doesn't want them.

FTFReality


Are you sure? Or did you say that because it sounds good? Hint- look up what the association that represents gun makers has stated.

meat0918: A right that specifically is allowed to be "well regulated".


This has been explained to you before. You just keep refusing to accept that your definition that you decided upon is wrong.

MFK: you know.... i hope the next person mowed down by a deranged mass killer is the person you love the most.


Slow down with the deranged anger. It'll be harder to portray gun owners as unhinged when you run around wishing their families were shot.

FlashHarry: your constitutional rights aren't unrestricted. see: shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.


Which is why we register people's voice and prevent them from saying anything unless they have a permit.

Haha...you made a flawed analogy.
 
2013-04-17 05:03:22 PM  

ScaryBottles: RobertBruce: A real nut who wants a gun will buy a Chinese made AK knockoff right off the docks in San Francisco.  But whatever helps you sleep at night.

Yeah I mean why bother having laws if people are just going to break them anyway am I right? No sale asswipe.


Why bother making murder a felony if people are just going to murder?
 
2013-04-17 05:03:25 PM  

Silly Jesus: vernonFL: [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 272x185]
[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x456]


[fireden.net image 596x329]

Because a background check would have stopped his mother from buying the guns that he stole after he killed her?

Herpy Derpy Durrrr


Your point, while dickishly phrased, is apt. Background checks would not prevent all gun violence.

Nevertheless, improved background checks would be an improvement. So is there a real reason to oppose them, or is it all about the paranoid fear that Obama will send secret police to your house?
 
2013-04-17 05:04:11 PM  

FlashHarry: what the fark are you talking about? this is a BACKGROUND CHECK. it does not ban ANYTHING. NOBODY IS COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS.


excuse me, any restriction whatsoever in gun ownership is literally the same as buttraping the corpse of George Washington in front of a group of preschoolers
 
2013-04-17 05:04:22 PM  

Silly Jesus: vernonFL: [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 272x185]
[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x456]


[fireden.net image 596x329]

Because a background check would have stopped his mother from buying the guns that he stole after he killed her?

Herpy Derpy Durrrr


Hey if I had my way, every person in a household would have to pass a vigorous background check / psychological screening before anyone in the household could purchase a gun.

But sure, go ahead and whine about how restrictive Manchin-Toomey is.
 
2013-04-17 05:04:28 PM  
What gun owners think they look like...

dynamic2moms.webs.comView Full Size



What they actually look like....


thesoapboxroadshow.comView Full Size
 
2013-04-17 05:04:30 PM  

FlashHarry: violentsalvation: FlashHarry: netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.

your constitutional rights aren't unrestricted. see: shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.

Yet our vocal cords aren't preemptively cut.

what the fark are you talking about? this is a BACKGROUND CHECK. it does not ban ANYTHING. NOBODY IS COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS.

 
2013-04-17 05:04:32 PM  
WE ARE WINNING!!!
 
2013-04-17 05:04:54 PM  

meat0918: netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.

A right that specifically is allowed to be "well regulated".


argh.

The militia should be well regulated (but is not required to be).
The right, though, shall not be infringed.
 
2013-04-17 05:04:54 PM  

what_now: Triumph: Fart_Machine: Because of the UN Agenda 21 is a hidden attempt to confiscate guns

WTF is hidden about it? They've got a statue out front of a gun tied in a knot.

Jesus farking Christ.

The UN has a statue of a gun tied in a knot. That's your argument? Really???

REALLY?


Are you paying any attention to the U.N. at all? LINK LINK
 
2013-04-17 05:04:55 PM  

Serious Black: 90% of the public


citation needed.
 
2013-04-17 05:05:07 PM  

Jackson Herring: FlashHarry: what the fark are you talking about? this is a BACKGROUND CHECK. it does not ban ANYTHING. NOBODY IS COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS.

excuse me, any restriction whatsoever in gun ownership is literally the same as buttraping the corpse of George Washington in front of a group of preschoolers


damn, i forgot my NRA logic.
 
2013-04-17 05:05:31 PM  
Wait till next month when they vote on background checks being required before you can exercise your 1st amendment rights.
Until then, STFU
 
2013-04-17 05:06:02 PM  

Blues_X: NOBODY IS COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS.


Not now that the bill died, no.
 
2013-04-17 05:06:09 PM  
Harry Reid could f*ck up a steel ball.
 
2013-04-17 05:06:44 PM  

doglover: Serious Black: 90% of the public

citation needed.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE91 60 LW20130207

By a margin of 92 percent to 7 percent, voters supported background checks, the Quinnipiac University telephone poll showed. In households with a gun, 91 percent were in favor, while 8 percent were opposed, Quinnipiac said.
 
2013-04-17 05:06:46 PM  

doglover: Serious Black: 90% of the public

citation needed.


The media repeated it many times. What more do you need?
 
2013-04-17 05:06:53 PM  
And 4 dems vote against. What the fark?
 
2013-04-17 05:06:53 PM  

seventypercent: Don't just look at Newtown. Look at Aurora. Look at Tucson. Look at Virginia Tech. Look at countless other high-profile examples of mass shootings over the past decade or so. What is the common thread? These incidents were perpetrated by people who were farked in the head. And in some cases, it was well-known to both authorities and health care officials that these people were farked in the head.

Opponents of bringing back the assault weapons ban claimed that it wouldn't do any good, because the ban would not have prohibited most of the weapons used in these recent attacks. Okay, fine. Similar comments have been made about bans on high-capacity magazines. All right, whatever.

But surely a reasonable person can be forgiven for believing that we could come together and figure out a way to keep firearms out of the hands of criminally and violently insane people, right? More stringent background checks could have prevented some of these people from buying the weapons that they later used to kill scores of innocent people, right? Even the NRA and its current president have been supportive of this kind of legislation in years past. Surely we could have at least accomplished this, right?

No.

The United States Senate has this afternoon given decent Americans and their families a giant middle finger. And we should avail ourselves of the opportunity to give it right back to them when re-election time comes around.


Just about none of those guns used in any of the mass killings I can think of in the last 20 years relied on guns bought from a sale that would have been influenced by this legislation. The closest I can think of would have been Columbine but I don't really think that the friends would have run a background check on these two before they handed them over. They were straw purchases pretty much straight up.

The most effective thing that could have been done would have been to beef up the mental health reporting aspect of the NICS check. Those killers went through the entire 4473 process and were passed despite most having mental health red flags that should have at least triggered a delay. At least the republicans have an alternative bill this time that focuses on mental health:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57580058/as-manchin-toomey-amend me nt-falters-gop-offers-alternate-gun-proposal/
 
2013-04-17 05:06:56 PM  
 
2013-04-17 05:07:10 PM  
How many times did someone get turned down attempting to purchase a gun last year? Why is it that stitching up the holes in the existing net is a bad thing?
 
wee
2013-04-17 05:07:59 PM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: It'a a great day in America when the majority no longer rules, and a minority of small-minded terrorists get what they want.


The majority (of the citizenry) never did rule. We live in a republic.  We elect people who vote.  It's that majority which rules, just like it always has.

So quit whining.
 
2013-04-17 05:08:02 PM  
Newtons and Columbines are acceptable to conservatives, or at least more so than the relatively minor inconvenience posed by background checks.

Conservatives consider the occasional mass slaughter of children to be simply the cost of doing business in a free society.
 
2013-04-17 05:08:04 PM  
seventypercent: Don't just look at Newtown. Look at Aurora. Look at Tucson. Look at Virginia Tech. Look at countless other high-profile examples of mass shootings over the past decade or so. What is the common thread? These incidents were perpetrated by people who were farked in the head. And in some cases, it was well-known to both authorities and health care officials that these people were farked in the head.

This. Whenever some deranged person takes up a gun and gets trigger-happy, Americans jump and start calling for gun control. We don't ever call for mental-health care laws to be strengthened, or more options for help for people who have severe mental problems... no, we don't need that. We need to prevent law-abiding citizens from getting their hands on firearms!

In this country, if you have any kind of mental problem, or worse a disease that causes you to not perceive reality properly, we take the attitude that its your own fault, and you should snap out of it by sheer moral fortitude! Lazy jerk, how DARE you blame any problems you have on your sick brain, you worthless slacker.
 
2013-04-17 05:08:25 PM  
 
2013-04-17 05:08:28 PM  
And lo, it was decided this day that the occasional gun massacre is the price of freedom. If a roomfull of slain children couldn't get this benign background check bill passed, there is no atrocity horrific enough to motivate Congress to do anything regarding gun violence. Might as well accept it.
 
2013-04-17 05:08:29 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Wait till next month when they vote on background checks being required before you can exercise your 1st amendment rights.
Until then, STFU



When mouths can kill, you'll have a point.
 
2013-04-17 05:08:36 PM  
I was hoping this would reach the floor, as I think there was room for more concessions to gun owners (allowing 'kitchen table FFLs' and relaxing import restrictions on C&R weapons). As it stood there were some good things about the bill, allowing you to buy from an FFL in another state, CCW permit exemptions for NICS checks, etc. This bill would have tangentially increased the number of people with CCPs and allowed more interstate gun sales, it's very nearly the legislative equivalent of Wayne Lapierre wiping his dick on Dianne Feinstein's mouth.I don't blame people who don't want to give an inch to the Brady Campaign, one only needs to look at California and New York to see 'commonsense' and 'compromise' in action./my $.02
 
2013-04-17 05:08:37 PM  
Well that's disappointing.  Not at all surprising, but disappointing nonetheless.
 
2013-04-17 05:08:45 PM  
i think there's been a tipping point in the public with this, just as there has been with gay rights and immigration reform. next year, the dems and their super pacs need to go after these farksticks HARD. they need to target women especially.
 
2013-04-17 05:09:06 PM  

Mrbogey: Which is why we register people's voice and prevent them from saying anything unless they have a permit.


So you're saying there are no limitations on the First Amendment?
 
2013-04-17 05:09:08 PM  
Slightly off topic but isn't the filibuster in general kind of an immature and dick move? Doesn't seem to follow in the spirit of how our gov't is supposed to work. If one asshole can talk long enough the bill gets shiatcanned, all because one asshole held his breath like a kindergartner.
 
2013-04-17 05:11:03 PM  

Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?


Because the NRA has a farkload of money.
 
2013-04-17 05:11:11 PM  

Mugato: Slightly off topic but isn't the filibuster in general kind of an immature and dick move? Doesn't seem to follow in the spirit of how our gov't is supposed to work. If one asshole can talk long enough the bill gets shiatcanned, all because one asshole held his breath like a kindergartner.


they don't even have to actually talk. they just threaten a filibuster and the motion is blocked. it's incredibly anti-democratic and un-american. which is why republicans love it.
 
2013-04-17 05:11:14 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: And 4 dems vote againsthave a brain. What the fark?


I know, weird huh.
 
2013-04-17 05:11:29 PM  

TheCheese: This. Whenever some deranged person takes up a gun and gets trigger-happy, Americans jump and start calling for gun control. We don't ever call for mental-health care laws to be strengthened, or more options for help for people who have severe mental problems... no, we don't need that. We need to prevent law-abiding citizens from getting their hands on firearms!


So before you can get a firearm you have to pass a mental health evaluation.  Sounds like a plan.
 
2013-04-17 05:11:31 PM  

meat0918: This background checks thing was a minor change that could have placated many people for years to come, but no, can't do that.


This amendment wouldn't have stopped the antis from continuing to whargarbl for more pointless restrictions.

FWIW I wanted it to pass though.
 
2013-04-17 05:12:02 PM  

Silly Jesus: gilgigamesh: Silly Jesus: Which massacre would have been stopped by this new legislation?

It isn't meant to stop massacres that already happened.

It is meant to make them less likely to occur in the future.

Difficult concept, I know.

But this legislation is a response to events that already occurred, right?  To prevent similar events in the future, right?

So don't change anything that would stop the exact same event from occurring again?  That seems reasonable to you?


This is where the gun nuts are absolutely brillant.

Children mowed down in schools
General public wants gun regulations imposed
Gun nuts dig in their heals and refuse to let anything pass
Sane people try to meet them halfway with comprises
Bill gets watered down to complete nothingness in the process.
Gun nuts say "This bill wouldn't have prevented a Sandy Hook anyway"
 
2013-04-17 05:12:13 PM  

kronicfeld: doglover: Serious Black: 90% of the public

citation needed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE91 60 LW20130207

By a margin of 92 percent to 7 percent, voters supported background checks, the Quinnipiac University telephone poll showed. In households with a gun, 91 percent were in favor, while 8 percent were opposed, Quinnipiac said.


That says 'background checks' without it down any further.
 
2013-04-17 05:12:32 PM  

TheCheese: seventypercent: Don't just look at Newtown. Look at Aurora. Look at Tucson. Look at Virginia Tech. Look at countless other high-profile examples of mass shootings over the past decade or so. What is the common thread? These incidents were perpetrated by people who were farked in the head. And in some cases, it was well-known to both authorities and health care officials that these people were farked in the head.

This. Whenever some deranged person takes up a gun and gets trigger-happy, Americans jump and start calling for gun control. We don't ever call for mental-health care laws to be strengthened, or more options for help for people who have severe mental problems... no, we don't need that. We need to prevent law-abiding citizens from getting their hands on firearms!

In this country, if you have any kind of mental problem, or worse a disease that causes you to not perceive reality properly, we take the attitude that its your own fault, and you should snap out of it by sheer moral fortitude! Lazy jerk, how DARE you blame any problems you have on your sick brain, you worthless slacker.


Wtf is a mental health care law? Do you mean like a law where if a crazy person tries to buy a gun, a background check is run and they are flagged. Because that would be awesome!
 
2013-04-17 05:12:33 PM  

FlashHarry: i think there's been a tipping point in the public with this, just as there has been with gay rights and immigration reform. next year, the dems and their super pacs need to go after these farksticks HARD. they need to target women especially.


If they want to be successful, not only do they need to target women, but Moms in general.
 
2013-04-17 05:12:34 PM  

TheCheese: seventypercent: Don't just look at Newtown. Look at Aurora. Look at Tucson. Look at Virginia Tech. Look at countless other high-profile examples of mass shootings over the past decade or so. What is the common thread? These incidents were perpetrated by people who were farked in the head. And in some cases, it was well-known to both authorities and health care officials that these people were farked in the head.

This. Whenever some deranged person takes up a gun and gets trigger-happy, Americans jump and start calling for gun control. We don't ever call for mental-health care laws to be strengthened, or more options for help for people who have severe mental problems... no, we don't need that. We need to prevent law-abiding citizens from getting their hands on firearms!

In this country, if you have any kind of mental problem, or worse a disease that causes you to not perceive reality properly, we take the attitude that its your own fault, and you should snap out of it by sheer moral fortitude! Lazy jerk, how DARE you blame any problems you have on your sick brain, you worthless slacker.


Wanting to own a gun is a form of mental derangement in and of itself.

Guns are too dangerous to be trusted in the hands of anybody crazy enough to want a gun.
 
2013-04-17 05:12:45 PM  

wee: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: It'a a great day in America when the majority no longer rules, and a minority of small-minded terrorists get what they want.

The majority (of the citizenry) never did rule. We live in a republic.  We elect people who vote.  It's that majority which rules, just like it always has.

So quit whining.


54-46 is not a majority?
 
2013-04-17 05:12:47 PM  

jigger: argh.

The militia should be well regulated (but is not required to be).
The right, though, shall not be infringed.


The right to bear arms can be and is commonly infringed in situations where it is incompatible with the general welfare, i.e., in the case of nuclear weapons or any number of conventional military-style weapons.

Assault weapons and hand guns are safe only to the extent that the gun lobby can prove that they can coexist with public safety, which is clearly becoming a harder and harder argument to maintain.
 
2013-04-17 05:12:59 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Debeo Summa Credo: And 4 dems vote againsthave a brain. What the fark?

I know, weird huh.



So, you support people who are insane being able to buy guns?
 
2013-04-17 05:13:02 PM  

FlashHarry: Mugato: Slightly off topic but isn't the filibuster in general kind of an immature and dick move? Doesn't seem to follow in the spirit of how our gov't is supposed to work. If one asshole can talk long enough the bill gets shiatcanned, all because one asshole held his breath like a kindergartner.

they don't even have to actually talk. they just threaten a filibuster and the motion is blocked. it's incredibly anti-democratic and un-american. which is why republicans love it.



Thank you, I thought I was the only one. People seem to accept this thing as a matter of course but it just seems really farked up to me.


As for background checks, why do we have any laws about who can buy guns if we can't check whether they meet these rules?
 
2013-04-17 05:13:17 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: And 4 dems vote against. What the fark?


Apparently you didn't notice where they were from.  If they voted for this, they could pretty much kiss any chance of reelection goodby.

In many cases, western democrats are just a little bit more conservative than eastern republicans.
 
2013-04-17 05:13:47 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Wanting to own a gun is a form of mental derangement in and of itself.

Guns are too dangerous to be trusted in the hands of anybody crazy enough to want a gun.


Well it's nice to know you troll gun threads too.
 
2013-04-17 05:13:48 PM  
While gun nuts stroke their barrels, truly responsible gun owners are making a note to change their vote.
 
2013-04-17 05:13:58 PM  

Fart_Machine: Mrbogey: Which is why we register people's voice and prevent them from saying anything unless they have a permit.

So you're saying there are no limitations on the First Amendment?


Agreed.  "Free Speech Zones" are a perfectly reasonable limit on the First Amendment.
 
2013-04-17 05:14:28 PM  

udhq: jigger: argh.

The militia should be well regulated (but is not required to be).
The right, though, shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms can be and is commonly infringed...blah blah blah


You made an argument about what the 2nd amendment says. You were wrong about what the 2nd amendment says. You can admit that to yourself or not. It's your choice.
 
2013-04-17 05:14:42 PM  

Even Leahy-Collins trafficking amendment **that the NRA agreed to** failed to get 60 votes. Beyond ridiculous.

- Josh Dorner (@JoshDorner) April 17, 2013
 
2013-04-17 05:15:03 PM  

Hollie Maea: They just want to make sure you aren't a psychopath.


Repeal HIPPA
 
2013-04-17 05:15:09 PM  

udhq: jigger: argh.

The militia should be well regulated (but is not required to be).
The right, though, shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms can be and is commonly infringed in situations where it is incompatible with the general welfare, i.e., in the case of nuclear weapons or any number of conventional military-style weapons.

Assault weapons and hand guns are safe only to the extent that the gun lobby can prove that they can coexist with public safety, which is clearly becoming a harder and harder argument to maintain.


I've had a lot of people tell me that the Constitution protects their right to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
 
2013-04-17 05:15:18 PM  
I still don't get this law. It "expanded" background checks by requiring them at gun shows and interstate internet sales but you already have to get background checks for both of those.
 
2013-04-17 05:15:19 PM  

Silly Jesus: So people can't go hunting if they have a mentally disabled son?  Nice.


Nope.

Fun story:  When I was younger, my mom's best friend came down with severe manic depression.  She was hospitalized for about six months or so, and given electroshock therapy, and then released, having been miraculously healed (she was a devout evangelical Christian).  Her husband was suffering from Alzheimer's disease.  They were of course struggling with what to do about that (he was in his late 30s, and they had two young adopted children from southeast Asia)  He was a devout hunter and loved his gun collection.

Turns out that the "recovery" was just one of the "manic" stages.  About a week after she was discharged, the husband forgot to lock his cabinet, she grabbed a shotgun, came over to our house and shot her head off in our yard.

That's pretty much the best way the story could have ended, considering the circumstances.  You're goddamn right that he should have not been allowed to have guns.  Sure, he was a good guy.  Sure, he loved hunting.  But that's a right he should not have had.
 
2013-04-17 05:15:32 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: How many times did someone get turned down attempting to purchase a gun last year? Why is it that stitching up the holes in the existing net is a bad thing?


Based on some of the responses I got for asking my question, it really really REALLY makes some people mad.

Mugato: Slightly off topic but isn't the filibuster in general kind of an immature and dick move? Doesn't seem to follow in the spirit of how our gov't is supposed to work. If one asshole can talk long enough the bill gets shiatcanned, all because one asshole held his breath like a kindergartner.


All the filibuster abuse in recent years makes me think of that one kid in the arcade who learned how to do Psycho Crusher with M. Bison and NEVER did anything else.
 
2013-04-17 05:16:02 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Even Leahy-Collins trafficking amendment **that the NRA agreed to** failed to get 60 votes. Beyond ridiculous.- Josh Dorner (@JoshDorner) April 17, 2013


Oh good god.
 
2013-04-17 05:16:05 PM  
At least we got a vote. That should help in 2014.
 
wee
2013-04-17 05:16:20 PM  

Witty_Retort: 54-46 is not a majority?


Not when a majority is defined as 60 votes, no.
 
2013-04-17 05:16:56 PM  
Time to drop ANOTHER e-mail to my GUTLESS SPINELESS party line DUMBASS  Senator and remind him WHO HE WORKS FOR
 
2013-04-17 05:16:57 PM  

TheCheese: This. Whenever some deranged person takes up a gun and gets trigger-happy, Americans jump and start calling for gun control. We don't ever call for mental-health care laws to be strengthened, or more options for help for people who have severe mental problems... no, we don't need that. We need to prevent law-abiding citizens from getting their hands on firearms!


"Fix mental health" is nothing more than a meaningless bromide thrown out by gun nuts to take heat off of their personal hobby in the wake of children being massacred.    When pressed what exactly that entails, gun nuts never answer with specifics.  If you get down to brass tacks, any meaningful attempt to "fix mental health" to prevent school shootings would entail government mandated mental health screenings and more government power to institutionalize people against their will .... which would be a hell of a lot more intrusive and "big brotherish" than any gun legislation that's been imposed.

When it comes right down to it, gun nuts would never support any meaningful "fix to mental health", because 99.9999% couldn't pass a screening for a clinical paranoid personality disorder.
 
2013-04-17 05:16:59 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: At least we got a vote. That should help in 2014.


my thoughts exactly.
 
2013-04-17 05:17:06 PM  

Uranus Is Huge!: TheCheese: seventypercent: Don't just look at Newtown. Look at Aurora. Look at Tucson. Look at Virginia Tech. Look at countless other high-profile examples of mass shootings over the past decade or so. What is the common thread? These incidents were perpetrated by people who were farked in the head. And in some cases, it was well-known to both authorities and health care officials that these people were farked in the head.

This. Whenever some deranged person takes up a gun and gets trigger-happy, Americans jump and start calling for gun control. We don't ever call for mental-health care laws to be strengthened, or more options for help for people who have severe mental problems... no, we don't need that. We need to prevent law-abiding citizens from getting their hands on firearms!

In this country, if you have any kind of mental problem, or worse a disease that causes you to not perceive reality properly, we take the attitude that its your own fault, and you should snap out of it by sheer moral fortitude! Lazy jerk, how DARE you blame any problems you have on your sick brain, you worthless slacker.

Wtf is a mental health care law? Do you mean like a law where if a crazy person tries to buy a gun, a background check is run and they are flagged. Because that would be awesome!


Something like this I imagine:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/136468111/Grassley-Cruz-Graham-Amendment-to - S-649

The Manchin-Toomey amendment had holes you could drive a truck through and some very poor choice of language regarding some existing rights and laws. This is straight from Toomey's website:

• Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks
 
2013-04-17 05:17:06 PM  

Mugato: FlashHarry: Mugato: Slightly off topic but isn't the filibuster in general kind of an immature and dick move? Doesn't seem to follow in the spirit of how our gov't is supposed to work. If one asshole can talk long enough the bill gets shiatcanned, all because one asshole held his breath like a kindergartner.

they don't even have to actually talk. they just threaten a filibuster and the motion is blocked. it's incredibly anti-democratic and un-american. which is why republicans love it.


Thank you, I thought I was the only one. People seem to accept this thing as a matter of course but it just seems really farked up to me.


As for background checks, why do we have any laws about who can buy guns if we can't check whether they meet these rules?



As usual no gun nut has any answers for any of this.
 
2013-04-17 05:17:06 PM  

odinsposse: I still don't get this law.


A wee bit moot now, but here's a summary and the full text.

Link

Link
 
2013-04-17 05:17:26 PM  

Blues_X: jehovahs witness protection: Debeo Summa Credo: And 4 dems vote againsthave a brain. What the fark?

I know, weird huh.


So, you support people who are insane being able to buy guns?


No, liberals shouldn't be allowed to own guns. You're right.
 
2013-04-17 05:17:51 PM  

GoldSpiderp: Fart_Machine: Mrbogey: Which is why we register people's voice and prevent them from saying anything unless they have a permit.

So you're saying there are no limitations on the First Amendment?

Agreed.  "Free Speech Zones" are a perfectly reasonable limit on the First Amendment.


Only according to the Supreme Court. Just like Heller...
 
2013-04-17 05:18:06 PM  

netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.


Like when registering to vote?
 
2013-04-17 05:18:23 PM  

Serious Black: Only in America could a policy that 90% of the public supports get killed.


God bless conservative gerrymandering.
 
2013-04-17 05:18:39 PM  

seventypercent: More stringent background checks could have prevented some of these people from buying the weapons that they later used to kill scores of innocent people, right?


Nope. Lanza killed his mom and took her guns. Not a single background check would have stopped him from getting her guns. Most shooting incidents don't have people who have done anything to pop up on radar. If they're not in the system there's no way to stop them via a background check.

Uranus Is Huge!: ...that distracts from the discussion as to why so many are against attempts to limit gun violence.



I know. The NRA, GOA, and SAF keeps telling us how to limit gun violence but the gun control advocates just refuse to listen.

MyEnamine: A lot of gun control proposals are stupid. Expanding background checks will actually impact crime. It's a good idea. Nothing gets taken away from gun owners. What's the big deal? There's no slippery slope to the government seizing people's guns here. There is no rationale for opposing this other than "if libs are for it, I'm against it".


Because the advocates are looking too narrowly at the law and not realizing the scope of it. Any background check mandate would require tracking otherwise it'll be at best a good faith law. "Yea, I ran a background check on him and he passed. What? He's a felon? I didn't know that. your system goofed." or "So who did you buy this gun from? Won't talk... well.. okay."

Not to mention the unintended consequence of sending people to jail because they didn't properly transfer a firearm to a relative while they went out of town.

TheCheese: Why are you against letting psychopaths have guns? They are citizens, too.


Let me be absolutely clear. Psychopaths need to be in jail. Just a simple trial to confirm they're crazy. Then off to jail. All too often we see insane people left free to roam and their advocacy affects policy. Like we saw with OWS. We shouldn't allow such crazies free reign and like you I think we need to lock them up.

Seriously though, the issue here is that you're making a complex issue into a simplistic one and wondering why people oppose such "obvious" laws.
 
2013-04-17 05:19:03 PM  

FlashHarry: violentsalvation: FlashHarry: netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.

your constitutional rights aren't unrestricted. see: shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.

Yet our vocal cords aren't preemptively cut.

what the fark are you talking about? this is a BACKGROUND CHECK. it does not ban ANYTHING. NOBODY IS COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS.


I know, I just don't think the comparison works. I don't even think I'm against this background check bill.
 
2013-04-17 05:19:29 PM  

gilgigamesh: It isn't meant to stop massacres that already happened.


upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2013-04-17 05:19:49 PM  
Huh. I really expected some kind of compromise to be reached and backgrounds checks required for nearly all transactions of firearms.

I didn't expect the crazy other stuff on the table to go through (banning semi-autos, etc.) but the background check thing....thought that was pretty sure.
 
2013-04-17 05:19:52 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.

Like when registering to vote?


Yeah, we have laws on the books. If you have a felony or whatever it is in your state, you can't get a gun. Why are places like gun shows except from that? The law then is meaningless.
 
2013-04-17 05:20:22 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: TheCheese: seventypercent: Don't just look at Newtown. Look at Aurora. Look at Tucson. Look at Virginia Tech. Look at countless other high-profile examples of mass shootings over the past decade or so. What is the common thread? These incidents were perpetrated by people who were farked in the head. And in some cases, it was well-known to both authorities and health care officials that these people were farked in the head.

This. Whenever some deranged person takes up a gun and gets trigger-happy, Americans jump and start calling for gun control. We don't ever call for mental-health care laws to be strengthened, or more options for help for people who have severe mental problems... no, we don't need that. We need to prevent law-abiding citizens from getting their hands on firearms!

In this country, if you have any kind of mental problem, or worse a disease that causes you to not perceive reality properly, we take the attitude that its your own fault, and you should snap out of it by sheer moral fortitude! Lazy jerk, how DARE you blame any problems you have on your sick brain, you worthless slacker.

Wanting to own a gun is a form of mental derangement in and of itself.

Guns are too dangerous to be trusted in the hands of anybody crazy enough to want a gun.


Next time someone gets their head bashed in by a brick or a rock what will your reaction be?
 
2013-04-17 05:20:22 PM  
 
2013-04-17 05:20:29 PM  
My concern is how would this be enforced? Would doctors and specialists be required to turn over health records to whomever administers the background checks? Ever I got back from Afghanistan, I've been dealing with some minor depression, and still have a bit of a tough time working through a few issues (although I haven't sought any professional help). I've never been a danger to myself or others, but if I chose to seek some short-term private therapy, would those records be turned over to the Feds? What about my ol' lady? If she wanted to buy a gun but I had a few instances of documented "mental illness," would she be restricted?

What about HIPPA regulations? Privacy law?
I'm not necessarily against this, but I don't think it's as simple, cut, and dry as most people are making this out to be.

/Disclaimer: DNRTF Bill. If these are addressed in nuanced ways, please correct me. However, I suspect most of us also have not read the bill either.
//Not a private gun owner, no desire to become one.
 
2013-04-17 05:20:36 PM  

jigger: udhq: jigger: argh.

The militia should be well regulated (but is not required to be).
The right, though, shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms can be and is commonly infringed...blah blah blah

You made an argument about what the 2nd amendment says. You were wrong about what the 2nd amendment says. You can admit that to yourself or not. It's your choice.


Yes, that's what the text of the 2nd amendment says, but the 2nd amendment is not as infallible and as absolute as you seem to think it is in situations where it is in direct conflict with other parts of the constitution.

I'm merely pointing out that the text is wrong, that the right to bear arms IS infringed, and you know that it is and you presumably accept that it is.  Unless you want to make the argument that the Adam Lanzas of the world should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.
 
2013-04-17 05:21:00 PM  
Why are conservatives enabling mentally ill with demonstrated violent tenancies gun ownership?  That's just farked.
 
2013-04-17 05:21:07 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.

Like when registering to vote?


I'd wager more damage has been done by irresponsible voting than irresponsible gun-ownership.
 
2013-04-17 05:21:15 PM  
How about this:

Before being able to purchase a firearm, you are required to go through a CPL course, training, and background check (a decent 8hr one, not some wussy one in Florida, which I've done too). This allows you to purchase all currently legal firearms and NFA items (hell, we'll still tack on the $200 charge so the govt gets its cut, but we'll cut the red tape). You are required annually to send $20 for a continued automated background check to your local/state agency (maybe a job for anybody but the ATF) and undergo continued education/training every 2-3 years. Still, at each purchase, they run a background check as well that gives a simple yes/no. While this tracks (and currently does) those ALLOWED to own guns, it does not specifically make a registry of them.

Reasonable? Yes. Why? Because it eliminates the stupid from both sides. You want to pass a bill to get background checks in? Try this, you'll get pro-gun people on board.
 
2013-04-17 05:21:17 PM  
in the gun nutters defense, these background checks would have prevented quite a few of them from purchasing firearms.

because the simple check would have found them to be nuts & untrustworthy of ownership.

so chalk one up for the dregs of our society.
 
2013-04-17 05:21:21 PM  

violentsalvation: I know, I just don't think the comparison works. I don't even think I'm against this background check bill.


sure it does. it's a restriction on a constitutional right.
 
2013-04-17 05:21:56 PM  
cdn1.kevinmd.comView Full Size


fireden.netView Full Size
 
2013-04-17 05:22:12 PM  

RobertBruce: Next time someone gets their head bashed in by a brick or a rock what will your reaction be?


Next time someone is able to kill 25 people with a brick before anyone can stop him, my reaction will be "damn how did he do that"?

I'll be waiting for a while, I guess.
 
2013-04-17 05:23:00 PM  

Mrbogey: seventypercent: More stringent background checks could have prevented some of these people from buying the weapons that they later used to kill scores of innocent people, right?

Nope. Lanza killed his mom and took her guns. Not a single background check would have stopped him from getting her guns. Most shooting incidents don't have people who have done anything to pop up on radar. If they're not in the system there's no way to stop them via a background check.

Uranus Is Huge!: ...that distracts from the discussion as to why so many are against attempts to limit gun violence.


I know. The NRA, GOA, and SAF keeps telling us how to limit gun violence but the gun control advocates just refuse to listen.

MyEnamine: A lot of gun control proposals are stupid. Expanding background checks will actually impact crime. It's a good idea. Nothing gets taken away from gun owners. What's the big deal? There's no slippery slope to the government seizing people's guns here. There is no rationale for opposing this other than "if libs are for it, I'm against it".

Because the advocates are looking too narrowly at the law and not realizing the scope of it. Any background check mandate would require tracking otherwise it'll be at best a good faith law. "Yea, I ran a background check on him and he passed. What? He's a felon? I didn't know that. your system goofed." or "So who did you buy this gun from? Won't talk... well.. okay."

Not to mention the unintended consequence of sending people to jail because they didn't properly transfer a firearm to a relative while they went out of town.

TheCheese: Why are you against letting psychopaths have guns? They are citizens, too.

Let me be absolutely clear. Psychopaths need to be in jail. Just a simple trial to confirm they're crazy. Then off to jail. All too often we see insane people left free to roam and their advocacy affects policy. Like we saw with OWS. We shouldn't allow such crazies free reign and like you I think we need to lock th ...


So... it's a slippery slope? Followed by a denouncement of a non-existent confiscation plan. Then a plan to imprison mentally-ill non-criminals in the name of freedom.

Is this some sort of derp troll performance art?
 
2013-04-17 05:23:06 PM  
Maybe we need Eric Holder to work on gun control. When Eric Holder lets criminals have guns, conservatives make a big deal out of that.

Otherwise, they don't seem to care.
 
2013-04-17 05:23:41 PM  

MichiganFTL: How about this:

Before being able to purchase a firearm, you are required to go through a CPL course, training, and background check (a decent 8hr one, not some wussy one in Florida, which I've done too). This allows you to purchase all currently legal firearms and NFA items (hell, we'll still tack on the $200 charge so the govt gets its cut, but we'll cut the red tape). You are required annually to send $20 for a continued automated background check to your local/state agency (maybe a job for anybody but the ATF) and undergo continued education/training every 2-3 years. Still, at each purchase, they run a background check as well that gives a simple yes/no. While this tracks (and currently does) those ALLOWED to own guns, it does not specifically make a registry of them.

Reasonable? Yes. Why? Because it eliminates the stupid from both sides. You want to pass a bill to get background checks in? Try this, you'll get pro-gun people on board.


No you won't.
 
2013-04-17 05:23:43 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: odinsposse: I still don't get this law.

A wee bit moot now, but here's a summary and the full text.

Link

Link


I've read the law. They talk about closing the "gun show loophole" that doesn't exist and requiring transfers for interstate internet sales, which is already true. It doesn't expand background checks at all as far as I can tell.
 
2013-04-17 05:23:49 PM  

Silly Jesus: Hollie Maea: Silly Jesus: So people can't go hunting if they have a mentally disabled son?  Nice.

Nope.

Fun story:  When I was younger, my mom's best friend came down with severe manic depression.  She was hospitalized for about six months or so, and given electroshock therapy, and then released, having been miraculously healed (she was a devout evangelical Christian).  Her husband was suffering from Alzheimer's disease.  They were of course struggling with what to do about that (he was in his late 30s, and they had two young adopted children from southeast Asia)  He was a devout hunter and loved his gun collection.

Turns out that the "recovery" was just one of the "manic" stages.  About a week after she was discharged, the husband forgot to lock his cabinet, she grabbed a shotgun, came over to our house and shot her head off in our yard.

That's pretty much the best way the story could have ended, considering the circumstances.   You're goddamn right that he should have not been allowed to have guns.  Sure, he was a good guy.  Sure, he loved hunting.  But that's a right he should not have had.

[images.encyclopediadramatica.se image 500x389]


Yep.  The idea that someone with Alzheimers who has a member of the household  who is severely mentally ill shouldn't be able to have guns in the house is pretty funny!
 
2013-04-17 05:24:02 PM  

MichiganFTL: How about this:

Before being able to purchase a firearm, you are required to go through a CPL course, training, and background check (a decent 8hr one, not some wussy one in Florida, which I've done too). This allows you to purchase all currently legal firearms and NFA items (hell, we'll still tack on the $200 charge so the govt gets its cut, but we'll cut the red tape). You are required annually to send $20 for a continued automated background check to your local/state agency (maybe a job for anybody but the ATF) and undergo continued education/training every 2-3 years. Still, at each purchase, they run a background check as well that gives a simple yes/no. While this tracks (and currently does) those ALLOWED to own guns, it does not specifically make a registry of them.

Reasonable? Yes. Why? Because it eliminates the stupid from both sides. You want to pass a bill to get background checks in? Try this, you'll get pro-gun people on board.


Personally, I'd be perfectly OK with this. I'd even be OK with adding periodic firearms qualifications to it. For the record, I think drivers should have to periodically qualify for their licenses, too.
 
2013-04-17 05:24:02 PM  

kronicfeld: doglover: Serious Black: 90% of the public

citation needed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE91 60 LW20130207

By a margin of 92 percent to 7 percent, voters supported background checks, the Quinnipiac University telephone poll showed. In households with a gun, 91 percent were in favor, while 8 percent were opposed, Quinnipiac said.


The poll surveyed 1,772 registered voters

Because there's less than 2000 in America.
 
2013-04-17 05:24:45 PM  

Citrate1007: Why are conservatives enabling mentally ill with demonstrated violent tenancies gun ownership?  That's just farked.


Because the mentally ill are the only ones who defend their gun ownership based on the 2nd amendment which states that the only reason to own guns is to stand up to the United States military if the gov't gets out of control.
 
2013-04-17 05:24:57 PM  

Serious Black: Only in America could a policy that 90% of the public supports get killed.


Or that 90% of the public hates get passed. Let's see if amnesty with citizenship makes it.
 
2013-04-17 05:24:58 PM  

Hollie Maea: RobertBruce: Next time someone gets their head bashed in by a brick or a rock what will your reaction be?

Next time someone is able to kill 25 people with a brick before anyone can stop him, my reaction will be "damn how did he do that"?

I'll be waiting for a while, I guess.


It's ok if they kill one or two people, then?  Huh.  Interesting.
 
2013-04-17 05:25:57 PM  

GoldSpider: Fart_Machine: Mrbogey: Which is why we register people's voice and prevent them from saying anything unless they have a permit.

So you're saying there are no limitations on the First Amendment?

Agreed.  "Free Speech Zones" are a perfectly reasonable limit on the First Amendment.


You didn't answer the question.
 
2013-04-17 05:26:01 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Blues_X: jehovahs witness protection: Debeo Summa Credo: And 4 dems vote againsthave a brain. What the fark?

I know, weird huh.


So, you support people who are insane being able to buy guns?

No, liberals shouldn't be allowed to own guns. You're right.


I like how capable you are of objective, rational discussion.

cdn.crooksandliars.comView Full Size
 
2013-04-17 05:26:35 PM  

Serious Black: MichiganFTL: How about this:

Before being able to purchase a firearm, you are required to go through a CPL course, training, and background check (a decent 8hr one, not some wussy one in Florida, which I've done too). This allows you to purchase all currently legal firearms and NFA items (hell, we'll still tack on the $200 charge so the govt gets its cut, but we'll cut the red tape). You are required annually to send $20 for a continued automated background check to your local/state agency (maybe a job for anybody but the ATF) and undergo continued education/training every 2-3 years. Still, at each purchase, they run a background check as well that gives a simple yes/no. While this tracks (and currently does) those ALLOWED to own guns, it does not specifically make a registry of them.

Reasonable? Yes. Why? Because it eliminates the stupid from both sides. You want to pass a bill to get background checks in? Try this, you'll get pro-gun people on board.

No you won't.


Ok, so the firearm people I know are limited to say 40-50 people, but from the response from that I've received on forums, yes, yes you would. If you threw in a civilian version of the NICS system where you could put in a person's name, DOB and Driver's License # and simply get a yes/no response on purchasing firearms, you'd get overwhelming support, we WANT that.
 
2013-04-17 05:27:13 PM  
"Sixty votes were needed to pass the legislation through the Senate. Four Democrats voted no on the measure."

Therefore Democrats fault.
 
2013-04-17 05:27:16 PM  
I am surprised, I thought it would pass, but this is easy to understand.  3rd rail issue + overreach = not going to happen.

Pelosi opened her mouth and scared 60,000,000 gun owners needlessly.  Ordinarily normal folks joined the cold dead hands and secede crowd and the moderates went Holy Farkin Shiat, they are serious this time.  Bombing overshadowed shooting, and it failed.
 
2013-04-17 05:27:35 PM  

doglover: kronicfeld: doglover: Serious Black: 90% of the public

citation needed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE91 60 LW20130207

By a margin of 92 percent to 7 percent, voters supported background checks, the Quinnipiac University telephone poll showed. In households with a gun, 91 percent were in favor, while 8 percent were opposed, Quinnipiac said.

The poll surveyed 1,772 registered voters

Because there's less than 2000 in America.


Congrats.  Looks like you've successfully unskewed the poll.
 
2013-04-17 05:27:36 PM  
You'll get over it.
 
2013-04-17 05:27:42 PM  

RobertBruce: See, There's your true colors. You don't care about the people determined to get a weapon by any means necessary, you only care about regulating the lives of the majority of good people.


With a law against murder, the people who are determined to murder will do it anyway, so a law against murder is only about regulating the lives of the majority of good people, and so we shouldn't bother having laws against murder.
 
2013-04-17 05:27:57 PM  

Silly Jesus: Which massacre would have been stopped by this new legislation?


The one that hasn't happened yet.

/you can't forsee these massacres, jackass
 
2013-04-17 05:28:15 PM  

RobertBruce: Hollie Maea: RobertBruce: Next time someone gets their head bashed in by a brick or a rock what will your reaction be?

Next time someone is able to kill 25 people with a brick before anyone can stop him, my reaction will be "damn how did he do that"?

I'll be waiting for a while, I guess.

It's ok if they kill one or two people, then?  Huh.  Interesting.


Does the second amendment allow private ownership of nuclear weapons?  Should they be allowed?  If not, where is the line drawn?
 
2013-04-17 05:28:36 PM  

MichiganFTL: Serious Black: MichiganFTL: How about this:

Before being able to purchase a firearm, you are required to go through a CPL course, training, and background check (a decent 8hr one, not some wussy one in Florida, which I've done too). This allows you to purchase all currently legal firearms and NFA items (hell, we'll still tack on the $200 charge so the govt gets its cut, but we'll cut the red tape). You are required annually to send $20 for a continued automated background check to your local/state agency (maybe a job for anybody but the ATF) and undergo continued education/training every 2-3 years. Still, at each purchase, they run a background check as well that gives a simple yes/no. While this tracks (and currently does) those ALLOWED to own guns, it does not specifically make a registry of them.

Reasonable? Yes. Why? Because it eliminates the stupid from both sides. You want to pass a bill to get background checks in? Try this, you'll get pro-gun people on board.

No you won't.

Ok, so the firearm people I know are limited to say 40-50 people, but from the response from that I've received on forums, yes, yes you would. If you threw in a civilian version of the NICS system where you could put in a person's name, DOB and Driver's License # and simply get a yes/no response on purchasing firearms, you'd get overwhelming support, we WANT that.


The firearm-owning people I know, which is about 40-50 people, are split about 50-50 on whether such a proposal would be acceptable. Half think it would be okay or that you could go a bit further, and the other half think current gun laws are already an abridgement of the 2nd Amendment and want the right to own Stingers and nuclear arms.
 
2013-04-17 05:28:43 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


Fark the Senate Republicans who voted this down.
 
2013-04-17 05:29:02 PM  

doglover: kronicfeld: doglover: Serious Black: 90% of the public

citation needed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE91 60 LW20130207

By a margin of 92 percent to 7 percent, voters supported background checks, the Quinnipiac University telephone poll showed. In households with a gun, 91 percent were in favor, while 8 percent were opposed, Quinnipiac said.

The poll surveyed 1,772 registered voters

Because there's less than 2000 in America.


Are you familiar with a field of mathematics called "statistics?"
 
2013-04-17 05:29:08 PM  

doglover: kronicfeld: doglover: Serious Black: 90% of the public

citation needed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE91 60 LW20130207

By a margin of 92 percent to 7 percent, voters supported background checks, the Quinnipiac University telephone poll showed. In households with a gun, 91 percent were in favor, while 8 percent were opposed, Quinnipiac said.

The poll surveyed 1,772 registered voters

Because there's less than 2000 in America.


In his defense, that is how most polls are. However, If I asked someone "Do you support giving money to the poor?" you'd get 90%+, but if you actually elaborate on where that money comes from and how it's distributed and what gets stiffed because of it, you'd lose that %. What I'm saying is that if you explained the specifics of the bill rather than a vague statement, you're likely to get a different response.
 
2013-04-17 05:29:20 PM  

doglover: kronicfeld: doglover: Serious Black: 90% of the public

citation needed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE91 60 LW20130207

By a margin of 92 percent to 7 percent, voters supported background checks, the Quinnipiac University telephone poll showed. In households with a gun, 91 percent were in favor, while 8 percent were opposed, Quinnipiac said.

The poll surveyed 1,772 registered voters

Because there's less than 2000 in America.


When was the last time you took a statistics class?
 
2013-04-17 05:29:49 PM  

pxsteel: I am surprised, I thought it would pass, but this is easy to understand.  3rd rail issue + overreach = not going to happen.

Pelosi opened her mouth and scared 60,000,000 gun owners needlessly.  Ordinarily normal folks joined the cold dead hands and secede crowd and the moderates went Holy Farkin Shiat, they are serious this time.  Bombing overshadowed shooting, and it failed.


No, it was never going to pass, because gun nuts are absolutely crazy and one issue voters.     Luckily  they mostly just shoot themselves and their loved ones MOST of the time.
 
2013-04-17 05:30:08 PM  
6 years ago if I had invested in firearms, ammunition and popcorn manufacturing companies, I would be a wealthy man right now.
 
2013-04-17 05:30:11 PM  
Threadjack: As powerful as the Big Tobacco was in its heyday, they were never able to get a law passed that barred the CDC from studying the effects of smoking. How did the NRA get so much juice?
 
2013-04-17 05:30:11 PM  
My concern is how would this be enforced? Would doctors and specialists be required to turn over health records to whomever administers the background checks? Ever I got back from Afghanistan, I've been dealing with some minor depression, and still have a bit of a tough time working through a few issues (although I haven't sought any professional help). I've never been a danger to myself or others, but if I chose to seek some short-term private therapy, would those records be turned over to the Feds? What about my ol' lady? If she wanted to buy a gun but I had a few instances of documented "mental illness," would she be restricted?

What about HIPPA regulations? Privacy law?
I'm not necessarily against this, but I don't think it's as simple, cut, and dry as most people are making this out to be.

/Disclaimer: DNRTF Bill. If these are addressed in nuanced ways, please correct me. However, I suspect most of us also have not read the bill either.
//Not a private gun owner, no desire to become one.My concern is how would this be enforced? Would doctors and specialists be required to turn over health records to whomever administers the background checks? Ever I got back from Afghanistan, I've been dealing with some minor depression, and still have a bit of a tough time working through a few issues (although I haven't sought any professional help). I've never been a danger to myself or others, but if I chose to seek some short-term private therapy, would those records be turned over to the Feds? What about my ol' lady? If she wanted to buy a gun but I had a few instances of documented "mental illness," would she be restricted?

What about HIPPA regulations? Privacy law?
I'm not necessarily against this, but I don't think it's as simple, cut, and dry as most people are making this out to be.

/Disclaimer: DNRTF Bill. If these are addressed in nuanced ways, please correct me. However, I suspect most of us also have not read the bill either.
//Not a private gun owner, no desire to become one.
 
2013-04-17 05:30:47 PM  
bah... double post, my bad
 
2013-04-17 05:30:51 PM  
President to speak. Link
 
2013-04-17 05:30:59 PM  
MichiganFTL

If you threw in a civilian version of the NICS system where you could put in a person's name, DOB and Driver's License # and simply get a yes/no response on purchasing firearms, you'd get overwhelming support, we WANT that.

This is absolutely necessary for universal background checks, I think.

Any anti-2nd people see any problems with it?
 
2013-04-17 05:31:05 PM  

Serious Black: MichiganFTL: Serious Black: MichiganFTL: How about this:

Before being able to purchase a firearm, you are required to go through a CPL course, training, and background check (a decent 8hr one, not some wussy one in Florida, which I've done too). This allows you to purchase all currently legal firearms and NFA items (hell, we'll still tack on the $200 charge so the govt gets its cut, but we'll cut the red tape). You are required annually to send $20 for a continued automated background check to your local/state agency (maybe a job for anybody but the ATF) and undergo continued education/training every 2-3 years. Still, at each purchase, they run a background check as well that gives a simple yes/no. While this tracks (and currently does) those ALLOWED to own guns, it does not specifically make a registry of them.

Reasonable? Yes. Why? Because it eliminates the stupid from both sides. You want to pass a bill to get background checks in? Try this, you'll get pro-gun people on board.

No you won't.

Ok, so the firearm people I know are limited to say 40-50 people, but from the response from that I've received on forums, yes, yes you would. If you threw in a civilian version of the NICS system where you could put in a person's name, DOB and Driver's License # and simply get a yes/no response on purchasing firearms, you'd get overwhelming support, we WANT that.

The firearm-owning people I know, which is about 40-50 people, are split about 50-50 on whether such a proposal would be acceptable. Half think it would be okay or that you could go a bit further, and the other half think current gun laws are already an abridgement of the 2nd Amendment and want the right to own Stingers and nuclear arms.


I guess I run in more of the reasonable firearm owners circles than the Ted Nugent circles, because, cost aside, we don't see the use of owning anything like that.
 
2013-04-17 05:31:07 PM  

Silly Jesus: Which massacre would have been stopped by this new legislation?


Virginia Tech
 
2013-04-17 05:31:07 PM  

vernonFL: Maybe we need Eric Holder to work on gun control. When Eric Holder lets criminals have guns, conservatives make a big deal out of that.

Otherwise, they don't seem to care.


I think you'd have to have him do the work in Benghazi.
 
2013-04-17 05:31:12 PM  

netizencain: Arachnophobe: Can someone explain to me why background checks are such a bad thing?

Perhaps we should run one on you next time you want to enjoy any of your constitutional rights.


Sure. I fully support background checks on anyone who is applying to be part of a well-organized militia, one necessary to the security of a free State.  I also happen to otherwise support a background check on anyone purchasing or inheriting a gun.

/will be inheriting guns
//will not mind the background check
 
2013-04-17 05:31:52 PM  
54-46 that's my number
 
2013-04-17 05:31:55 PM  

kronicfeld: doglover: Serious Black: 90% of the public

citation needed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE91 60 LW20130207

By a margin of 92 percent to 7 percent, voters supported background checks, the Quinnipiac University telephone poll showed. In households with a gun, 91 percent were in favor, while 8 percent were opposed, Quinnipiac said.


Only 4% of Americans Think Guns are an Important Problem

See - I can link to BS polling too.
 
2013-04-17 05:31:59 PM  
We're due another massacre soon enough, the NRA can only keep this up for so long.
 
2013-04-17 05:32:17 PM  

ScaryBottles: they want to repeal the 14th amendment. (just to clarify thats the one that allows us citizens to vote in our senators as opposed to them being chosen by state legislatures)


When you "clarify" things you should get them right.  The 17th allows direct election of Senators.

The 14th was part of the cleanup in making slavery illegal.  It's also the source of incorporating the Bill of Rights down to the state level.
 
2013-04-17 05:32:22 PM  

Citrate1007: Why are conservatives enabling mentally ill with demonstrated violent tenancies gun ownership?  That's just farked.


I asked a Teabagger buddy of mine who's a devout 2nd Amendment proponent with ZERO restrictions to gun ownership if he were comfortable with a mentally ill person owning firearms.

He said "Absolutely, because I know if he ever tried to break into my house, he'd be met with a virtual arsenal and wouldn't stand a chance"

I said "Well, what if this same person decided to drive up and down your neighborhood, pumping random rounds into everyone's house's walls at 3AM, killing dozens while they were sleeping, and defenseless."

**CRICKETS**
 
2013-04-17 05:33:05 PM  
i1182.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2013-04-17 05:33:17 PM  

Maud Dib: What gun owners think they look like...

[dynamic2moms.webs.com image 425x640]

What they actually look like....

[www.thesoapboxroadshow.com image 800x520]


charlock.orgView Full Size
 
2013-04-17 05:33:24 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Wanting to own a gun is a form of mental derangement in and of itself....Guns are too dangerous to be trusted in the hands of anybody crazy enough to want a gun.


i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2013-04-17 05:33:35 PM  

daveUSMC: What about HIPPA regulations? Privacy law?


My view is, if a healthcare professional has evidence or believes there to be a danger to society - they have an obligation to alert the appropriate authorities

This was done in the case of the Aurora CO shooter - his doctor told police that he was dangerous. The police never followed up on it.
 
2013-04-17 05:33:41 PM  
Yeah people who have killed people and got off because of insanity defense will now be able to buy guns!!!

I hope everyone is happy.
 
2013-04-17 05:34:02 PM  

markie_farkie: Citrate1007: Why are conservatives enabling mentally ill with demonstrated violent tenancies gun ownership?  That's just farked.

I asked a Teabagger buddy of mine who's a devout 2nd Amendment proponent with ZERO restrictions to gun ownership if he were comfortable with a mentally ill person owning firearms.

He said "Absolutely, because I know if he ever tried to break into my house, he'd be met with a virtual arsenal and wouldn't stand a chance"

I said "Well, what if this same person decided to drive up and down your neighborhood, pumping random rounds into everyone's house's walls at 3AM, killing dozens while they were sleeping, and defenseless."

**CRICKETS**


All of those defenseless people dying is the price we pay for your friend's right to bear ICBMs.
 
2013-04-17 05:34:11 PM  

FlashHarry: violentsalvation: I know, I just don't think the comparison works. I don't even think I'm against this background check bill.

sure it does. it's a restriction on a constitutional right.


One you have commited a crime, the other is to prevent a crime.
 
2013-04-17 05:34:52 PM  

Corvus: Yeah people who have killed people and got off because of insanity defense will now be able to buy guns!!!

I hope everyone is happy.


The Tree of Liberty doesn't water itself.
 
2013-04-17 05:35:04 PM  

GoldSpider: Fart_Machine: Mrbogey: Which is why we register people's voice and prevent them from saying anything unless they have a permit.

So you're saying there are no limitations on the First Amendment?

Agreed.  "Free Speech Zones" are a perfectly reasonable limit on the First Amendment.


So I can break into you house a scream at you in the middle of the night?
 
2013-04-17 05:35:13 PM  

MichiganFTL: How about this:

Before being able to purchase a firearm, you are required to go through a CPL course, training, and background check (a decent 8hr one, not some wussy one in Florida, which I've done too). This allows you to purchase all currently legal firearms and NFA items (hell, we'll still tack on the $200 charge so the govt gets its cut, but we'll cut the red tape). You are required annually to send $20 for a continued automated background check to your local/state agency (maybe a job for anybody but the ATF) and undergo continued education/training every 2-3 years. Still, at each purchase, they run a background check as well that gives a simple yes/no. While this tracks (and currently does) those ALLOWED to own guns, it does not specifically make a registry of them.

Reasonable? Yes. Why? Because it eliminates the stupid from both sides. You want to pass a bill to get background checks in? Try this, you'll get pro-gun people on board.


Yeah, right. Pull the other one, it has bells on.
 
2013-04-17 05:36:13 PM  

Stile4aly: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 720x672]

Fark the Senate Republicans who voted this down.



You'll get over it.

Is it penguin season yet?
 
2013-04-17 05:36:19 PM  

Silly Jesus: Hollie Maea: Silly Jesus: So people can't go hunting if they have a mentally disabled son?  Nice.

Nope.

Fun story:  When I was younger, my mom's best friend came down with severe manic depression.  She was hospitalized for about six months or so, and given electroshock therapy, and then released, having been miraculously healed (she was a devout evangelical Christian).  Her husband was suffering from Alzheimer's disease.  They were of course struggling with what to do about that (he was in his late 30s, and they had two young adopted children from southeast Asia)  He was a devout hunter and loved his gun collection.

Turns out that the "recovery" was just one of the "manic" stages.  About a week after she was discharged, the husband forgot to lock his cabinet, she grabbed a shotgun, came over to our house and shot her head off in our yard.

That's pretty much the best way the story could have ended, considering the circumstances.   You're goddamn right that he should have not been allowed to have guns.  Sure, he was a good guy.  Sure, he loved hunting.  But that's a right he should not have had.

[images.encyclopediadramatica.se image 500x389]


This is how I know you are just a troll. A story specifically of two mentally ill people with small children, where one then uses a gun to commit suicide, and you laugh at the statement that they should not have the right to own guns. Do you not get the point that by existing laws in the USA these people would not be currently able to pass the background check laws that exist? They explicity had diminished capacity to act responsibly with firearms, and yet your response is to derp it up with a "Ha Ha! Oh Wow!" image.

Why should anyone ever take you seriously on anything ever when it is clear that you see no room for improvement whatsoever regardless of the consequences? Tell me, would you have been against mental health checks followed by rescinding the right to own weapons for Jared Lee Loughner, Adam Lanza, and James Holmes? Because prior to their actual murder sprees, the only warning sign was serious mental illness. If that's not enough for you, what ever possibly could be?
 
2013-04-17 05:36:38 PM  
Hahaha

The tears are delicious.
 
2013-04-17 05:36:45 PM  

Hollie Maea: RobertBruce: Next time someone gets their head bashed in by a brick or a rock what will your reaction be?

Next time someone is able to kill 25 people with a brick before anyone can stop him, my reaction will be "damn how did he do that"?

I'll be waiting for a while, I guess.


Until someone drops a brick off a highway bridge into the windshield of a loaded bus?

No need to react to to something that could never happen.

images.icnetwork.co.ukView Full Size
 
2013-04-17 05:36:47 PM  

FlashHarry: violentsalvation: I know, I just don't think the comparison works. I don't even think I'm against this background check bill.

sure it does. it's a restriction on a constitutional right.


No it's not. Even in the Heller ruling they said these types of limitations are ok.
 
2013-04-17 05:36:52 PM  

doglover: kronicfeld: doglover: Serious Black: 90% of the public

citation needed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE91 60 LW20130207

By a margin of 92 percent to 7 percent, voters supported background checks, the Quinnipiac University telephone poll showed. In households with a gun, 91 percent were in favor, while 8 percent were opposed, Quinnipiac said.

The poll surveyed 1,772 registered voters

Because there's less than 2000 in America.


Jesus Christ are you kidding me? Take a goddamn stats class.
 
2013-04-17 05:36:52 PM  

Corvus: Yeah people who have killed people and got off because of insanity defense will now be able to buy guns!!!

I hope everyone is happy.


"According to an eight-state study, the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate. Of those cases that were successful, 90% of the defendants had been previously diagnosed with mental illness"

Ugh, keyboard's acting up, but that's from a source listed on wikipedia.

So you're complaining about a fraction of a fraction of a fraction.
 
2013-04-17 05:36:58 PM  

vernonFL: daveUSMC: What about HIPPA regulations? Privacy law?

My view is, if a healthcare professional has evidence or believes there to be a danger to society - they have an obligation to alert the appropriate authorities

This was done in the case of the Aurora CO shooter - his doctor told police that he was dangerous. The police never followed up on it.


I can't say I've read HIPAA lately, but from what I recall in my clinical psych classes, yes, mental health professionals who believe that somebody poses a risk to themselves or to others has a legal obligation to alert others to stop that risk. I'm positive that my psychologist told me during my first appointment with her that she would tell the police if she thought I was having imminent suicidal ideations or was planning a massacre.
 
2013-04-17 05:37:01 PM  
Its really easy to get an overwhelming majority to answer affirmative to a vague question like "Do you approve of background checks for gun purchases?"  When you start getting specific about what will and won't require a background check, however, support begins to waver and the big number that answered yes to the vague question starts to drop.

I own a Title II weapon (suppressor) that required fingerprints, an FBI (not NICS) background check, and the ATF to know the make/model/serial # of the weapon and my residence at all times.

I've also had a SSBI for the Air Force.

Needless to say, I ain't skeered of a NICS check.

But NICS ain't some "PreCrimes Division" computer, its only as good as the information being entered.  And proper information hasn't been input by all the states the way it *should* have been.  Let's start by fixing that.

Making straw purchases/providing a firearm to an ineligible person a federal offense with a minimum mandatory 10 year sentence would also be a good step.

------------

If "anti-gun violence" advocates really believe background checks will make the biggest impact on reducing gun violence, open NICS to the public and make its use VOLUNTARY.  One might be surprised how many citizens want to ensure they aren't selling a firearm to a crazy person...but don't want to be told they have to go to an FFL and pay a transfer fee to do so for a private intrastate sale (if they can even find an FFL who will do an intrastate transfer).

Also:
[image from sas-origin.onstreammedia.com too old to be available]
 
2013-04-17 05:37:04 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Silly Jesus: Which massacre would have been stopped by this new legislation?

Virginia Tech


Actually they already closed the loop hole that let him slip through the system in 08
 
2013-04-17 05:37:08 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Silly Jesus: Which massacre would have been stopped by this new legislation?

Virginia Tech


He went through a background check.
 
2013-04-17 05:37:29 PM  

Triumph: kronicfeld: doglover: Serious Black: 90% of the public

citation needed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE91 60 LW20130207

By a margin of 92 percent to 7 percent, voters supported background checks, the Quinnipiac University telephone poll showed. In households with a gun, 91 percent were in favor, while 8 percent were opposed, Quinnipiac said.

Only 4% of Americans Think Guns are an Important Problem

See - I can link to BS polling too.


You can argue that his link included statistically insufficient sampling, but yours was just a straight up lie.
 
2013-04-17 05:37:33 PM  

doglover: kronicfeld: doglover: Serious Black: 90% of the public

citation needed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE91 60 LW20130207

By a margin of 92 percent to 7 percent, voters supported background checks, the Quinnipiac University telephone poll showed. In households with a gun, 91 percent were in favor, while 8 percent were opposed, Quinnipiac said.

The poll surveyed 1,772 registered voters

Because there's less than 2000 in America.


I'm gonna go ahead and guess that you weren't first in your statistics class.
 
2013-04-17 05:37:47 PM  
CNN reporting that the Republicans shot this down because they didn't feel it goes far enough to regulate gun manufacturers.
 
2013-04-17 05:38:06 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Wanting to own a gun is a form of mental derangement in and of itself.

Guns are too dangerous to be trusted in the hands of anybody crazy enough to want a gun.



WTF am I reading?
 
2013-04-17 05:38:07 PM  

Hollie Maea: Not a big fan of representative democracy, are you?


Actually, I am.  But not so much that I think it should bend to every single fad, which is why I *LIKE* the way the Senate and House are set up.   Checks and balances, and all that.
 
2013-04-17 05:38:18 PM  

Corvus: So I can break into you house a scream at you in the middle of the night?


Minus the 'break into the house' part you can scream at him all you want.  Remember that is what Fark is for.  Saves on the fuel costs....
 
2013-04-17 05:38:20 PM  

Frank N Stein: Hahaha

The tears are delicious.


Please tell that to the family members of the aprox 75,000 that die from gun violence every year.
 
2013-04-17 05:38:49 PM  
Would this have passed if they hadn't added in the "assault weapons" bullshiat?
 
2013-04-17 05:38:50 PM  

Hollie Maea: RobertBruce: Hollie Maea: RobertBruce: Next time someone gets their head bashed in by a brick or a rock what will your reaction be?

Next time someone is able to kill 25 people with a brick before anyone can stop him, my reaction will be "damn how did he do that"?

I'll be waiting for a while, I guess.

It's ok if they kill one or two people, then?  Huh.  Interesting.

Does the second amendment allow private ownership of nuclear weapons?  Should they be allowed?  If not, where is the line drawn?


Nuclear weapons are ordnance, not arms.

Nice attempt with the classic red herring, though.
 
2013-04-17 05:38:54 PM  

Giltric: Leahy-Collins voting now....

then comes Cornyn on CCW, then comes Feinstein on mag bansand AWB, then comes Burr on vets/guns, then comes Lautenberg/Blumenthal on mag bans, then comes Barrasso on soemthing or other, then comes Harken/Alexander on mental health.


The first amendment might have actually been the UBC. Hard following 8 different stories and typing while driving and rolling a cigarette.


Barrasso's facebook page says his something or other: "   protects gun owners from having their private gun ownership information publicly released. "
 
2013-04-17 05:39:31 PM  

goatleggedfellow: Would this have passed if they hadn't added in the "assault weapons" bullshiat?


Wasn't a part of the bill.
 
2013-04-17 05:39:45 PM  

s2s2s2: CNN reporting that the Republicans shot this down because they didn't feel it goes far enough to regulate gun manufacturers.


Feinstein still wants to bring the AWB up for a vote now too.
 
2013-04-17 05:40:06 PM  
Sandy Hook dad is a pretty good speaker, considering the circumstances.
 
2013-04-17 05:40:14 PM  

vernonFL: daveUSMC: What about HIPPA regulations? Privacy law?

My view is, if a healthcare professional has evidence or believes there to be a danger to society - they have an obligation to alert the appropriate authorities

This was done in the case of the Aurora CO shooter - his doctor told police that he was dangerous. The police never followed up on it.


Cho's doctor reported him. But mental health records don't reliably get into the background check system. According to the Brady Campaign, 80-90% of those disqualified due to mental health never make it into the system, roughly half of all restraining orders for domestic violence fail, and even many felons don't get put into the system.

Of course, the Brady Campaign is known to exaggerate a little but not so much as to mean the problem isn't significant.
 
2013-04-17 05:40:18 PM  

MichiganFTL: Corvus: Yeah people who have killed people and got off because of insanity defense will now be able to buy guns!!!

I hope everyone is happy.

"According to an eight-state study, the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate. Of those cases that were successful, 90% of the defendants had been previously diagnosed with mental illness"

Ugh, keyboard's acting up, but that's from a source listed on wikipedia.

So you're complaining about a fraction of a fraction of a fraction.


So then why is their such a problem with having these very few people who are dangerous to not have guns?

You think it's ok for people who've murdered people to have guns?
 
2013-04-17 05:40:50 PM  

Frank N Stein: Hahaha

The tears are delicious.


Lol, totally

abcnewsradioonline.comView Full Size


In yer face, libs. Be sure to save us some tears for when your other kids get killed.
 
2013-04-17 05:40:58 PM  

goatleggedfellow: Would this have passed if they hadn't added in the "assault weapons" bullshiat?


You'd have been looking down the barrel, pun intended, of about a 35-65 vote.
 
2013-04-17 05:41:11 PM  

Corvus: Frank N Stein: Hahaha

The tears are delicious.

Please tell that to the family members of the aprox 75,000 that die from gun violence every year.


Save your emotional appeal to your fellow soccer moms
 
2013-04-17 05:41:25 PM  

Frank N Stein: Hahaha

The tears are delicious.


I know, right?  Those libtards parents are all "boo hoo, my child was murdered in cold blood and the gun lobby won't let us do anything about it!"

Delicious indeed.
 
2013-04-17 05:41:31 PM  

Triumph: kronicfeld: doglover: Serious Black: 90% of the public

citation needed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE91 60 LW20130207

By a margin of 92 percent to 7 percent, voters supported background checks, the Quinnipiac University telephone poll showed. In households with a gun, 91 percent were in favor, while 8 percent were opposed, Quinnipiac said.

Only 4% of Americans Think Guns are an Important Problem

See - I can link to BS polling too.


So you don't understand the difference between problem and most important problem. That's ok neither does CNS.
 
2013-04-17 05:41:34 PM  

CoolHandLucas: If "anti-gun violence" advocates really believe background checks will make the biggest impact on reducing gun violence, open NICS to the public and make its use VOLUNTARY.  One might be surprised how many citizens want to ensure they aren't selling a firearm to a crazy person...but don't want to be told they have to go to an FFL and pay a transfer fee to do so for a private intrastate sale (if they can even find an FFL who will do an intrastate transfer).


I'd be OK with that.  In fact, when I've sold guns to people, I talk to them first before anything changes hands.  I would probably use a voluntary system, just to protect my own ass, if I wasn't absolutely sure about the seller.

So long as no Form 4473 was required, no problem.  I'll keep the record of what I sold, and the background check approval number, thank you very much.
 
2013-04-17 05:41:39 PM  

udhq: Newtons and Columbines are acceptable to conservatives, or at least more so than the relatively minor inconvenience posed by background checks.

Conservatives consider the occasional mass slaughter of children to be simply the cost of doing business in a free society.


Newtown and Columbine are good things if they can be used to get more stringent gun laws according to gun control advocates.

The purpose of gun laws shouldn't be to simply have them. But gun control advocates never waver in their support despite how much those laws fail.

Fart_Machine: Mrbogey: Which is why we register people's voice and prevent them from saying anything unless they have a permit.

So you're saying there are no limitations on the First Amendment?



There are no limits on the non-adjucated in their ability to exercise the First Amendment. There are laws regulating its abuse however.

udhq: jigger: argh.

The militia should be well regulated (but is not required to be).
The right, though, shall not be infringed.

The right to bear arms can be and is commonly infringed in situations where it is incompatible with the general welfare, i.e., in the case of nuclear weapons or any number of conventional military-style weapons.

Assault weapons and hand guns are safe only to the extent that the gun lobby can prove that they can coexist with public safety, which is clearly becoming a harder and harder argument to maintain.


Nuclear arms aren't arms as talked about by the creators of the 2nd Amendment. Arms are typically carried by the individual soldier into battle. As such, semi-autos are precisely the arms envisioned by our founds. Now when someone comes up with a portable tactical nuke that is carried by hand into battle by a soldier then we'll talk.
 
2013-04-17 05:41:50 PM  

HeadLever: Corvus: So I can break into you house a scream at you in the middle of the night?

Minus the 'break into the house' part you can scream at him all you want.  Remember that is what Fark is for.  Saves on the fuel costs....


Umm no you can't. If you are making noise bothering people past 10pm cops come and tell you that you have to leave.
 
2013-04-17 05:42:14 PM  

ShadowKamui: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Silly Jesus: Which massacre would have been stopped by this new legislation?

Virginia Tech

Actually they already closed the loop hole that let him slip through the system in 08


I wouldn't call it a "loop hole" -- Virginia failed to report him to the NICS database after being adjudicated mentally ill.  Had the state government done their job he wouldn't have been able to get through NICS.

In '08 the feds granted more money to the states to get them to do their jobs.
 
2013-04-17 05:42:35 PM  
To hell with the cowards in the Senate.
 
2013-04-17 05:42:40 PM  

Frank N Stein: Corvus: Frank N Stein: Hahaha

The tears are delicious.

Please tell that to the family members of the aprox 75,000 that die from gun violence every year.

Save your emotional appeal to your fellow soccer moms


Emotional appeals? It kills more than car accidents. But we regulate cars. That's not emotional that's facts.
 
2013-04-17 05:42:40 PM  

Corvus: Frank N Stein: Hahaha

The tears are delicious.

Please tell that to the family members of the aprox 75,000 that die from gun violence every year.



Around 75,000 every year?  Where did you get that number from?

Why don't you take a look at this chart and get back to me?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exce ed -traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html
 
2013-04-17 05:43:08 PM  
Hmmm, I do not know how to feel about this.  With this amendment failing this means the Schumer language is still in place, effectively killing the greater package..... but then again the rest of the effective bill is just making straw purchases more illegal so nothing of value is lost.
 
2013-04-17 05:43:24 PM  
Pres is less than happy.
 
2013-04-17 05:43:26 PM  

Corvus: FlashHarry: violentsalvation: I know, I just don't think the comparison works. I don't even think I'm against this background check bill.

sure it does. it's a restriction on a constitutional right.

No it's not. Even in the Heller ruling they said these types of limitations are ok.


Heller wasn't terribly specific in stating what kind of limitations are ok. They did say remarkably popular guns shouldn't be banned, so I leave it as a critical thinking exercise for the reader to determine the odds that this Court would agree with an assault weapons ban. Background checks, though, seem to be perfectly valid.

Of course, given GOP opinion on laws that don't "ban" abortions per se, it's no wonder they're terrified of any tightening of gun laws whatsoever.
 
2013-04-17 05:43:27 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: And 4 dems vote against. What the fark?


I don't know about the rest of them, but I know Begich in Alaska wants to be reelected, knows it's going to be a tough uphill battle (let's face it, he won in '08 on a fluke, and knows it), and isn't going to piss off any voters up here he doesn't have to.  And the people in Alaska hate anything to do with gun control.
 
2013-04-17 05:43:41 PM  

Saiga410: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Silly Jesus: Which massacre would have been stopped by this new legislation?

Virginia Tech

He went through a background check.


What is you guys' point? That the current laws on who and who should not buy a gun should be ignored because some high profile guys who bought them legally went nuts with them? Should there be special "liquor shows" where a 12 year old can buy a bottle of Jack? You guys aren't making any sense.
 
2013-04-17 05:43:42 PM  

The_Sponge: Corvus: Frank N Stein: Hahaha

The tears are delicious.

Please tell that to the family members of the aprox 75,000 that die from gun violence every year.


Around 75,000 every year?  Where did you get that number from?

Why don't you take a look at this chart and get back to me?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exce ed -traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html


Is that counting suicides? Probably not.
 
2013-04-17 05:43:51 PM  

Corvus: If you are making noise bothering people past 10pm cops come and tell you that you have to leave.


Fark shuts down at 10pm?
 
2013-04-17 05:43:54 PM  

doglover: he poll surveyed 1,772 registered voters

Because there's less than 2000 in America.


wait - are you saying you don't understand how sampling works?
 
2013-04-17 05:43:59 PM  

Corvus: MichiganFTL: Corvus: Yeah people who have killed people and got off because of insanity defense will now be able to buy guns!!!

I hope everyone is happy.

"According to an eight-state study, the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases and, when used, has only a 26% success rate. Of those cases that were successful, 90% of the defendants had been previously diagnosed with mental illness"

Ugh, keyboard's acting up, but that's from a source listed on wikipedia.

So you're complaining about a fraction of a fraction of a fraction.

So then why is their such a problem with having these very few people who are dangerous to not have guns?

You think it's ok for people who've murdered people to have guns?


Jeez, you need to learn a bit more.   "Specifically a person "convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" cannot possess any firearm in any location.18 U.S.C. 922(g) is the federal law that prohibits anyone ever convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm either inside or outside of his home. The federal punishment for felon gun possession is up to 10 years in prison."

I'm pretty sure murder is still a felony, hence why they're not allowed to own a gun. Do they? Sure. But that's not a background check issue, that's a straw purchase issue primarily.
 
2013-04-17 05:44:18 PM  

vygramul: Corvus: FlashHarry: violentsalvation: I know, I just don't think the comparison works. I don't even think I'm against this background check bill.

sure it does. it's a restriction on a constitutional right.

No it's not. Even in the Heller ruling they said these types of limitations are ok.

Heller wasn't terribly specific in stating what kind of limitations are ok. They did say remarkably popular guns shouldn't be banned, so I leave it as a critical thinking exercise for the reader to determine the odds that this Court would agree with an assault weapons ban. Background checks, though, seem to be perfectly valid.

Of course, given GOP opinion on laws that don't "ban" abortions per se, it's no wonder they're terrified of any tightening of gun laws whatsoever.


Yes it did. Is this another thing you haven't read?
 
2013-04-17 05:44:42 PM  

someonelse: To hell with the cowards in the Senate.


Nah, they'd just send poor people's children in their place.
 
2013-04-17 05:44:51 PM  

Mrbogey: Nuclear arms aren't arms as talked about by the creators of the 2nd Amendment. Arms are typically carried by the individual soldier into battle. As such, semi-autos are precisely the arms envisioned by our founds. Now when someone comes up with a portable tactical nuke that is carried by hand into battle by a soldier then we'll talk.


Depleted uranium ammunition. Should we be able to regulate or ban the sale of those rounds?
 
2013-04-17 05:45:02 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Frank N Stein: Hahaha

The tears are delicious.

Lol, totally

In yer face, libs. Be sure to save us some tears for when your other kids get killed.


Explain how the expanded background check