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.

(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 877
    More: Followup, Senate, Mark Begich, human beings, filibusters, Dan Malloy, Heidi Heitkamp, Martin O'Malley, Max Baucus  
•       •       •

4116 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2013 at 4:40 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-04-17 04:41:58 PM
fireden.net
 
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
www.truthdig.com
 
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
www.wcvb.com


fireden.net
 
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.com
 
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.com
assets.nydailynews.com


fireden.net
 
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.com
 
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.com
 
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.com


What they actually look like....


www.thesoapboxroadshow.com
 
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 [TotalFark]
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 [TotalFark]
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.org
 
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.com

fireden.net
 
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.com
 
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.com

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.com
 
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]


www.charlock.org
 
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.com
 
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.uk
 
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:
sas-origin.onstreammedia.com
 
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.com

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 checks would have prevented that incident.
 
2013-04-17 05:45:05 PM

Frank N Stein: Save your emotional appeal to your fellow soccer moms


Actually most of the people killed by gun violence are suicides - many of whom are soldiers. More soldiers have committed suicide than have died in combat.

Should someone who is suicidal be able to buy a gun?
 
2013-04-17 05:45:10 PM

CoolHandLucas: 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.


How do you plan to enforce that, without universal background checks?  Because without them, "I didn't know" becomes a perfectly valid defense.
 
2013-04-17 05:45:50 PM

Frank N Stein: Hahaha

The tears are delicious.


assets.nydailynews.com

drink up!
 
2013-04-17 05:45:57 PM
Calling the liars liars. Yes. More of this.
 
2013-04-17 05:46:09 PM

devildog123: 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.


The senators from Montana and North Dakota are in the same boat.  I suspect the one from Arkansas is too.  These would be carreer ending votes for them.
 
2013-04-17 05:46:22 PM

Corvus: 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.


Japan has pretty much no guns yet higher suicide rate.
 
2013-04-17 05:46:48 PM

HeWhoHasNoName: 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.


Miller, with which Heller and Chicago agree, states that the second amendment protects typical infantry weapons, not support weapons or heavy ordnance. (Although, to be fair, an earlier 19th century ruling protected the rights of ship owners to arm their ships with cannon as an anti-piracy measure.)
 
2013-04-17 05:47:10 PM

Mugato: 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?


This is a strong argument. Part of it is a lack of trust in the government. If all sales are approved by the government it needs to be done carefully to maintain privacy and prevent a registry of firearms, because that is unacceptable to many gun owners. A system that checks and clears only individuals, without compiling a master list of who owns whatever gun we feel like confiscating, could be a solution to this particular roadblock.

Another problem is what's the definition of transferring a firearm. You say "buy" but that's not sufficient because the proposed bill isn't just about sales. You also have to think about other transfers, which can range in duration from minutes (hand a friend a gun to shoot) hours (lend a friend a gun to take to the range), days (lend a gun for a hunting trip in the sticks), or longer. If you go away on business for a month and you leave your gun at home where your girlfriend has access to it, is that a "transfer" that requires a background check?

Preventing criminal access to guns is something that ought to command widespread, sustained support. It just needs to be done in a way that is respectful of the Constitution, logistically feasible and does not make unwitting criminals out of ordinary people.
 
2013-04-17 05:47:45 PM
GOP Platform
- TAX CUTS!!!11,!
- Drill Baby Drill
- JESUS!!!
- Obama bad
- Anything the NRA wants, no matter what
- stickin' to the libz/Democrat Party
- TAX CUTS!!!11,!
 
2013-04-17 05:47:48 PM

HeadLever: The senators from Montana and North Dakota are in the same boat.  I suspect the one from Arkansas is too.  These would be carreer ending votes for them.


WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THEIR GODDAMN CAREERS?

they were sent to represent the people. 90 percent of the people want background checks.
 
2013-04-17 05:47:59 PM
Obama is speaking right now and damn is he doing a fine job.

My respect for him has jumped significantly.

This is who Obama should have been his whole term. If from day 1 Obama had this much fire and conviction maybe today would be much different.

Strong leadership is what we have needed for a long time. Hopefully he will keep this fiery attitude.

/Yes, this is cman speaking and not some stupid "I forgot to logout of my alt" bullshiat
 
2013-04-17 05:48:22 PM
Obama Speaks Now On Failure

He's just now getting around to it?
 
2013-04-17 05:48:30 PM

Captain Darling: Mugato: 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?

This is a strong argument. Part of it is a lack of trust in the government. If all sales are approved by the government it needs to be done carefully to maintain privacy and prevent a registry of firearms, because that is unacceptable to many gun owners. A system that checks and clears only individuals, without compiling a master list of who owns whatever gun we feel like confiscating, could be a solution to this particular roadblock.

Another problem is what's the definition of transferring a firearm. You say "buy" but that's not sufficient because the proposed bill isn't just about sales. You also have to think about other transfers, which can range in duration from minutes (hand a friend a gun to shoot) hours (lend a friend a gun to take to the range), days (lend a gun for a hunting trip in the sticks), or longer. If you go away on business for a month and you leave your gun at home where your girlfriend has access to it, is that a "transfer" that requires a background check?

Preventing criminal access to guns is something that ought to command widespread, sustained support. It just needs to be done in a way that is respectful of the Constitution, logistically feasible and does not make unwitting criminals out of ordinary people.


Stop making sense.
 
2013-04-17 05:48:47 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.


Wow, it must take a pretty extreme level of cognitive flexibility to convince yourself that the framers of the constitution anticipated the future existence of the AR-15, but not WMDs.

If you want argue original intent, then the 2nd amendment applies ONLY to single shot, muzzle-loaded muskets that misfire about 10% of the time.  Otherwise, you have to accept that they intentionally used the vague term "arms" in order to accommodate for the possibility of future weapons technologies.
 
2013-04-17 05:48:53 PM

FlashHarry: HeadLever: The senators from Montana and North Dakota are in the same boat.  I suspect the one from Arkansas is too.  These would be carreer ending votes for them.

WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THEIR GODDAMN CAREERS?

they were sent to represent the people. 90 percent of the people want background checks.


To play devil's advocate, the people they represent don't.
 
2013-04-17 05:49:14 PM

Serious Black: 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?


Already do. Try and buy some (which you won't find on evilgunebay.com). Say, by some crazy thing, you were able to find some for sale online. Try and buy them, see if it works and then tell me what phone calls you receive. Oh, you're going to make some yourself? Check out the limits on civilian ownership of radioactive materials and the bajillion forms to even look at them, you may have enough to put a tiny tip on one .22 round for about $5,000 after you are diagnosed with cancer because you're an idiot.
 
2013-04-17 05:49:31 PM

Corvus: 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.


I gotta ask - I thought guns killed around 30k range in the US, with somewhere in the neighborhood of 11k+/1 of them being homicides. At least, the Brady Campaign puts the number SHOT at 100k, but a 75% mortality to wound rate seems high.
 
2013-04-17 05:49:31 PM

Frank N Stein: Explain how the expanded background checks would have prevented that incident.


You guys just aren't getting it. It's about enforcing the laws that are already on the books. You wouldn't agree with a warehouse that's perfectly legal that sells liquor to anyone, even children. So why is a background check for the legal qualifications to own a firearm so out of the question?
 
2013-04-17 05:49:39 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?


Nationally, I'm not sure. 
Colorado Illegal Gun Purchases Prevented in 2012:
38 who were convicted of homicides,
600 burglars,
1300 who committed felonious assaults,
400 had existing restraining orders,
236 showed up to pick up their guns but were arrested because of existing warrants for violent felonies 
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-daily-rundown/51415523#51415523
 
2013-04-17 05:50:09 PM

Frank N Stein: 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 checks would have prevented that incident.


They don't really work retroactively. I just don't know why you like the tears of people with dead children.

Feel like talking about James Holmes? You guys never do.
 
2013-04-17 05:50:10 PM

MichiganFTL: 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.


Not for reasons of insanity.

And if they have no background check how will you know he is a felon exactly?
 
2013-04-17 05:50:17 PM

daveUSMC: 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.


Well according to the NY SAFE Act and the way they've enforced it so far, that would most likely be the case. The affect it has on doctors and patients is not thought out too well. So emulating it on a federal scale as some are advocating would be a huge mistake.

jbuist: 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.


Heh...
 
2013-04-17 05:50:27 PM

HeadLever: devildog123: 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.

The senators from Montana and North Dakota are in the same boat.  I suspect the one from Arkansas is too.  These would be carreer ending votes for them.


Tester voted for the amendment.
 
2013-04-17 05:50:48 PM

jbuist: 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.


Before the law the states weren't penalized for not doing it, and Virginia was being one of the dumb ones not following it cause it was cheaper and faster.

The law gave the states more money to do their job but also said they would take away a lot of money if they didn't comply, hence closing a loop hole.
 
2013-04-17 05:50:48 PM

Serious Black: Depleted uranium ammunition. Should we be able to regulate or ban the sale of those rounds?


DU ammunition isn't nuclear fission type ordinance that goes 'boom'- its an extremely dense projectile designed to penetrate armor that yes, is somewhat radioactive.
 
2013-04-17 05:50:50 PM

Corvus: 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?


You're not very friendly with someone who admits when he's wrong.

Did Heller say that an assault weapons ban would be ok?
 
2013-04-17 05:50:59 PM

Corvus: 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.



2011 Data from the CDC:

Accidental discharge 851
Suicide 19,766
Homicide 11,101
Undetermined Intent 222

So that gives us a grand total of 31,940.

So do you want to keep losing this argument, or should I stop being awesome?
 
2013-04-17 05:51:18 PM
I like how CNN and msnbc are showing Obama talk about this bill being shot down, and fox is showing commercials.
 
2013-04-17 05:51:19 PM

udhq: 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.

Wow, it must take a pretty extreme level of cognitive flexibility to convince yourself that the framers of the constitution anticipated the future existence of the AR-15, but not WMDs.

If you want argue original intent, then the 2nd amendment applies ONLY to single shot, muzzle-loaded muskets that misfire about 10% of the time.  Otherwise, you have to accept that they intentionally used the vague term "arms" in order to accommodate for the possibility of future weapons technologies.


thelistcafe.com
img.izismile.com
 
2013-04-17 05:51:48 PM

Corvus: 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.


It says right in the link that it includes suicides, homicides, and accidents.
 
2013-04-17 05:51:51 PM
"It begs the question, 'who are we here to represent?'" ... "All in all, a shameful day in Washington."

Prez is mad, and rightly so. This could turn out to be interesting around election time.
 
2013-04-17 05:51:53 PM

MichiganFTL: Serious Black: 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?

Already do. Try and buy some (which you won't find on evilgunebay.com). Say, by some crazy thing, you were able to find some for sale online. Try and buy them, see if it works and then tell me what phone calls you receive. Oh, you're going to make some yourself? Check out the limits on civilian ownership of radioactive materials and the bajillion forms to even look at them, you may have enough to put a tiny tip on one .22 round for about $5,000 after you are diagnosed with cancer because you're an idiot.


I know we already regulate them. My question was whether such regulations were constitutional under the 2nd Amendment.
 
2013-04-17 05:52:02 PM
I'm listening to Obama's press conference right now....his jimmies are rustled.
 
2013-04-17 05:52:10 PM
The background check would have passed if it only recorded a "yes" or "no".  Instead, they added the recording of details of the purchase that is simply not any of their business unless you planned to use said information to confiscate in the same way that was done by NYC (it's not paranoia when it has happened).
 
2013-04-17 05:52:21 PM

FlashHarry: WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THEIR GODDAMN CAREERS?

they were sent to represent the people.


Which they did (at least regarding the folks from thier state).  Sorry that does not tow your partyline ideology, but you'll get over it.
 
2013-04-17 05:52:26 PM
This issue needs to be revisited very close to election time. Let the public decide while they still remember.
 
2013-04-17 05:52:28 PM

vygramul: Did Heller say that an assault weapons ban would be ok?


It didn't discount reasonable restrictions on firearms. It also didn't define reasonable restrictions.

No one wants wackos and felons to have guns. Some want to punish law abiding citizens.
 
2013-04-17 05:52:41 PM

Captain Darling: Mugato: 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?

This is a strong argument. Part of it is a lack of trust in the government. If all sales are approved by the government it needs to be done carefully to maintain privacy and prevent a registry of firearms, because that is unacceptable to many gun owners. A system that checks and clears only individuals, without compiling a master list of who owns whatever gun we feel like confiscating, could be a solution to this particular roadblock.

Another problem is what's the definition of transferring a firearm. You say "buy" but that's not sufficient because the proposed bill isn't just about sales. You also have to think about other transfers, which can range in duration from minutes (hand a friend a gun to shoot) hours (lend a friend a gun to take to the range), days (lend a gun for a hunting trip in the sticks), or longer. If you go away on business for a month and you leave your gun at home where your girlfriend has access to it, is that a "transfer" that requires a background check?

Preventing criminal access to guns is something that ought to command widespread, sustained support. It just needs to be done in a way that is respectful of the Constitution, logistically feasible and does not make unwitting criminals out of ordinary people.



Ok, you can't stop Billy Joe from selling Billy Bob his shotgun in private. But a reasonable first step would be to at least regulate the hundreds of advertised gun shows that go on every year.
 
2013-04-17 05:52:45 PM

doglover: Serious Black: 90% of the public

citation needed.


Now, go fark yourself
 
2013-04-17 05:53:13 PM

Corvus: MichiganFTL: 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.

Not for reasons of insanity.

And if they have no background check how will you know he is a felon exactly?


Then campaign for a civilian version of the NICS system which would receive widespread approval as I detailed above and would be a POSITIVE for both gun owners and you anti-gun owners. Gun owners would LOVE to do background checks on their private sales, but the government wants only people who pay them money to be able to do them.
 
2013-04-17 05:53:17 PM

HeWhoHasNoName: Nuclear weapons are ordnance, not arms.


Big deal.  If your argument is only "we should ban guns but we CAN'T due to the Second Amendment" there are plenty of ways around that (repeal, or simply noting the "well regulated" clause).

The argument I was responding to was one that says that guns shouldn't be banned (or regulated) because bricks can kill people too, and that the number of people who can be easily killed with a weapon is irrelevant.  If THAT argument is true, then the logical conclusion would be that nukes should be legal.
 
2013-04-17 05:53:18 PM

CoolHandLucas: Serious Black: Depleted uranium ammunition. Should we be able to regulate or ban the sale of those rounds?

DU ammunition isn't nuclear fission type ordinance that goes 'boom'- its an extremely dense projectile designed to penetrate armor that yes, is somewhat radioactive.


Its danger comes more from the fact it's a heavy metal. Kind of like exposing yourself to mercury. If the mercury is radioactive, that doesn't really make it any more alarming to ingest.
 
2013-04-17 05:53:24 PM
CynicalLA
2013-04-17 04:43:57 PM


Gun nuts are pathetic human beings.


Sour grapes or just whine.

hahahaha Even with a "majority" you looser can't win.
 
2013-04-17 05:53:25 PM

Dr. DJ Duckhunt: This issue needs to be revisited very close to election time. Let the public decide while they still remember.


Sadly I would wager women are about to lose their rights.
 
2013-04-17 05:53:26 PM

WienerButt: fox is showing commercials.


I think they are having a party.

s3-ec.buzzfed.com
 
2013-04-17 05:53:50 PM

Mugato: 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.


My statement was in response to if this amendment had been in place in the past what bad thing would not have occured and I corrected that the suggestion that Virginia Tech shooter would have been stopped.   The only thing that I can take from all of this is that the expanded background check would not have prevented any recent tragedy if it had been inacted years and years ago.
 
2013-04-17 05:53:51 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Frank N Stein: 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 checks would have prevented that incident.

They don't really work retroactively. I just don't know why you like the tears of people with dead children.

Feel like talking about James Holmes? You guys never do.


Lol. You're so upset that you can't even grasp basic English.
 
2013-04-17 05:54:03 PM

vygramul: Corvus: 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.

I gotta ask - I thought guns killed around 30k range in the US, with somewhere in the neighborhood of 11k+/1 of them being homicides. At least, the Brady Campaign puts the number SHOT at 100k, but a 75% mortality to wound rate seems high.



\Sorry I should say shootings. Not deaths.There are over 20,000 deaths. A still very high number.
 
2013-04-17 05:54:54 PM

Hollie Maea


Not a big fan of representative democracy, are you?

LOL says the person who's whining that mob rule didn't win the day.
 
2013-04-17 05:55:02 PM

The_Sponge: Corvus: 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.


2011 Data from the CDC:

Accidental discharge 851
Suicide 19,766
Homicide 11,101
Undetermined Intent 222

So that gives us a grand total of 31,940.

So do you want to keep losing this argument, or should I stop being awesome?


I made a mistake I meant shootings not deaths.

Ok fine 30,000. You think thats a low number?
 
2013-04-17 05:55:03 PM

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


No, because the NRA was going to count it against those who voted for it.


I guessing there was no teleprompter in that speech.
 
2013-04-17 05:55:06 PM

udhq: Wow, it must take a pretty extreme level of cognitive flexibility to convince yourself that the framers of the constitution anticipated the future existence of the AR-15, but not WMDs.


Of course this isn't what I said. Your poor reading skills lead you down a path that I didn't create.

Do you believe that soldiers of the world are equipped with personal nukes?

Serious Black: Depleted uranium ammunition. Should we be able to regulate or ban the sale of those rounds?


I believe DU is already regulated as a hazardous material.
 
2013-04-17 05:55:29 PM

The_Sponge: I'm listening to Obama's press conference right now....his jimmies are rustled.


He was all like GRRRRRRRRRRRR!

And Biden was all like WAHHHHHHHHH!

And the hippies are all like BOOOOOOO!

And freedom lives another day in America!
 
2013-04-17 05:56:34 PM
What a world we are making.
 
2013-04-17 05:56:37 PM

Corvus: \Sorry I should say shootings. Not deaths.There are over 20,000 deaths. A still very high number.



Then why did you say deaths in the first place?  And where did you get your grand total of 75,000?
 
2013-04-17 05:56:39 PM

Serious Black: MichiganFTL: Serious Black: 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?

Already do. Try and buy some (which you won't find on evilgunebay.com). Say, by some crazy thing, you were able to find some for sale online. Try and buy them, see if it works and then tell me what phone calls you receive. Oh, you're going to make some yourself? Check out the limits on civilian ownership of radioactive materials and the bajillion forms to even look at them, you may have enough to put a tiny tip on one .22 round for about $5,000 after you are diagnosed with cancer because you're an idiot.

I know we already regulate them. My question was whether such regulations were constitutional under the 2nd Amendment.


They're not regulated under the second amendment, it's more of a nuclear regulatory thing. Also, no civilian really owns a weapon that could make DU useful as it's more of a large ordinance weapon. At a civilian level, steel ammo (regulated already) is essentially the same in the 'low-powered' weapons we have compared to a 30mm GAU-8 Avenger.
 
2013-04-17 05:56:49 PM
HeartBurnKid:How do you plan to enforce that, without universal background checks?  Because without them, "I didn't know" becomes a perfectly valid defense.

How do you plan to enforce universal background checks without a gun/gun owner registry?  Because with it, "I sold it before the bill became law" becomes a perfectly valid defense.
 
2013-04-17 05:57:06 PM

MichiganFTL: Corvus: MichiganFTL: 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.

Not for reasons of insanity.

And if they have no background check how will you know he is a felon exactly?

Then campaign for a civilian version of the NICS system which would receive widespread approval as I detailed above and would be a POSITIVE for both gun owners and you anti-gun owners. Gun owners would LOVE to do background checks on their private sales, but the government wants only people who pay them money to be able to do them.


Most Gun Owners support this bill. It has nothing to do with whats in it. It's about BS politics of scaring people into thinking Obama wants to take their guns.
 
2013-04-17 05:57:08 PM

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


You're right. No legislation has ever stopped a massacre. Therefore, there should be no legislation. Let civilians have nukes! Silly Jesus has shown me the light!
 
2013-04-17 05:57:12 PM

HeadLever: FlashHarry: WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THEIR GODDAMN CAREERS?

they were sent to represent the people.

Which they did (at least regarding the folks from thier state).  Sorry that does not tow your partyline ideology, but you'll get over it.


Actually, according to state polling, over 70% of Montana residents support universal background checks, as do over 90% of North Dakota residents, over 90% of Arizona residents, over 80% of Kentucky residents, and over 80% of Arkansas residents. Yet 8 of the 10 Senators representing these five states voted no on the amendment (only McCain and Tester I believe).
 
2013-04-17 05:57:15 PM

FlashHarry: HeadLever: The senators from Montana and North Dakota are in the same boat.  I suspect the one from Arkansas is too.  These would be carreer ending votes for them.

WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THEIR GODDAMN CAREERS?

they were sent to represent the people. 90 percent of the people want background checks.


They were sent to represent the people who voted for them.  And those people do not want these checks.  I live in Alaska, no one up here that I talk to wants them.  This is a state that doesn't even require a permit to carry concealed.  The last 3 guns I bought I picked up at the range from guys, for cash, no background check.  I had a buddy who was PD check to see if they were stolen, but that's because I'm the cautious type.  Most people don't even bother with that.
 
2013-04-17 05:57:27 PM

Frank N Stein: HotWingConspiracy: Frank N Stein: 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 checks would have prevented that incident.

They don't really work retroactively. I just don't know why you like the tears of people with dead children.

Feel like talking about James Holmes? You guys never do.

Lol. You're so upset that you can't even grasp basic English.


Yeah that's what is happening. Nobody ever wants to discuss James Holmes. Bit of a problem for you folks it seems.
 
2013-04-17 05:57:53 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Frank N Stein: 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 checks would have prevented that incident.

They don't really work retroactively. I just don't know why you like the tears of people with dead children.

Feel like talking about James Holmes? You guys never do.


You mean when the campus cops activated their SEP Field which resulted in the theater shooting?  CU-PD dropped the ball big time on that one
 
2013-04-17 05:57:58 PM

The_Sponge: Corvus: \Sorry I should say shootings. Not deaths.There are over 20,000 deaths. A still very high number.


Then why did you say deaths in the first place?  And where did you get your grand total of 75,000?


I already explained it. Besides I stand corrected it's 30,000!

Is that an acceptable number of deaths for you then?
 
2013-04-17 05:58:51 PM

Corvus: I made a mistake I meant shootings not deaths.

Ok fine 30,000. You think thats a low number?



Riiiiiiight.

It's a low number given our population and the number of firearms in circulation.

And you know what?  Chicago has done one hell of a job adding to that total, and that city has very strict gun laws.
 
2013-04-17 05:59:04 PM

DrKillPatient: What a world we are making.


Maybe I'm wrong here and of course I'm biased as a gun owner, but if I were to latch onto something right now, I'd probably go with prescription drug abuse. Man, the costs and crimes associated with it are nuts and I've worked in mental health for a few years in my 20's and those people are messed up by big pharm.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2013-04-17 05:59:19 PM

Captain Darling: Preventing criminal access to guns is something that ought to command widespread, sustained support. It just needs to be done in a way that is respectful of the Constitution, logistically feasible and does not make unwitting criminals out of ordinary people.


I couldn't agree more.  There's no reason for a felon or a crazy person to be able to buy a gun.  I'd be ok with them opening NICS up to the public.  Give them my info, the buyer's info, get a go/no-go. They don't need to know exactly what gun (or even how many) I'm selling or buying.

Assuming I ever sold guns, that is.
 
2013-04-17 05:59:41 PM

cabbyman: The_Sponge: I'm listening to Obama's press conference right now....his jimmies are rustled.

He was all like GRRRRRRRRRRRR!

And Biden was all like WAHHHHHHHHH!

And the hippies are all like BOOOOOOO!

And freedom lives another day in America!


lol what are you 12?
 
2013-04-17 05:59:48 PM
I love how people are talking about this like it would have stopped Adam Lanza.

It wouldn't.
 
2013-04-17 05:59:51 PM

Mrbogey: 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.


Which is the point of background checks so as to avoid abuse.
 
2013-04-17 06:00:00 PM
As far as I could see Fox did't even carry the press conference. The only ones.
 
2013-04-17 06:00:14 PM

R.A.Danny: vygramul: Did Heller say that an assault weapons ban would be ok?

It didn't discount reasonable restrictions on firearms. It also didn't define reasonable restrictions.

No one wants wackos and felons to have guns. Some want to punish law abiding citizens.


It didn't, but it hinted at what it considered reasonable. For example:

"Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

and almost immediately thereafter:

"The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster."

When it comes to longarms, the AR-15 sure comes close to a class of weapon that Americans overwhelmingly choose for lawful purposes.

Considering Scalia wrote the decision, I know where my money would be.
 
2013-04-17 06:00:18 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.



Bravo! 10/10. Understated enough to be believable. Lots of bites /golf clap
 
2013-04-17 06:00:41 PM

Mugato: Ok, you can't stop Billy Joe from selling Billy Bob his shotgun in private. But a reasonable first step would be to at least regulate the hundreds of advertised gun shows that go on every year.


The name 'gun show loophole' is a bit of a misnomer anyway, because most of the sales it refers to happen in the parking lot.  "nice gun you are getting out of your trunk, you want to sell it before you go into the show?"   To regulate that, you're going to have to cover the Billys too.

/or is that spelled 'Billies'?
 
2013-04-17 06:01:06 PM

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


Because Freedom.
 
2013-04-17 06:01:16 PM

The_Sponge: It's a low number given our population and the number of firearms in circulation.


www.washingtonpost.com

The_Sponge: Chicago has done one hell of a job adding to that total, and that city has very strict gun laws.


Which is why the guns come from elsewhere in Illinois and out of state. Chicago is a perfect example of why we need gun regulation on a national level.
 
2013-04-17 06:01:23 PM
Fart_Machine:

So before you can get a firearm you have to pass a mental health evaluation.  Sounds like a plan.

Yes. That is exactly what I said. Kudos to you for managing to fail to understand the use of sarcasm.

You win!

You're a winner!!
 
2013-04-17 06:01:31 PM

Spaced Lion: I love how people are talking about this like it would have stopped Adam Lanza.

It wouldn't.


Jesus, no one's Goddamned saying that. Read the farking thread.
 
2013-04-17 06:01:37 PM

devildog123: FlashHarry: HeadLever: The senators from Montana and North Dakota are in the same boat.  I suspect the one from Arkansas is too.  These would be carreer ending votes for them.

WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THEIR GODDAMN CAREERS?

they were sent to represent the people. 90 percent of the people want background checks.

They were sent to represent the people who voted for them.  And those people do not want these checks.  I live in Alaska, no one up here that I talk to wants them.  This is a state that doesn't even require a permit to carry concealed.  The last 3 guns I bought I picked up at the range from guys, for cash, no background check.  I had a buddy who was PD check to see if they were stolen, but that's because I'm the cautious type.  Most people don't even bother with that.


Polls being inaccurate aside I still think these polls have more integrity than you do

I dont want an AWB. A lot of people do not want an AWB. But, can we sit here and do nothing about it?

It was about background checks.

Background checks. No waiting period, no weapons ban, no barring a pink pistol, but background checks. Is this unreasonable in the wake of these massive shootings?

No. And if you think it is you are a partisan prick.
 
2013-04-17 06:01:39 PM

vygramul: R.A.Danny: vygramul: Did Heller say that an assault weapons ban would be ok?

It didn't discount reasonable restrictions on firearms. It also didn't define reasonable restrictions.

No one wants wackos and felons to have guns. Some want to punish law abiding citizens.

It didn't, but it hinted at what it considered reasonable. For example:

"Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

and almost immediately thereafter:

"The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster."

When it comes to longarms, the AR-15 sure comes close to a class of weapon that Americans overwhelmingly choose for lawful purposes.

Considering Scalia wrote the decision, I know where my money would be.


I see it that way too. Only time will tell as this fight is far from over.
 
2013-04-17 06:02:01 PM

The_Sponge: Corvus: I made a mistake I meant shootings not deaths.

Ok fine 30,000. You think thats a low number?


Riiiiiiight.

It's a low number given our population and the number of firearms in circulation.

And you know what?  Chicago has done one hell of a job adding to that total, and that city has very strict gun laws.


So as long as we don't have one gun death per gun it's ok?

Should we do that with car regulations too? Have no car regulations until the deaths equal the number of cars?

Why shouldn't people be able to drink and drive as long as they are not killing anyone?
 
2013-04-17 06:02:31 PM

Spaced Lion: I love how people are talking about this like it would have stopped Adam Lanza.

It wouldn't.


Except nobody is talking about it like that. So... there's that.
 
2013-04-17 06:02:44 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: cabbyman: The_Sponge: I'm listening to Obama's press conference right now....his jimmies are rustled.

He was all like GRRRRRRRRRRRR!

And Biden was all like WAHHHHHHHHH!

And the hippies are all like BOOOOOOO!

And freedom lives another day in America!

lol what are you 12?


12 minutes away from going home!
 
2013-04-17 06:02:46 PM
Exhibit 1 of why i will never vote Republican ever again.
 
2013-04-17 06:03:03 PM

GoldSpider: 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...?


Oh, it could get to even that point, where we amend it.
 
2013-04-17 06:03:20 PM
All the amendments are going down. Trafficking, National Reciprocity, and the big ones AWB and mag ban defeated. The AWB vote was 40-60.
 
2013-04-17 06:04:12 PM
theiowarepublican.com
 
2013-04-17 06:04:14 PM

cman: Polls being inaccurate aside I still think these polls have more integrity than you do

I dont want an AWB. A lot of people do not want an AWB. But, can we sit here and do nothing about it?

It was about background checks.

Background checks. No waiting period, no weapons ban, no barring a pink pistol, but background checks. Is this unreasonable in the wake of these massive shootings?

No. And if you think it is you are a partisan prick.


They are confusing the issue. I have seen lots of people say thing like if they see a psychiatrist for depression it would ban them from getting a gun.

The NRA lobby is lying through their teeth what is actually in this bill and running scare tactics.
 
2013-04-17 06:04:36 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Which is why the guns come from elsewhere in Illinois and out of state. Chicago is a perfect example of why we need gun regulation on a national level.



I refuse to give up my rights because of the actions of gang bangers in Chicago.
 
2013-04-17 06:04:42 PM

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


The argument is that then the government would have a list of gun owners and which guns they would use which they then could use at some future time to confiscate said guns.  I believe such lists have been used overseas and possibly [I will Citation Needed myself on this one] in a few local cases in the US for such a purpose, so it's not that ridiculous an argument.

My solution would be to have an on-line, annoymous, government run, internet site that a seller must run a buyer's name, date of birth, and social security number through before any gun sale and get a binary "Ok to buy guns"/"Not ok to buy guns" but wouldn't give further details, or record the specifics of the transaction (and could be used by anybody, so even somebody running a check wouldn't be a confirmation a sale even took place).  But that wasn't this bill; I think such a bill could pass.
 
2013-04-17 06:04:51 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.


You ever heard of the phrase "tyranny of the majority"?  It's usually the battle cry of the left wing until it doesn't go their way.
 
2013-04-17 06:04:54 PM

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


Because it's more important that artistic endeavors be censored than people pass the most cursory of checks before getting ahold of their sweet, sweet
images4.wikia.nocookie.net

guns, guns, GUUUUUUNS!
 
2013-04-17 06:05:08 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: All the amendments are going down. Trafficking, National Reciprocity, and the big ones AWB and mag ban defeated. The AWB vote was 40-60.


Freedom and justice are walking hand in hand with victory over the bridge to a new tomorrow!
 
2013-04-17 06:05:19 PM

Mrbogey: udhq: Wow, it must take a pretty extreme level of cognitive flexibility to convince yourself that the framers of the constitution anticipated the future existence of the AR-15, but not WMDs.

Of course this isn't what I said. Your poor reading skills lead you down a path that I didn't create.

Do you believe that soldiers of the world are equipped with personal nukes?


A lot of personal weapons can be fitted with depleted uranium munitions.  But that's beside the point that there is absolutely ZERO constitutional basis to the claim that "arms" means just some arms, but not some other arms.
 
2013-04-17 06:05:20 PM
For all the gloaters, here's what you're missing. Conservative tears are only so goddamned delicious because it usually means that their evil plan was thwarted.

The left gloats when things like this happen:
- Palin/McCain and Romney/Ryan are kept out of the White House
- Millions of Americans are gain access to health insurance
- Homosexual friends and family gain civil rights
- Republican Presidential Primary Debates

The right gloats when:
- Americans unlike them are denied Civil Rights
- we kill LOTS of brown people, even if we attack them in retaliation for an attack in which they played no role.
- Mexicans that grew up in the US from infancy are shipped to Mexico
- they are able to successfully obstruct laws that they agreed with before they were proposed by the wrong party
 
2013-04-17 06:05:23 PM

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


Explain it again then, because I seem to have forgotten any time you have addressed that to me.

Why are background checks beyond the reasonable regulation interpretation the courts have used in the past?

DC's restriction on handguns was unconstitutional in part because it was unreasonable, right?
 
2013-04-17 06:05:40 PM

The_Sponge: I refuse to give up my rights because of the actions of gang bangers in Chicago.


No one is asking you to give up your rights. You are not a victim.
 
2013-04-17 06:05:42 PM

Corvus: The_Sponge: Corvus: I made a mistake I meant shootings not deaths.

Ok fine 30,000. You think thats a low number?


Riiiiiiight.

It's a low number given our population and the number of firearms in circulation.

And you know what?  Chicago has done one hell of a job adding to that total, and that city has very strict gun laws.

So as long as we don't have one gun death per gun it's ok?

Should we do that with car regulations too? Have no car regulations until the deaths equal the number of cars?

Why shouldn't people be able to drink and drive as long as they are not killing anyone?


Sponge is also mistaken. At a per gun / per capita rate, it's still about doubt that of Germany, which has a high gun ownership rate (relative to the rest of Europe). 30k is actually high, not low, given the number of guns. Personally, I blame the drug war for the difference, but YMMV.
 
2013-04-17 06:06:11 PM

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


THE PROBLEM IS EITHER 100% FIXED IN ITS ENTIRETY OR NOT AT ALL!!!

/NO MIDDLE GROUND!
//NO RETREAT!!!!
///YELLING IS FUN!!!
 
2013-04-17 06:07:46 PM

TIKIMAN87: MaudlinMutantMollusk: F*cking cowards

Did you say that when Obamacare was passed and the majority of Americans opposed it?

Just wait til Obamacare unemployment happens, you will not give a S*IT about gun laws.

You coward.


Great. When that happens get back to me and I'll admit you were right. Until then, piss off
 
2013-04-17 06:07:57 PM

odinsposse: They talk about closing the "gun show loophole" that doesn't exist

in less than a dozen states


In Most states, it's at the back tables, the one's staffed by private parties selling from their personal collection. 
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-b an kground-checks-state-laws-map.html
 
2013-04-17 06:08:02 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: The name 'gun show loophole' is a bit of a misnomer anyway, because most of the sales it refers to happen in the parking lot


I've been to plenty of gun shows when I was younger actually and I never saw anyone selling anything in the parking lot (I suppose  wasn't looking). It was all inside display cases with sellers who had to register with the venue.

I'm not saying background checks in gun shows will stop any mass murders but shouldn't we at least take a half assed stab at enforcing the laws we have? The gov't sure goes out of the way to do that with other trivial laws we have.
 
2013-04-17 06:08:22 PM

Frank N Stein: Hahaha

The tears are delicious.


cdn.newsday.com
 
2013-04-17 06:08:55 PM

TIKIMAN87: vernonFL: [www.wcvb.com image 640x455]


[fireden.net image 596x329]

That's the same guy who smiled before a press conference about his dead kid.

Asking the media "we ready to start?" as he smiled.

Die in a fire.


There is something very, very wrong with you. You have a large gap in your understanding of human behavior. Either that, or you are willfully obtuse for political purposes.
 
2013-04-17 06:09:03 PM

jigger: 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.


I fully admit I confused "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment with "reasonable restrictions" as interpreted by the courts.

Mea culpa.
 
2013-04-17 06:09:36 PM

udhq: If I was weary of signing off on your right to possess the tools of mass murder before, your sadistic, childish glee at our government's unwillingness to react to the mass murder of children only proves that instinct that you are EXACTLY the type of person that cannot and should not be trusted to possess firearms capable of translating your obvious misanthropy into corpses.


Very well stated.

Not every violent criminal is born that way. But the reactions of many here show the potential to be someone I wouldn't trust near a water pistol, even if you could pass a background check and legally buy a gun today.

Personally, I've all but given up the fight. Make it so guns are available in grocery stores next to the cereal and you can pass one through the self-checkout with no problems. I honestly don't care anymore. Whatever happens happens. But can we at least narrow the definition of "responsible gun owner" to something more strict than "a gun owner who hasn't committed a crime yet"?
 
2013-04-17 06:10:33 PM

DrKillPatient: As far as I could see Fox did't even carry the press conference. The only ones.


they're the media arm of the GOP. why would they?
 
2013-04-17 06:11:05 PM
There can be no regulation on important rights. Also all constitutional rights are exactly the same, except when they aren't. Why is the 2nd so important? It's so obvious you're just stupid. Wild, Coked-out Hogs, Government Tyrrany, and skeet shooting, of course.

We don't ban things just because we don't need them. Well, except for all kinds of commercial products we find dangerous to our health.

And we can't tax guns because then the poors wouldn't be able to get them. Just like how we can't tax cigarettes. What's the NFA? Oh, you mean there's already tax stamps required for some weapons and it's been around for decades? Well that's BS. Oh and there's already an 11% federal tax on ammunition? LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Besides, regulation would never work because I wouldn't let it, and it is known that it doesn't do anything to curb crime. That's why we don't have laws against murder and rape, because they don't do anything. And all other countries are totally different than us, which is why they don't have any gun related homicide, it definitely doesn't have anything to do with the number of guns or restrictiveness of gun laws. BUt they are totally like us when I compare our violent crime to ours and justify guns as the cause for our relative lower crime rate per capita. I'm sure there's no other factors involved.

Finally, Mao came for the guns and so did Hitler, and furthermore.
 
2013-04-17 06:12:04 PM

Corvus: Why shouldn't people be able to drink and drive as long as they are not killing anyone?



There's a world of difference between me drunk driving and me owning certain firearms and magazines that make some people wet the bed at night.
 
2013-04-17 06:12:10 PM

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


Because the Nutty Raving Assholes, who have the GOP by the balls, profit from increased gun sales following mass murders, especially after the head Asshole tells his minions, "OBAMA'S COMIN' FER YER GUNS!"

Every slaughtered child means more $$$ in their pockets.
 
2013-04-17 06:13:15 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAH!    the prez gave a boo-boo look i haven't seen since my son crapped his pants years ago!!!    go poly-tick-ians!!!
 
2013-04-17 06:13:24 PM

Geotpf: The argument is that then the government would have a list of gun owners and which guns they would use which they then could use at some future time to confiscate said guns.  I believe such lists have been used overseas and possibly [I will Citation Needed myself on this one] in a few local cases in the US for such a purpose, so it's not that ridiculous an argument.


Well that's horseshiat but even if it were true and the US could actually keep a database that big for something so trivial, how self important do you have to be to think the gov't would spend their limited resources on you and the couple guns you bought on farmland during gun week?

Gun nuts are the most paranoid people who think their importance are a shiatton more than it is.
 
2013-04-17 06:13:53 PM

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

Because the Nutty Raving Assholes, who have the GOP by the balls, profit from increased gun sales following mass murders, especially after the head Asshole tells his minions, "OBAMA'S COMIN' FER YER GUNS!"

Every slaughtered child means more $$$ in their pockets.


You are this mad.
 
2013-04-17 06:14:44 PM

your average maint. man: HAHAHAHAHAHAH!    the prez gave a boo-boo look i haven't seen since my son crapped his pants years ago!!!    go poly-tick-ians!!!


Settle down, grandpa. You'll mess yourself again.
 
2013-04-17 06:14:47 PM

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: Suck it you whiny gungrabber farks! And don't forget that if Obama couldn't pass it by exploiting dead 6 year olds, it's never going to pass. Move to Canada, cowards.


You seem like a reasonable and mature fellow. I am sure you regularly engage in meaningful and intelligent discussion.
 
2013-04-17 06:15:05 PM
Oh yeah and all restrictions on constitutional ammendments must be equal, except registration, that's only for voting because illegals, definitely can't apply to guns.

And cars are just like guns, so why don't you pay attention to how many people die from them. Why not regulate cars? It's not like they have a purpose. It's not like you have to register your car, maintain it, pay property taxes on it, get licensed to drive it, maintain and keep proof of insurance for it whenever you take it out, etc. WHY DONT YOU FOCUS ON THE CARS?

And why are you so racist against AR-15s? The deaths from rifles only account for about 2% of all gun homicides. What's the proportion of assault rifles out of the 300m guns? That doesn't matter! 2%. But don't ban handguns either, that's not my argument. Just don't do anything.
 
2013-04-17 06:15:05 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: The_Sponge: I refuse to give up my rights because of the actions of gang bangers in Chicago.

No one is asking you to give up your rights. You are not a victim.



Oh really?  Feinstein didn't propose a new "assault weapons" ban and a ban on certain magazines?
 
2013-04-17 06:15:29 PM

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: Suck it you whiny gungrabber farks! And don't forget that if Obama couldn't pass it by exploiting dead 6 year olds, it's never going to pass. Move to Canada, cowards.


Cowards? You're the one who feels the needs to stock up on guns and is afraid of his own government.
 
2013-04-17 06:15:44 PM

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: Suck it you whiny gungrabber farks! And don't forget that if Obama couldn't pass it by exploiting dead 6 year olds, it's never going to pass. Move to Canada, cowards.


Hey Jackwad! Your side won. If this is your response when no gun regs are passed, what's going to happen when....

Nevermind. I'm sure you'll find plenty of comfort fantasizing about all the evil you can fight with your guns.
 
2013-04-17 06:16:39 PM
Cowardly. All but four Republicans and the four Democrats who could have made it happen.

You suck.
 
2013-04-17 06:17:10 PM

The_Sponge: Oh really?  Feinstein didn't propose a new "assault weapons" ban and a ban on certain magazines?


we're talking background checks. try to keep up.
 
2013-04-17 06:17:16 PM
Mugato

Well that's horseshiat but even if it were true and the US could actually keep a database that big for something so trivial, how self important do you have to be to think the gov't would spend their limited resources on you and the couple guns you bought on farmland during gun week?

Gun nuts are the most paranoid people who think their importance are a shiatton more than it is.


A majority of Americans (according to CNN's polling) believe that a federal firearms registry would lead to confiscation.

Since there is no gun-owning majority, it would seem that it's more than gun nuts with this concern.
 
2013-04-17 06:18:39 PM

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


DINOs.
 
2013-04-17 06:19:06 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.


Here:

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Which is exactly what this law did. They specifically said it was ok like I said.
 
2013-04-17 06:19:25 PM

OgreMagi: So you are against guns because you want to reduce murder and violence, then you turn around and wish for the violent murder of completely innocent people. WTF is wrong with you?



Oh....he's mad, bro.
 
2013-04-17 06:19:48 PM

Cletus C.: Cowardly. All but four Republicans and the four Democrats who could have made it happen.

You suck.


actually 4 could have swung the vote. 50-50 and Biden would break the tie.
 
2013-04-17 06:20:03 PM

cman: devildog123: FlashHarry: HeadLever: The senators from Montana and North Dakota are in the same boat.  I suspect the one from Arkansas is too.  These would be carreer ending votes for them.

WHO F*CKING CARES ABOUT THEIR GODDAMN CAREERS?

they were sent to represent the people. 90 percent of the people want background checks.

They were sent to represent the people who voted for them.  And those people do not want these checks.  I live in Alaska, no one up here that I talk to wants them.  This is a state that doesn't even require a permit to carry concealed.  The last 3 guns I bought I picked up at the range from guys, for cash, no background check.  I had a buddy who was PD check to see if they were stolen, but that's because I'm the cautious type.  Most people don't even bother with that.

Polls being inaccurate aside I still think these polls have more integrity than you do

I dont want an AWB. A lot of people do not want an AWB. But, can we sit here and do nothing about it?

It was about background checks.

Background checks. No waiting period, no weapons ban, no barring a pink pistol, but background checks. Is this unreasonable in the wake of these massive shootings?

No. And if you think it is you are a partisan prick.


C, while I don't always agree with your analysis, you're the only right-of-center guy in this entire thread who isn't being a deliberate belligerent shiatstain, and for that, I want to thank you.
 
2013-04-17 06:20:31 PM

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

Because the Nutty Raving Assholes, who have the GOP by the balls, profit from increased gun sales following mass murders, especially after the head Asshole tells his minions, "OBAMA'S COMIN' FER YER GUNS!"

Every slaughtered child means more $$$ in their pockets.

You are this mad.


No, I'm merely stating a fact.
That's just one of many, many articles addressing this topic.
 
2013-04-17 06:21:28 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.


Sorry, when has the majority ever ruled? All the minority has to do is scream "unfair/racist/homophobic/ unconstitutional/sexist" and they pretty much get their way.
 
2013-04-17 06:21:36 PM
the Dem party should pull all support from the 4 who voted against this. they should also lose all committee chairs.
 
2013-04-17 06:21:58 PM

Hobodeluxe: the Dem party should pull all support from the 4 who voted against this. they should also lose all committee chairs.


i agree with this.
 
2013-04-17 06:22:04 PM
This thread is scary. I'm out of here.

Oh,  if I could I'd take your guns. All of them. And laugh in your face while I did it.

Bye.
 
2013-04-17 06:22:06 PM

someonelse: your average maint. man: HAHAHAHAHAHAH!    the prez gave a boo-boo look i haven't seen since my son crapped his pants years ago!!!    go poly-tick-ians!!!

Settle down, grandpa. You'll mess yourself again.


i ain't a grandpa yet...can i by you a drink?
 
2013-04-17 06:22:09 PM

cman: Background checks. No waiting period, no weapons ban, no barring a pink pistol, but background checks. Is this unreasonable in the wake of these massive shootings?


If that was all the bill was, it would have easily passed.  It went beyond background checks and essentially implemented a gun registry program.
 
2013-04-17 06:22:14 PM

Frank N Stein: You are this mad.


Frank... stop digging. Haven't you hit low enough already?
 
2013-04-17 06:22:21 PM

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


well we would've banned guns outright but you lot kept getting your panties in a twist about it
 
2013-04-17 06:22:49 PM

FlashHarry: justtray: wellthatescalatedquickly.jpeg

In before "no hate like liberal hate"

yeah, i was going to post yourenothelping.gif.


These threads are starting to become charactures of themselves. I used to get worked up over them. Then I realized that many posters are total shill and just going to spew debunked logical fallacies forever and now they just make me laugh.
 
2013-04-17 06:22:59 PM

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

 
2013-04-17 06:23:05 PM

TerminalEchoes: 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.

Sorry, when has the majority ever ruled? All the minority has to do is scream "unfair/racist/homophobic/ unconstitutional/sexist" and they pretty much get their way.


Up until about the 1950's. Compared to then it is a crappy time to be a white guy in America.
 
2013-04-17 06:23:37 PM
What's funny I think Heller actually makes more gun restrictions easier. It say basically you can't ban people from having a normal type gun in their home but every other aspect can be restricted to some level.

I think some people really haven't read the Heller decision and just look that it struck down a gun restriction law.
 
2013-04-17 06:24:35 PM

TIKIMAN87: MaudlinMutantMollusk: TIKIMAN87: MaudlinMutantMollusk: F*cking cowards

Did you say that when Obamacare was passed and the majority of Americans opposed it?

Just wait til Obamacare unemployment happens, you will not give a S*IT about gun laws.

You coward.

Great. When that happens get back to me and I'll admit you were right. Until then, piss off

Just remember my post. Even the liberal media is finally admitting it.


whatever
 
2013-04-17 06:25:46 PM

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


www.mbird.com

www.mbird.com

www.mbird.com

Was looking for a multiple bear pic to keep it grammatically correct but Facepalm Bear here was too appropriate to pass up.
 
2013-04-17 06:25:47 PM

justtray: These threads are starting to become charactures of themselves. I used to get worked up over them. Then I realized that many posters are total shill and just going to spew debunked logical fallacies forever and now they just make me laugh.


I'm convinced half of them are just automated bots that insert keywords into phrases whenever one of these threads pops up.
 
2013-04-17 06:26:08 PM

Cletus C.: Oh, if I could I'd take your guns. All of them. And laugh in your face while I did it.



Yeah, and if I could fly around like Superman, it would be farking awesome....but neither one is going to happen.
 
2013-04-17 06:27:15 PM

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

The argument is that then the government would have a list of gun owners and which guns they would use which they then could use at some future time to confiscate said guns.  I believe such lists have been used overseas and possibly [I will Citation Needed myself on this one] in a few local cases in the US for such a purpose, so it's not that ridiculous an argument.

My solution would be to have an on-line, annoymous, government run, internet site that a seller must run a buyer's name, date of birth, and social security number through before any gun sale and get a binary "Ok to buy guns"/"Not ok to buy guns" but wouldn't give further details, or record the specifics of the transaction (and could be used by anybody, so even somebody running a check wouldn't be a confirmation a sale even took place).  But that wasn't this bill; I think such a bill could pass.


Thank you. I can actually see that side of the argument. I think it's far-fetched and not very realistic, but that's Just My Opinion.
 
2013-04-17 06:27:24 PM
In this thread:
- Republicans* laughing because they still have the tools available to kill school children
- rational people

* GOP, teabaggers, Birchers, birthers, NRA, NAMBLA, StormFront, KKK, HammerSkins, Fox News, libertarians, dominionists, 2nd amendment fetishists, chickenhawks, evangelicals, dittoheads, American Thinker, Red State, World Net Daily, The Blaze, and all fundamentalists of every religion (especially American Christianity)
 
2013-04-17 06:27:32 PM
It's good to know that "tyranny of the majority" did not prevail today. Yes, > 80% of the public supported universal background checks, but might I remind you that at one point in time > 80% of the public also supported slavery.  It's good to know that in the end the people we elect choose to support the Constitution.  I only hope they do the same when it comes to giving our gay brothers and sisters the right's that they deserve.
 
2013-04-17 06:28:35 PM

justtray: I don't think there's a button to his digging.


Well, if we had background checks on shovels, maybe he wouldn't be digging in the first place.

/I kid.
 
2013-04-17 06:29:15 PM

karmaceutical: What the fark has Fark turned into?


Reddit?
 
2013-04-17 06:29:21 PM

Hobodeluxe: the Dem party should pull all support from the 4 who voted against this. they should also lose all committee chairs.


Bauchus, Begich, Heitkamp, Pryor. Montana, Alaska, S Dakota, Arkansas. If the DSCC pulled its support, all 4 would flip Republican. 3 of them in 2014.
 
2013-04-17 06:29:34 PM

Richard Flaccid: It's good to know that "tyranny of the majority" did not prevail today.


 Yep, it's still open season on school children

HUZZAH !!!!
 
2013-04-17 06:29:55 PM
Like this legislation had any chance of passing. I support background checks, but this was obviously DOA.  We will never have sensible gun control in this country.
 
2013-04-17 06:29:57 PM

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

DINOs.


They're in very conservative states. Harry Reid probably gave them the OK when it was clear they weren't going to be able to get 60.
 
2013-04-17 06:30:08 PM
So the only answers as to why background checks are bad is conspiracy theories and strawman arguments.
 
2013-04-17 06:31:11 PM
What a victory for freedom!

Gun buyers will not burdened with the couple of minutes that would take!

The Constitution survives!!1!
 
2013-04-17 06:31:59 PM

Corvus: 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.

Here:

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Which is exactly what this law did. They specifically said it was ok like I said.


I see our miscommunication. I wasn't talking about the background checks, but the general case of where you can draw the line on what kinds of guns one can own. Sorry that I wasn't clear about that.
 
2013-04-17 06:32:29 PM
can't we all just get along????   :)
 
2013-04-17 06:32:38 PM

R.A.Danny: vygramul: Did Heller say that an assault weapons ban would be ok?

It didn't discount reasonable restrictions on firearms. It also didn't define reasonable restrictions.

No one wants wackos and felons to have guns. Some want to punish law abiding citizens.


go on....
 
2013-04-17 06:32:44 PM

Hobodeluxe: Cletus C.: Cowardly. All but four Republicans and the four Democrats who could have made it happen.

You suck.

actually 4 could have swung the vote. 50-50 and Biden would break the tie.


You're looking at it the wrong way. It was a cloture vote. Need 60.
 
2013-04-17 06:32:59 PM

Lionel Mandrake: What a victory for freedom!

Gun buyers will not burdened with the couple of minutes that would take!

The Constitution survives!!1!


Our long national nightmare of debating gun control is finally settled.
 
2013-04-17 06:34:38 PM

Richard Flaccid: It's good to know that "tyranny of the majority" did not prevail today. Yes, > 80% of the public supported universal background checks, but might I remind you that at one point in time > 80% of the public also supported slaver


Oh for Chrissakes. Really? You're going there?


Richard Flaccid: It's good to know that in the end the people we elect choose to support the Constitution.  I only hope they do the same when it comes to giving our gay brothers and sisters the right's that they deserve.


Then if you don't want to enforce the laws that are on the books that take out the enforcement of those laws because otherwise it makes us look like asshole.

The 2nd Amendment was about having a militia to fight against the tyranny of our own government if they got out of hand. That of course to any sane person in this day and age is farking ridiculous. But fine. You sound like idiots but fine. But at least can we enforce the laws we already have in place?
 
2013-04-17 06:34:55 PM
carvelicecream.files.wordpress.com

i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-04-17 06:35:03 PM
WTF does this have to do with Newtown? The guns used there were legally purchased from a licensed dealer, this bill has nothing to do with what happened in Newtown.
 
2013-04-17 06:35:31 PM
How soon until this thread gets closed?
 
2013-04-17 06:35:34 PM

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


I'm sure this is absolutely and 100% true. I mean, the bills that didn't pass were such that 90% of USA Americans would agree, yup pass it. The whole thing. All of it.

I mean, it couldn't possibly be that 90% of USA Americans agree with some aspect or part of the bill. It doesn't follow that all 90% of USA Americans support passing the bill itself.

Part Whole Fallacy much?
 
2013-04-17 06:37:05 PM

MorePeasPlease: [carvelicecream.files.wordpress.com image 200x200]

[i2.kym-cdn.com image 379x214]



Why is a turd holding an ice cream cone?
 
2013-04-17 06:37:58 PM
I'm trying to decide whether or not this is preferable to Bevets.
 
2013-04-17 06:38:15 PM

Cletus C.: This thread is scary. I'm out of here.

Oh,  if I could I'd take your guns. All of them. And laugh in your face while I did it.

Bye.


I'm gonna go buy a gun. Maybe. I dunno.
 
2013-04-17 06:39:06 PM

Popcorn Johnny: WTF does this have to do with Newtown? The guns used there were legally purchased from a licensed dealer, this bill has nothing to do with what happened in Newtown.


Be gone with you! Logic and facts don't matter when making strong emotional appeals. Just kidding. And some sarcasms.
 
2013-04-17 06:39:12 PM

Richard Flaccid: It's good to know that "tyranny of the majority" did not prevail today.


I guess you prefer the tyranny of the minority
 
2013-04-17 06:39:53 PM

CynicalLA: I wish you or one family members dies from gun violence. Crossing my fingers.



I hope you get a bad pistachio, really icky and bitter one!

JK, I'd never wish that on anybody.
 
2013-04-17 06:40:01 PM

Lionel Mandrake: I guess you prefer the tyranny of the minority


Damn 1%.
 
2013-04-17 06:40:44 PM

MorePeasPlease: CynicalLA: I wish you or one family members dies from gun violence. Crossing my fingers.


I hope you get a bad pistachio, really icky and bitter one!

JK, I'd never wish that on anybody.



Lulz.
 
2013-04-17 06:40:53 PM

The_Sponge: Oh really?  Feinstein didn't propose a new "assault weapons" ban and a ban on certain magazines?


She proposed it. They voted on it. But this thread is about background checks, which do not infringe on your rights. You are not a victim.
 
2013-04-17 06:40:55 PM

OgreMagi: cman: Background checks. No waiting period, no weapons ban, no barring a pink pistol, but background checks. Is this unreasonable in the wake of these massive shootings?

If that was all the bill was, it would have easily passed.  It went beyond background checks and essentially implemented a gun registry program.


Why does it matter if a registry was involved?
 
2013-04-17 06:41:01 PM

Popcorn Johnny: WTF does this have to do with Newtown? The guns used there were legally purchased from a licensed dealer, this bill has nothing to do with what happened in Newtown.




I see you are trying to use facts to dispel this wave of outraged internet butthurt.
Good luck with that.
It won't work, but good luck.
 
2013-04-17 06:41:15 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.

The main difference being the quality of the source. Good job picking CNS with their bias written right on the farking header.
 
2013-04-17 06:43:16 PM
Well, this turned rather uglier than the usual.

And that's saying something.
 
2013-04-17 06:43:55 PM

eagles95: OgreMagi: cman: Background checks. No waiting period, no weapons ban, no barring a pink pistol, but background checks. Is this unreasonable in the wake of these massive shootings?

If that was all the bill was, it would have easily passed.  It went beyond background checks and essentially implemented a gun registry program.

Why does it matter if a registry was involved?


Because a registry has been used in the past to confiscate.  See NYC.  If you're going to implement a background check, then do JUST that and don't try to stealth in a defacto gun registry program that is almost universally hated by gun owners.

I support background checks.  I did not support this bill.
 
2013-04-17 06:44:05 PM
eagles95

Why does it matter if a registry was involved?

A majority of Americans oppose a federal firearms registry.
 
2013-04-17 06:44:10 PM

cubic_spleen: In this thread:
- Republicans* laughing because they still have the tools available to kill school children
- rational people

* GOP, teabaggers, Birchers, birthers, NRA, NAMBLA, StormFront, KKK, HammerSkins, Fox News, libertarians, dominionists, 2nd amendment fetishists, chickenhawks, evangelicals, dittoheads, American Thinker, Red State, World Net Daily, The Blaze, and all fundamentalists of every religion (especially American Christianity)


I think something is wrong with your definition.

Methinks it is too broad. For obvious reasons. And reasons not so obvious, too. I mean, what about Fundamentalist Jains, who literally wouldn't swallow a fly?

Also, it's too narrow. Raging psychopaths and raving loonies might be laughing because they still have the tools available to kill school children. Serial killers. Satan and his minions. Etc.

But probably you're just trying to be funny. Or rant. Or I dunno.
 
2013-04-17 06:45:59 PM

OgreMagi: cman: Background checks. No waiting period, no weapons ban, no barring a pink pistol, but background checks. Is this unreasonable in the wake of these massive shootings?

If that was all the bill was, it would have easily passed.  It went beyond background checks and essentially implemented a gun registry program.


Ergo, 90% of all Americans agree with implementing a gun registry program. jk
 
2013-04-17 06:46:21 PM
wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net

The rustling wont end

/inb4 "the newton families aren't dealing with it" or some soccer mom shiat
 
2013-04-17 06:46:38 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Richard Flaccid: It's good to know that "tyranny of the majority" did not prevail today.

I guess you prefer the tyranny of the minority


You're kidding, right?  Tyranny of the minority has been the big thing since the 90's.  It's always about the minority now days.
 
2013-04-17 06:47:13 PM

Popcorn Johnny: WTF does this have to do with Newtown? The guns used there were legally purchased from a licensed dealer, this bill has nothing to do with what happened in Newtown.

 
2013-04-17 06:48:06 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Richard Flaccid: It's good to know that "tyranny of the majority" did not prevail today.

I guess you prefer the tyranny of the minority


i253.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-17 06:48:14 PM

OgreMagi: eagles95: OgreMagi: cman: Background checks. No waiting period, no weapons ban, no barring a pink pistol, but background checks. Is this unreasonable in the wake of these massive shootings?

If that was all the bill was, it would have easily passed.  It went beyond background checks and essentially implemented a gun registry program.

Why does it matter if a registry was involved?

Because a registry has been used in the past to confiscate.  See NYC.  If you're going to implement a background check, then do JUST that and don't try to stealth in a defacto gun registry program that is almost universally hated by gun owners.

I support background checks.  I did not support this bill.


I guess i dont get the big deal. I register everything else i dont get the big deal of a gun as long as i'm not on a shooting spree. Besides, wouldnt it be easier to find it if it was stolen if its registered. I honestly just want to know
 
2013-04-17 06:48:53 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: 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?


The simple explanation is that the constitution doesn't use the words "tobacco", "nicotine", or "smoking" anywhere in it.

The NRA has the juice because they represent a branch of products that one of the amendments to the constitution specifically discusses.
 
2013-04-17 06:48:58 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.


You mean like for every job I've ever had?
 
2013-04-17 06:49:47 PM

cabbyman: Ow! That was my feelings!: All the amendments are going down. Trafficking, National Reciprocity, and the big ones AWB and mag ban defeated. The AWB vote was 40-60.

Freedom and justice are walking hand in hand with victory over the bridge to a new tomorrow!


Your posts today read like a passage from a Pyongyang newspaper.
 
2013-04-17 06:51:22 PM

Fart_Machine: So the only answers as to why background checks are bad is conspiracy theories and strawman arguments.


Sure, if those are the only arguments you choose to count.

However one of the big problems I have with background checks is that the process for them introduces a cost and barrier to people who are just trying to ensure that they don't sell a gun to a felon or mentally unstable person.

The background check process should be open to the public and the cost needs to be covered by the government.  Adding fees, unnecessary complications, and bureaucracy into the process is counterproductive if your goal is to ensure that the maximum number of firearm transfers are performed after a background check is conducted.

If you want someone (gun owners in this case) to come over to your side, you can't just tell them that they must give up something, and gain nothing.  You will never convince someone to come over to your side with that argument.  You need to show them how they will end up better or equal to their current situation.
 
2013-04-17 06:51:53 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


Maybe that's a good reason for gun owners to also be held criminally liable for crimes committed with their guns if they cannot prove due diligence in making sure they were secure. Had a gun under your back seat stolen and used in a crime? You should have had it safe in a safe, you will face charges. Had it stolen from a good safe and the trigger lock was defeated? No charges. Had it taken by your criminally insane kid who killed 20 kids? You should tour in jail if you hadn't been murdered yourself.
 
2013-04-17 06:52:09 PM

eagles95: I guess i dont get the big deal. I register everything else i dont get the big deal of a gun as long as i'm not on a shooting spree. Besides, wouldnt it be easier to find it if it was stolen if its registered. I honestly just want to know



1) Because I don't trust state governments or the federal government not to abuse a registration list.

2) Also, I have a personal list of my firearms and their serial numbers just in case any of them are stolen.
 
2013-04-17 06:52:33 PM

yukichigai: Uranus Is Huge!: 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?

The simple explanation is that the constitution doesn't use the words "tobacco", "nicotine", or "smoking" anywhere in it.

The NRA has the juice because they represent a branch of products that one of the amendments to the constitution specifically discusses.


It also doesn't use the words "gun," "rifle," "pistol," and many other terms.

But if you feel like being a strict originalist, why don't we stop ignoring the preface to the 2nd, "A well-regulated miltia, necessary to the security of a free state..?" (sorry if I'm not exactly correct, just doing this from memory)
 
2013-04-17 06:53:49 PM

eagles95: OgreMagi: eagles95: OgreMagi: cman: Background checks. No waiting period, no weapons ban, no barring a pink pistol, but background checks. Is this unreasonable in the wake of these massive shootings?

If that was all the bill was, it would have easily passed.  It went beyond background checks and essentially implemented a gun registry program.

Why does it matter if a registry was involved?

Because a registry has been used in the past to confiscate.  See NYC.  If you're going to implement a background check, then do JUST that and don't try to stealth in a defacto gun registry program that is almost universally hated by gun owners.

I support background checks.  I did not support this bill.

I guess i dont get the big deal. I register everything else i dont get the big deal of a gun as long as i'm not on a shooting spree. Besides, wouldnt it be easier to find it if it was stolen if its registered. I honestly just want to know


It would also be easier for teh gubmint to break in your door and take your freedom guns!!  But you can protect your rights against legions of federal agents with yer Bushmaster!  They'll eventually go away and leave you alone.

And also, background checks could take as long as 5 minutes!  What if you're raped or assaulted while you wait?
 
2013-04-17 06:54:22 PM

eagles95: I guess i dont get the big deal. I register everything else i dont get the big deal of a gun as long as i'm not on a shooting spree. Besides, wouldnt it be easier to find it if it was stolen if its registered. I honestly just want to know


Maybe it's paranoia, but there are people in power that try ALL THE TIME to weaken the 2nd Amendment with a goal of eventual civilian disarmament. It's not a secret, they are open about it.

It's one of the few times that the slippery slope isn't a fallacy, because every inch you give them, gives them more and more leverage to take more and more.

People don't want a government registry of firearm owners. It's not the "tyranny of the minority." The majority's will was served today. If we framed this issue as a debate over the registry, no one would be threatening to kill each other in this thread, but background checks sound so much more reasonable, therefore so much more outrageous that it failed to pass.

But it's misleading to frame this entire event as being based around some background check.
 
2013-04-17 06:54:39 PM

eagles95: OgreMagi: eagles95: OgreMagi: cman: Background checks. No waiting period, no weapons ban, no barring a pink pistol, but background checks. Is this unreasonable in the wake of these massive shootings?

If that was all the bill was, it would have easily passed.  It went beyond background checks and essentially implemented a gun registry program.

Why does it matter if a registry was involved?

Because a registry has been used in the past to confiscate.  See NYC.  If you're going to implement a background check, then do JUST that and don't try to stealth in a defacto gun registry program that is almost universally hated by gun owners.

I support background checks.  I did not support this bill.

I guess i dont get the big deal. I register everything else i dont get the big deal of a gun as long as i'm not on a shooting spree. Besides, wouldnt it be easier to find it if it was stolen if its registered. I honestly just want to know


I will repeat the important part with more detail.  New York City implemented a new law requiring all firearms to be registered, promising they were never going to confiscate guns, cross my heart.  A few years later they started banning guns, and used the gun registry to confiscate them (all completely in violation of the Constitution).  People are worried this could be repeated at the Federal level.  With no registry, the Feds would be hard pressed to know exactly who had what.

A proper background check system would only need to ask one question:  Is John Q. Public, SS# 123-45-6789, allowed to possess a firearm?  With a simple yes or no answer.  Instead, the law would require detailed information on the particular firearm(s) being purchased, information not needed for a background check which could easily be used to create a firearms registry system.
 
2013-04-17 06:54:55 PM
All humor aside, some limitations on guns wouldn't be a bad thing. Problem is, you're starting in the wrong place. If you want the government to provide gun control, start with the very entity the government has direct control of: the government. Do you really think we're going to watch the government amass enough armament to entirely wipe out the entire population, and then trust it when it says it wants to lessen OUR access to firepower? DHS has purchased hundreds of millions of bullets, and passed assault weaponry out like candy to every Barney Fife who sees his self as Rambo and asks for one. The government has become one big gun. It solves every problem by either using deadly force, or by escalating any and every situation where it meets any resistance, until it can rationalize its own use of deadly force. The VERY FIRST picture I saw of the incident in Boston, was of cops running with guns drawn. What the hell for? They didn't see anything but victims, yet they felt the instinctive need to fondle their weaponry for comfort and security.

You want gun control; start with the REAL "gun nuts". And I say that as a so-called "gun-nut" myself.
 
2013-04-17 06:55:14 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.


He mad.
 
2013-04-17 06:55:53 PM

OgreMagi: Because a registry has been used in the past to confiscate. See NYC. If you're going to implement a background check, then do JUST that and don't try to stealth in a defacto gun registry program that is almost universally hated by gun owners.

I support background checks. I did not support this bill.


re: the SAFE act? didn't that guy get his guns back? by court order even?

because to be honest with you, if there were to be a nut out there who had guns, was on a registry & was found to be in violation of a State act, i would want his guns confiscated.
 
2013-04-17 06:56:01 PM
It says something about a thread when the count stays at a certain number after I refresh but there are 7 new posts.
 
2013-04-17 06:56:06 PM

yukichigai: Uranus Is Huge!: 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?

The simple explanation is that the constitution doesn't use the words "tobacco", "nicotine", or "smoking" anywhere in it.

The NRA has the juice because they represent a branch of products that one of the amendments to the constitution specifically discusses.


In that case I'm going to make a killing with my 3rd Amendment lobbying firm. I will rule Washington! Congress will shake at the thought of wavering in their commitment to keeping soldiers out of my townhouse and incurring my wrath!

Name any other special interest group with as much pull as the NRA. Are you really going to argue that the ACLU comes close? Do any of the other mega-SIGs work on constitutional issues?
 
2013-04-17 06:56:21 PM
i369.photobucket.com
Good!
 
2013-04-17 06:58:08 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: yukichigai: Uranus Is Huge!: 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?

The simple explanation is that the constitution doesn't use the words "tobacco", "nicotine", or "smoking" anywhere in it.

The NRA has the juice because they represent a branch of products that one of the amendments to the constitution specifically discusses.

In that case I'm going to make a killing with my 3rd Amendment lobbying firm. I will rule Washington! Congress will shake at the thought of wavering in their commitment to keeping soldiers out of my townhouse and incurring my wrath!

Name any other special interest group with as much pull as the NRA. Are you really going to argue that the ACLU comes close? Do any of the other mega-SIGs work on constitutional issues?


AARP
 
2013-04-17 06:58:18 PM
The constitution survives, albeit tattered, for another minute...
 
2013-04-17 06:58:36 PM
You cannot currently buy a gun if you've been committed against your will.   Maybe we can commit more folks who seem nuts against their will, even if only long enough for such an act to go down on their permanent record. Viola!

The issue is about mental health, not guns.    If mental health records are not being made apparent in backgrounds, which os a VERY STICKY topic, then background checks will not be sufficient for anything.
 
2013-04-17 06:59:07 PM

devildog123: 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.


And he'll lose to a Gun Nut teabagger, anyway. This is Alaska, after all.
 
2013-04-17 06:59:10 PM

Mrbogey: None of the right-of-center posters are being any form of shiatstain. The left-winger saying he wants to see innocent people dead and the other one saying Republicans are terrorists however are being deliberate shiatstains.


Oh, get off it.  You defend some AWFUL behavior from right-wingers, but have you seen a single gun-control person defending the guy that made the threats?

I would say he made his point: a lot of people, like him, cannot and should not be trusted to own firearms!
 
2013-04-17 06:59:40 PM
For those interested. The Roll Call votes on all the amendments. Link
 
2013-04-17 07:00:47 PM

redmid17: Uranus Is Huge!: yukichigai: Uranus Is Huge!: 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?

The simple explanation is that the constitution doesn't use the words "tobacco", "nicotine", or "smoking" anywhere in it.

The NRA has the juice because they represent a branch of products that one of the amendments to the constitution specifically discusses.

In that case I'm going to make a killing with my 3rd Amendment lobbying firm. I will rule Washington! Congress will shake at the thought of wavering in their commitment to keeping soldiers out of my townhouse and incurring my wrath!

Name any other special interest group with as much pull as the NRA. Are you really going to argue that the ACLU comes close? Do any of the other mega-SIGs work on constitutional issues?

AARP


They are as powerful. Are they on the frontlines of protecting any constitutional rights? That sounds snarkier than I intend, but protecting 2nd Amendment rights is the NRA's stated mission.
 
2013-04-17 07:02:12 PM

udhq: Mrbogey: None of the right-of-center posters are being any form of shiatstain. The left-winger saying he wants to see innocent people dead and the other one saying Republicans are terrorists however are being deliberate shiatstains.

Oh, get off it. You defend some AWFUL behavior from right-wingers, but have you seen a single gun-control person defending the guy that made the threats?


He doesn't need to see it.  He's one of those "conservatives" who knows what liberals think even better than they know themselves.
 
2013-04-17 07:02:17 PM

Isitoveryet: OgreMagi: Because a registry has been used in the past to confiscate. See NYC. If you're going to implement a background check, then do JUST that and don't try to stealth in a defacto gun registry program that is almost universally hated by gun owners.

I support background checks. I did not support this bill.

re: the SAFE act? didn't that guy get his guns back? by court order even?

because to be honest with you, if there were to be a nut out there who had guns, was on a registry & was found to be in violation of a State act, i would want his guns confiscated.


When any new law is proposed, take a moment to examine exactly how that law will be abused by the government. Because that is exactly what is going to happen.  Yes, having that information would make it easier for the authorities to confiscate the guns of someone who is dangerous (and convicted), but it also means it is easier for them to abuse that power.  And if there's one thing that is a universal constant, it's the government will ALWAYS abuse any power they are granted.  I prefer to error on the side of limiting the government powers.

/and I don't currently own any guns
 
2013-04-17 07:02:44 PM

TIKIMAN87: someonelse: TIKIMAN87: vernonFL: [www.wcvb.com image 640x455]


[fireden.net image 596x329]

That's the same guy who smiled before a press conference about his dead kid.

Asking the media "we ready to start?" as he smiled.

Die in a fire.

There is something very, very wrong with you. You have a large gap in your understanding of human behavior. Either that, or you are willfully obtuse for political purposes.

And you're the one who rejects fraud when the evidence is right in front of you.


I have no idea what you're blithering about now. But I'm sure you think you're making a point.
 
2013-04-17 07:02:51 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Are you really going to argue that the ACLU comes close? Do any of the other mega-SIGs work on constitutional issues?



AARP is very influential.  They just don't work on issues which have been taken up as 'pro/anti' planks in the Democratic and Republican platforms.
 
2013-04-17 07:03:04 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: redmid17: Uranus Is Huge!: yukichigai: Uranus Is Huge!: 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?

The simple explanation is that the constitution doesn't use the words "tobacco", "nicotine", or "smoking" anywhere in it.

The NRA has the juice because they represent a branch of products that one of the amendments to the constitution specifically discusses.

In that case I'm going to make a killing with my 3rd Amendment lobbying firm. I will rule Washington! Congress will shake at the thought of wavering in their commitment to keeping soldiers out of my townhouse and incurring my wrath!

Name any other special interest group with as much pull as the NRA. Are you really going to argue that the ACLU comes close? Do any of the other mega-SIGs work on constitutional issues?

AARP

They are as powerful. Are they on the frontlines of protecting any constitutional rights? That sounds snarkier than I intend, but protecting 2nd Amendment rights is the NRA's stated mission.


No they cover a much broader base. I'd also argue that the Wall Street lobby and the DoD lobby are probably just as infuential, albeit with the constitutional rights angle that the NRA focuses on.
 
2013-04-17 07:04:49 PM
Generally, when somebody says something is "common sense" legislation, they actually mean "unconstitutional as Hell" legislation.
 
2013-04-17 07:05:24 PM

candidus: Lionel Mandrake: Richard Flaccid: It's good to know that "tyranny of the majority" did not prevail today.

I guess you prefer the tyranny of the minority

[i253.photobucket.com image 650x534]


Democracy only goes so far, look what we're doing in Detroit. Had to tell democracy to take a backseat and appoint someone to help because the people were too stupid.

/Actually saw idiots two weeks ago protesting the Tiger's opening day wearing 're-elect Kwame' t-shirts.
 
2013-04-17 07:05:55 PM

OgreMagi: Isitoveryet: OgreMagi: Because a registry has been used in the past to confiscate. See NYC. If you're going to implement a background check, then do JUST that and don't try to stealth in a defacto gun registry program that is almost universally hated by gun owners.

I support background checks. I did not support this bill.

re: the SAFE act? didn't that guy get his guns back? by court order even?

because to be honest with you, if there were to be a nut out there who had guns, was on a registry & was found to be in violation of a State act, i would want his guns confiscated.

When any new law is proposed, take a moment to examine exactly how that law will be abused by the government. Because that is exactly what is going to happen.  Yes, having that information would make it easier for the authorities to confiscate the guns of someone who is dangerous (and convicted), but it also means it is easier for them to abuse that power.  And if there's one thing that is a universal constant, it's the government will ALWAYS abuse any power they are granted.  I prefer to error on the side of limiting the government powers.

/and I don't currently own any guns


THIS.

Flawed laws with good intentions are scary as hell.
 
2013-04-17 07:06:35 PM

the.swartz: You cannot currently buy a gun if you've been committed against your will.   Maybe we can commit more folks who seem nuts against their will, even if only long enough for such an act to go down on their permanent record. Viola!

The issue is about mental health, not guns.    If mental health records are not being made apparent in backgrounds, which os a VERY STICKY topic, then background checks will not be sufficient for anything.


What bugs me about that is you can 5150 someone, which is the California code for committed for psychiatric observation for up to 72 hours.  The idea is to see if the person is actually mentally ill.  Logically, if the person is released, then they aren't mentally ill, so the whole thing should be wiped from their record.  If the person turns out to be mentally ill, it is kicked up to a 5152, which allows for up to two weeks hold.  After that, I'm not sure of what the system does.

/technically, it's danger to self or others
 
2013-04-17 07:07:52 PM

kim jong-un: Fart_Machine: So the only answers as to why background checks are bad is conspiracy theories and strawman arguments.

Sure, if those are the only arguments you choose to count.

However one of the big problems I have with background checks is that the process for them introduces a cost and barrier to people who are just trying to ensure that they don't sell a gun to a felon or mentally unstable person.

The background check process should be open to the public and the cost needs to be covered by the government.  Adding fees, unnecessary complications, and bureaucracy into the process is counterproductive if your goal is to ensure that the maximum number of firearm transfers are performed after a background check is conducted.

If you want someone (gun owners in this case) to come over to your side, you can't just tell them that they must give up something, and gain nothing.  You will never convince someone to come over to your side with that argument.  You need to show them how they will end up better or equal to their current situation.


Expanding background checks and closing loopholes is giving up something?
 
2013-04-17 07:10:16 PM

Fart_Machine: kim jong-un: Fart_Machine: So the only answers as to why background checks are bad is conspiracy theories and strawman arguments.

Sure, if those are the only arguments you choose to count.

However one of the big problems I have with background checks is that the process for them introduces a cost and barrier to people who are just trying to ensure that they don't sell a gun to a felon or mentally unstable person.

The background check process should be open to the public and the cost needs to be covered by the government.  Adding fees, unnecessary complications, and bureaucracy into the process is counterproductive if your goal is to ensure that the maximum number of firearm transfers are performed after a background check is conducted.

If you want someone (gun owners in this case) to come over to your side, you can't just tell them that they must give up something, and gain nothing.  You will never convince someone to come over to your side with that argument.  You need to show them how they will end up better or equal to their current situation.

Expanding background checks and closing loopholes is giving up something?


How do you want to expand them. Explain to me how we're going to do it by your frame of thought or interpretation of the bill.

You want to make a difference? Make a civilian version of the NICS system. Cut the red tape of the NFA system, but require annual background checks on gun owners (and at point of sale) and a requirement for CEU's every 2-3 years to maintain proficiency and show that you're safe/not crazy. You just compromised and everyone got something they want.
 
2013-04-17 07:10:23 PM

OgreMagi: When any new law is proposed, take a moment to examine exactly how that law will be abused by the government. Because that is exactly what is going to happen. Yes, having that information would make it easier for the authorities to confiscate the guns of someone who is dangerous (and convicted), but it also means it is easier for them to abuse that power. And if there's one thing that is a universal constant, it's the government will ALWAYS abuse any power they are granted. I prefer to error on the side of limiting the government powers.

/and I don't currently own any guns


I understand that BUT we do have some legal power that prevents such abuse by our government (with the right legal representation i suppose).  NTM the entire argument of gun control is premised on the constitutionality of the argument.
i guess what i am saying is that we can be afraid of what may possibly happen or we can deal with what is happening (regarding abuse of powers).

/not a gun owner either.
//Wrist-Rockets FTW
 
2013-04-17 07:10:36 PM

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


Only in America could people be stupid enough to believe this baseless 90% figure that keeps getting thrown around.

Also, haha, socialist turds. Just consider this loss as being prep for 2014. Really, it'll help you deal with it better when it comes.
 
2013-04-17 07:10:57 PM

redmid17: Uranus Is Huge!: redmid17: Uranus Is Huge!: yukichigai: Uranus Is Huge!: 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?

The simple explanation is that the constitution doesn't use the words "tobacco", "nicotine", or "smoking" anywhere in it.

The NRA has the juice because they represent a branch of products that one of the amendments to the constitution specifically discusses.

In that case I'm going to make a killing with my 3rd Amendment lobbying firm. I will rule Washington! Congress will shake at the thought of wavering in their commitment to keeping soldiers out of my townhouse and incurring my wrath!

Name any other special interest group with as much pull as the NRA. Are you really going to argue that the ACLU comes close? Do any of the other mega-SIGs work on constitutional issues?

AARP

They are as powerful. Are they on the frontlines of protecting any constitutional rights? That sounds snarkier than I intend, but protecting 2nd Amendment rights is the NRA's stated mission.

No they cover a much broader base. I'd also argue that the Wall Street lobby and the DoD lobby are probably just as infuential, albeit with the constitutional rights angle that the NRA focuses on.


Right. I'm with you. I was trying to figure out if yukichiagi's assertion, that the NRA's power derives from the fact that they work on a constitutional issue, holds water. My opinion is that's only a very small part of it. I think there is some much more primal psychology taking place.
 
2013-04-17 07:11:59 PM

the.swartz: You cannot currently buy a gun if you've been committed against your will.


AND the seller checks to see if you have.
 
2013-04-17 07:12:23 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Hobodeluxe: the Dem party should pull all support from the 4 who voted against this. they should also lose all committee chairs.

Bauchus, Begich, Heitkamp, Pryor. Montana, Alaska, S Dakota, Arkansas. If the DSCC pulled its support, all 4 would flip Republican. 3 of them in 2014.


At least one of those will flip in 2014 anyway.  Like I said, Begich was a fluke.  He got really lucky with Ted Stevens getting convicted a month before the election, and even then I think he only won with less than 2% of the vote.  In 2010 the Republican party in Alaska split, with Murkowski running as a write in independent against Miller, the Republican candidate.  Scott McAdams, the Democrat, managed to come in 3rd, with a split Republican party, earning less than 25% of the vote.  The Republicans are licking their chops over the 2014 election up here.  Begich is going to make Rand Paul look slightly to the left of Bill Ayers between now and November 2014.
 
2013-04-17 07:12:40 PM

kim jong-un: OgreMagi: Isitoveryet: OgreMagi: Because a registry has been used in the past to confiscate. See NYC. If you're going to implement a background check, then do JUST that and don't try to stealth in a defacto gun registry program that is almost universally hated by gun owners.

I support background checks. I did not support this bill.

re: the SAFE act? didn't that guy get his guns back? by court order even?

because to be honest with you, if there were to be a nut out there who had guns, was on a registry & was found to be in violation of a State act, i would want his guns confiscated.

When any new law is proposed, take a moment to examine exactly how that law will be abused by the government. Because that is exactly what is going to happen.  Yes, having that information would make it easier for the authorities to confiscate the guns of someone who is dangerous (and convicted), but it also means it is easier for them to abuse that power.  And if there's one thing that is a universal constant, it's the government will ALWAYS abuse any power they are granted.  I prefer to error on the side of limiting the government powers.

/and I don't currently own any guns

THIS.

Flawed laws with good intentions are scary as hell.


For a good example of this happening, look at asset forfeitures.

1. We want to seize the planes and boats of drug smugglers.
Sure, sounds good.

2. We want to size the mansions and limos of the drug suppliers.
Uhm, ok.

3. We want to seize the BMWs and cell phones of the drug dealers.
Errr, really?  I guess.

4. We're seizing your Toyota Corolla because your passenger had a joint.
WTF!?
 
2013-04-17 07:12:41 PM

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

Only in America could people be stupid enough to believe this baseless 90% figure that keeps getting thrown around.

Also, haha, socialist turds. Just consider this loss as being prep for 2014. Really, it'll help you deal with it better when it comes.


Meh, both sides have and will have more 'tard moments, probably won't see much movement.
 
2013-04-17 07:13:07 PM
Oh, Obama's on C-Span now.  He's telling us how stupid we are for not supporting his brilliant ideas, just because he wants to flat-out violate our Constitutionally-enumerated rights.
 
2013-04-17 07:13:50 PM

MichiganFTL: candidus: Lionel Mandrake: Richard Flaccid: It's good to know that "tyranny of the majority" did not prevail today.

I guess you prefer the tyranny of the minority

[i253.photobucket.com image 650x534]

Democracy only goes so far, look what we're doing in Detroit. Had to tell democracy to take a backseat and appoint someone to help because the people were too stupid.

/Actually saw idiots two weeks ago protesting the Tiger's opening day wearing 're-elect Kwame' t-shirts.


Michigan should just cut Detroit loose from the state and let it rot.
 
2013-04-17 07:15:28 PM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Oh, Obama's on C-Span now.  He's telling us how stupid we are for not supporting his brilliant ideas, just because he wants to flat-out violate our Constitutionally-enumerated rights.


Care to elaborate as to how he wants "to flat-out violate our Constitutionally-enumerated rights" or does someone need to pick up that little nugget with a plastic bag and toss it out?
 
2013-04-17 07:15:43 PM
Uranus Is Huge!:
Right. I'm with you. I was trying to figure out if yukichiagi's assertion, that the NRA's power derives from the fact that they work on a constitutional issue, holds water. My opinion is that's only a very small part of it. I think there is some much more primal psychology taking place.


The NRA's power derives from the fact that it's members actually give a shiat about their 2nd Amendment rights, and they are willing to VOTE based upon that single issue.  Read what Bill Clinton said about the Democrat's losses after the passage of the original AW ban.
 
2013-04-17 07:16:08 PM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Oh, Obama's on C-Span now.  He's telling us how stupid we are for not supporting his brilliant ideas, just because he wants to flat-out violate our Constitutionally-enumerated rights.


I didn't know the Constitution addressed waiting periods.

Man, those guys were thorough.
 
2013-04-17 07:16:10 PM

Isitoveryet: OgreMagi: When any new law is proposed, take a moment to examine exactly how that law will be abused by the government. Because that is exactly what is going to happen. Yes, having that information would make it easier for the authorities to confiscate the guns of someone who is dangerous (and convicted), but it also means it is easier for them to abuse that power. And if there's one thing that is a universal constant, it's the government will ALWAYS abuse any power they are granted. I prefer to error on the side of limiting the government powers.

/and I don't currently own any guns

I understand that BUT we do have some legal power that prevents such abuse by our government (with the right legal representation i suppose).  NTM the entire argument of gun control is premised on the constitutionality of the argument.
i guess what i am saying is that we can be afraid of what may possibly happen or we can deal with what is happening (regarding abuse of powers).

/not a gun owner either.
//Wrist-Rockets FTW


The government can win by default simply by outspending you in the court system.  Hell, it doesn't even really cost them anything, but it will cost you big time, and it won't matter one bit if you were in the right when it costs you everything you own to fight them in the courts.  See my post about asset forfeitures as an example of the type of abuse to expect.
 
2013-04-17 07:17:52 PM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: Oh, Obama's on C-Span now.  He's telling us how stupid we are for not supporting his brilliant ideas, just because he wants to flat-out violate our Constitutionally-enumerated rights.




He should be telling us how that bombing investigation is getting along...

His whole plan for gun control depending on timing, and the aftermath of a terrorist incident is a bad time to try and divorce people from their gun rights.
Prudence should have demanded the democrats table this whole deal for later.
 
2013-04-17 07:17:58 PM
Uranus Is Huge!: Care to elaborate as to how he wants "to flat-out violate our Constitutionally-enumerated rights" or does someone need to pick up that little nugget with a plastic bag and toss it out?

Obama and some of his supporters believe that ownership of ANY firearm should be banned.
 
2013-04-17 07:18:01 PM

Frank N Stein: MichiganFTL: candidus: Lionel Mandrake: Richard Flaccid: It's good to know that "tyranny of the majority" did not prevail today.

I guess you prefer the tyranny of the minority

[i253.photobucket.com image 650x534]

Democracy only goes so far, look what we're doing in Detroit. Had to tell democracy to take a backseat and appoint someone to help because the people were too stupid.

/Actually saw idiots two weeks ago protesting the Tiger's opening day wearing 're-elect Kwame' t-shirts.

Michigan should just cut Detroit loose from the state and let it rot.


Nooooo... just napalm the residential buildings (fine, we can give the people a 3 hr notice if you want), but downtown is actually awesome. Between greektown mexicantown, corktown and CoPa/JLA it's worth saving (ok, fine, JLA is mainly because of nostalgia). Yes, the rest of it needs to be put in one giant pressure cooker.
 
2013-04-17 07:18:30 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Oh, Obama's on C-Span now.  He's telling us how stupid we are for not supporting his brilliant ideas, just because he wants to flat-out violate our Constitutionally-enumerated rights.

Care to elaborate as to how he wants "to flat-out violate our Constitutionally-enumerated rights" or does someone need to pick up that little nugget with a plastic bag and toss it out?


*sigh* You get the baggie, I'll get the carpet cleaner.

/told you we should leave the trolls outside
 
2013-04-17 07:19:26 PM

way south: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Oh, Obama's on C-Span now.  He's telling us how stupid we are for not supporting his brilliant ideas, just because he wants to flat-out violate our Constitutionally-enumerated rights.

He should be telling us how that bombing investigation is getting along...

His whole plan for gun control depending on timing, and the aftermath of a terrorist incident is a bad time to try and divorce people from their gun rights.
Prudence should have demanded the democrats table this whole deal for later.


Never lose the opportunity that is found in a tragedy. He used it after Newtown and lost it after Boston. We're back in neutral.
 
2013-04-17 07:19:46 PM

MichiganFTL: Frank N Stein: MichiganFTL: candidus: Lionel Mandrake: Richard Flaccid: It's good to know that "tyranny of the majority" did not prevail today.

I guess you prefer the tyranny of the minority

[i253.photobucket.com image 650x534]

Democracy only goes so far, look what we're doing in Detroit. Had to tell democracy to take a backseat and appoint someone to help because the people were too stupid.

/Actually saw idiots two weeks ago protesting the Tiger's opening day wearing 're-elect Kwame' t-shirts.

Michigan should just cut Detroit loose from the state and let it rot.

Nooooo... just napalm the residential buildings (fine, we can give the people a 3 hr notice if you want), but downtown is actually awesome. Between greektown mexicantown, corktown and CoPa/JLA it's worth saving (ok, fine, JLA is mainly because of nostalgia). Yes, the rest of it needs to be put in one giant pressure cooker.


One might argue that Detroit is a giant pressure cooker.
 
2013-04-17 07:20:16 PM
Lionel Mandrake:
I didn't know the Constitution addressed waiting periods.


As a certain rabid Right-winger once stated:  "A Right delayed is a Right denied."
 
2013-04-17 07:20:46 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.


Like the guy in NY who had his guns seized because he took anti-anxiety medication?

/he had to go to court and have the courts rule that he did not belong on the list of people who cannot own guns, and ordered his guns returned.
 
2013-04-17 07:21:14 PM

Bhasayate: MichiganFTL: Frank N Stein: MichiganFTL: candidus: Lionel Mandrake: Richard Flaccid: It's good to know that "tyranny of the majority" did not prevail today.

I guess you prefer the tyranny of the minority

[i253.photobucket.com image 650x534]

Democracy only goes so far, look what we're doing in Detroit. Had to tell democracy to take a backseat and appoint someone to help because the people were too stupid.

/Actually saw idiots two weeks ago protesting the Tiger's opening day wearing 're-elect Kwame' t-shirts.

Michigan should just cut Detroit loose from the state and let it rot.

Nooooo... just napalm the residential buildings (fine, we can give the people a 3 hr notice if you want), but downtown is actually awesome. Between greektown mexicantown, corktown and CoPa/JLA it's worth saving (ok, fine, JLA is mainly because of nostalgia). Yes, the rest of it needs to be put in one giant pressure cooker.

One might argue that Detroit is a giant pressure cooker.


The good thing about that statement is that we're pretty much not a danger to anyone else outside our boundaries because we can't afford nails or ball bearings.
 
2013-04-17 07:22:54 PM

Bravo Two: 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.

Like the guy in NY who had his guns seized because he took anti-anxiety medication?

/he had to go to court and have the courts rule that he did not belong on the list of people who cannot own guns, and ordered his guns returned.


Dad was busted for smoking a joint in 1978, had to take the state to court because they wouldn't allow him to get a CCW for something (at the time) 30 years ago. No matter what you do, the government will take it to 'maximum trolling' and interpret however they want and make you have to pay a lot of money to beat them.

/Yes, he won.
 
2013-04-17 07:23:21 PM

Fart_Machine: Expanding background checks and closing loopholes is giving up something?


You are asking more people to pay fees which they currently do not have to pay.  I'm not the one trying to make the argument here, you are, and if you are going to convince a stranger to agree with you, you need to convince them that what they give up, is at least equivalent to what they will receive.
 
2013-04-17 07:23:26 PM

MichiganFTL: Bhasayate: MichiganFTL: Frank N Stein: MichiganFTL: candidus: Lionel Mandrake: Richard Flaccid: It's good to know that "tyranny of the majority" did not prevail today.

I guess you prefer the tyranny of the minority

[i253.photobucket.com image 650x534]

Democracy only goes so far, look what we're doing in Detroit. Had to tell democracy to take a backseat and appoint someone to help because the people were too stupid.

/Actually saw idiots two weeks ago protesting the Tiger's opening day wearing 're-elect Kwame' t-shirts.

Michigan should just cut Detroit loose from the state and let it rot.

Nooooo... just napalm the residential buildings (fine, we can give the people a 3 hr notice if you want), but downtown is actually awesome. Between greektown mexicantown, corktown and CoPa/JLA it's worth saving (ok, fine, JLA is mainly because of nostalgia). Yes, the rest of it needs to be put in one giant pressure cooker.

One might argue that Detroit is a giant pressure cooker.

The good thing about that statement is that we're pretty much not a danger to anyone else outside our boundaries because we can't afford nails or ball bearings.


There's plenty of other debris laying around though. Got to put the "I" back into "improvised"!
 
2013-04-17 07:23:39 PM
My disgust with congress has reached a new level. It was said earlier, sorry for failing to quote, but with the vast majority of people in favor of legislation like this and the fact the vote was this close I am confident that background checks will eventually be implemented, but unfortunately it will take another rampage and more dead children to do so. These gun nuts remind me of the global warming deniers. The will never do anything that could be an improvement because it would admit that they were wrong on some level. They cannot do what is good because they are selfish and weak. fark each and every one of you.
 
2013-04-17 07:23:57 PM

MichiganFTL: Nooooo... just napalm the residential buildings (fine, we can give the people a 3 hr notice if you want), but downtown is actually awesome. Between greektown mexicantown, corktown and CoPa/JLA it's worth saving (ok, fine, JLA is mainly because of nostalgia). Yes, the rest of it needs to be put in one giant pressure cooker.


I actually do kind of enjoy the Downtown a bit. Hockeytown is cool. I used to be stationed out in St Clair Shores when I was in the Coast Guard
 
2013-04-17 07:24:19 PM
Hey funny story:

I was just listening to an interview on NPR, and they were interviewing a gun dealer from NC. His company advertises on Craigslist as a 'private seller', which they use to carry out transactions -- Bob Mondello's quick search found 20 of them -- presumably to skirt background checks.

He asked the dealer the appeal for selling this way. Funny thing is he didn't say the obvious answer, which is they are a gun dealer who sell guns to people who want to avoid background checks. No, he said was because that was how people liked to purchase rare or hard to find weapons.

So that's a good thing. I'd hate to think there are unscrupulous gun dealers out there who use the flimsy tissue-thin "restrictions" on gun sales to sell guns to people who have no business owning them.

FREEDOM!!!!
 
2013-04-17 07:25:05 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: redmid17: Uranus Is Huge!: redmid17: Uranus Is Huge!: yukichigai: Uranus Is Huge!: 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?

The simple explanation is that the constitution doesn't use the words "tobacco", "nicotine", or "smoking" anywhere in it.

The NRA has the juice because they represent a branch of products that one of the amendments to the constitution specifically discusses.

In that case I'm going to make a killing with my 3rd Amendment lobbying firm. I will rule Washington! Congress will shake at the thought of wavering in their commitment to keeping soldiers out of my townhouse and incurring my wrath!

Name any other special interest group with as much pull as the NRA. Are you really going to argue that the ACLU comes close? Do any of the other mega-SIGs work on constitutional issues?

AARP

They are as powerful. Are they on the frontlines of protecting any constitutional rights? That sounds snarkier than I intend, but protecting 2nd Amendment rights is the NRA's stated mission.

No they cover a much broader base. I'd also argue that the Wall Street lobby and the DoD lobby are probably just as infuential, albeit with the constitutional rights angle that the NRA focuses on.

Right. I'm with you. I was trying to figure out if yukichiagi's assertion, that the NRA's power derives from the fact that they work on a constitutional issue, holds water. My opinion is that's only a very small part of it. I think there is some much more primal psychology taking place.


Frankly I think he's pretty much on point. The AARP has ~10x as many members as the NRA. Wall Street and DoD have a ton more cash and are much more well positioned within government. I can't remember the last time the SEC or the Fed Reserve weren't run by people who made their name through investment banking or something similar.
 
2013-04-17 07:25:29 PM

MichiganFTL: way south: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Oh, Obama's on C-Span now.  He's telling us how stupid we are for not supporting his brilliant ideas, just because he wants to flat-out violate our Constitutionally-enumerated rights.

He should be telling us how that bombing investigation is getting along...

His whole plan for gun control depending on timing, and the aftermath of a terrorist incident is a bad time to try and divorce people from their gun rights.
Prudence should have demanded the democrats table this whole deal for later.

Never lose the opportunity that is found in a tragedy. He used it after Newtown and lost it after Boston. We're back in neutral.




He's using them the wrong way.
Fair enough that democrats will push gun control after a shooting, they always have preferred that to dealing with crime or violence. But after any terror attack our moral is at a terrible low.
People want to hear that you're going to kick down doors and drag the culprits out. They want to see the machine getting into motion for a counter assault.

Finger waving? Shaming the public for your own political gridlock? A kick to the shin while we're still recoiling from Mondays slap to the face?!
That's not likely to have the effect he wants.
 
2013-04-17 07:25:43 PM

udhq: Oh, get off it. You defend some AWFUL behavior from right-wingers, but have you seen a single gun-control person defending the guy that made the threats?


What awful behavior have I defended?
 
2013-04-17 07:25:45 PM

Bane of Broone: My disgust with congress has reached a new level. It was said earlier, sorry for failing to quote, but with the vast majority of people in favor of legislation like this and the fact the vote was this close I am confident that background checks will eventually be implemented, but unfortunately it will take another rampage and more dead children to do so. These gun nuts remind me of the global warming deniers. The will never do anything that could be an improvement because it would admit that they were wrong on some level. They cannot do what is good because they are selfish and weak. fark each and every one of you.


At the time ObamaCare was voted in, the majority of the people of America were not in favor of it iirc (smaller margin, like 55-45), but Congress did it anyway. So should we have not done that too?
 
2013-04-17 07:26:10 PM
Is this true:

The measure would have "criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens." 

If so then it shouldn't of passed.

I think a majority support the 'talking-points' but reject the 'hidden-points' which are not discussed. Also nothing proposed would of prevented Sandy Hook, VA Tech etc. Out of all the gun massacres they have mentioned, no one has discussed any psychotropic drugs these individuals were on, which they were...some of these can have very serious side effects. The Sandy Hook killers mother was trying to get him committed but the courts wouldn't allow it. Where is the courts blame?
 
2013-04-17 07:26:31 PM
Mmmmmm.  Drinking down the hot, impotent tears of rage right now. Good with spicy food.
 
2013-04-17 07:26:47 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: the.swartz: You cannot currently buy a gun if you've been committed against your will.

AND the seller checks to see if you have.


Yeah.  There is the whole private sale loop hole.

And just to reiterate, it's not about guns.   Makes me sad to see so much talk about guns when it is really about mental health.   Bemore interesting to see legislative,easures aimed at this topic..., we are wasting a lot of energy on the wrong issue, and most folks, politicians included, are wither purposely or stupidly missing the point.
 
2013-04-17 07:26:56 PM

Bane of Broone: but unfortunately it will take another rampage and more dead children to do so.


Explain how this law would have prevented the Sandy Hook killings, because it seems like your implying that the expanded background checks would have
 
2013-04-17 07:27:17 PM

doubled99: Mmmmmm.  Drinking down the hot, impotent tears of rage right now. Good with spicy food.


I saw Obama look mad, but I didn't see any tears.
 
2013-04-17 07:27:17 PM

MichiganFTL: Bane of Broone: My disgust with congress has reached a new level. It was said earlier, sorry for failing to quote, but with the vast majority of people in favor of legislation like this and the fact the vote was this close I am confident that background checks will eventually be implemented, but unfortunately it will take another rampage and more dead children to do so. These gun nuts remind me of the global warming deniers. The will never do anything that could be an improvement because it would admit that they were wrong on some level. They cannot do what is good because they are selfish and weak. fark each and every one of you.

At the time ObamaCare was voted in, the majority of the people of America were not in favor of it iirc (smaller margin, like 55-45), but Congress did it anyway. So should we have not done that too?


I was in favor of that was well. Ok, so made many points and you poked a whole in one. Woo hoo. If you saw this measure as a bad thing you are a sick, sad human being who will eventually lose.
 
2013-04-17 07:27:39 PM

gilgigamesh: Hey funny story:

I was just listening to an interview on NPR, and they were interviewing a gun dealer from NC. His company advertises on Craigslist as a 'private seller', which they use to carry out transactions -- Bob Mondello's quick search found 20 of them -- presumably to skirt background checks.

He asked the dealer the appeal for selling this way. Funny thing is he didn't say the obvious answer, which is they are a gun dealer who sell guns to people who want to avoid background checks. No, he said was because that was how people liked to purchase rare or hard to find weapons.

So that's a good thing. I'd hate to think there are unscrupulous gun dealers out there who use the flimsy tissue-thin "restrictions" on gun sales to sell guns to people who have no business owning them.

FREEDOM!!!!


I thought CL didn't allow guns? Are you sure it wasn't a plant?
 
2013-04-17 07:28:08 PM

gilgigamesh: Hey funny story:

I was just listening to an interview on NPR, and they were interviewing a gun dealer from NC. His company advertises on Craigslist as a 'private seller', which they use to carry out transactions -- Bob Mondello's quick search found 20 of them -- presumably to skirt background checks.

He asked the dealer the appeal for selling this way. Funny thing is he didn't say the obvious answer, which is they are a gun dealer who sell guns to people who want to avoid background checks. No, he said was because that was how people liked to purchase rare or hard to find weapons.

So that's a good thing. I'd hate to think there are unscrupulous gun dealers out there who use the flimsy tissue-thin "restrictions" on gun sales to sell guns to people who have no business owning them.

FREEDOM!!!!


I'd be interested in listening to that NPR segment:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-17 07:28:51 PM

Frank N Stein: Bane of Broone: but unfortunately it will take another rampage and more dead children to do so.

Explain how this law would have prevented the Sandy Hook killings, because it seems like your implying that the expanded background checks would have


Explain why a background check is such a bad thing?
 
2013-04-17 07:29:15 PM

MichiganFTL: I thought CL didn't allow guns? Are you sure it wasn't a plant?


It might not have been Craigslist.
 
2013-04-17 07:29:22 PM

MichiganFTL: gilgigamesh: Hey funny story:

I was just listening to an interview on NPR, and they were interviewing a gun dealer from NC. His company advertises on Craigslist as a 'private seller', which they use to carry out transactions -- Bob Mondello's quick search found 20 of them -- presumably to skirt background checks.

He asked the dealer the appeal for selling this way. Funny thing is he didn't say the obvious answer, which is they are a gun dealer who sell guns to people who want to avoid background checks. No, he said was because that was how people liked to purchase rare or hard to find weapons.

So that's a good thing. I'd hate to think there are unscrupulous gun dealers out there who use the flimsy tissue-thin "restrictions" on gun sales to sell guns to people who have no business owning them.

FREEDOM!!!!

I thought CL didn't allow guns? Are you sure it wasn't a plant?


Good catch.  CL stopped allowing gun ads a few years ago.  This sounds like a made up story.
 
2013-04-17 07:29:42 PM

gilgigamesh: Hey funny story:

I was just listening to an interview on NPR, and they were interviewing a gun dealer from NC. His company advertises on Craigslist as a 'private seller', which they use to carry out transactions -- Bob Mondello's quick search found 20 of them -- presumably to skirt background checks.

He asked the dealer the appeal for selling this way. Funny thing is he didn't say the obvious answer, which is they are a gun dealer who sell guns to people who want to avoid background checks. No, he said was because that was how people liked to purchase rare or hard to find weapons.

So that's a good thing. I'd hate to think there are unscrupulous gun dealers out there who use the flimsy tissue-thin "restrictions" on gun sales to sell guns to people who have no business owning them.

FREEDOM!!!!


If he said that, then he's admitting to some pretty serious crimes. First and foremost, a dealer engaging in the business of selling arms must complete a 4473 form on all sales, and they must be recorded in the dealer's A&D book.  Secondly, if one is selling guns as a private individual and is doing it in such a way as to make a business of it, it's also a felony and subject to restrictions for selling without an FFL.

I'm pretty sure that if the guy were telling the truth about that, then the ATF should be notified and they will go over his books with a fine tooth comb and at the least he'll lose his license and have to spend thousands in court costs.
 
2013-04-17 07:30:53 PM

Bane of Broone: If you saw this measure as a bad thing you are a sick, sad human being who will eventually lose

loose

/Sorry, pet peeve
 
2013-04-17 07:31:26 PM

Bravo Two: gilgigamesh: Hey funny story:

I was just listening to an interview on NPR, and they were interviewing a gun dealer from NC. His company advertises on Craigslist as a 'private seller', which they use to carry out transactions -- Bob Mondello's quick search found 20 of them -- presumably to skirt background checks.

He asked the dealer the appeal for selling this way. Funny thing is he didn't say the obvious answer, which is they are a gun dealer who sell guns to people who want to avoid background checks. No, he said was because that was how people liked to purchase rare or hard to find weapons.

So that's a good thing. I'd hate to think there are unscrupulous gun dealers out there who use the flimsy tissue-thin "restrictions" on gun sales to sell guns to people who have no business owning them.

FREEDOM!!!!

If he said that, then he's admitting to some pretty serious crimes. First and foremost, a dealer engaging in the business of selling arms must complete a 4473 form on all sales, and they must be recorded in the dealer's A&D book.  Secondly, if one is selling guns as a private individual and is doing it in such a way as to make a business of it, it's also a felony and subject to restrictions for selling without an FFL.

I'm pretty sure that if the guy were telling the truth about that, then the ATF should be notified and they will go over his books with a fine tooth comb and at the least he'll lose his license and have to spend thousands in court costs.


You beat me to it.
 
2013-04-17 07:31:59 PM

Bravo Two: gilgigamesh: Hey funny story:

I was just listening to an interview on NPR, and they were interviewing a gun dealer from NC. His company advertises on Craigslist as a 'private seller', which they use to carry out transactions -- Bob Mondello's quick search found 20 of them -- presumably to skirt background checks.

He asked the dealer the appeal for selling this way. Funny thing is he didn't say the obvious answer, which is they are a gun dealer who sell guns to people who want to avoid background checks. No, he said was because that was how people liked to purchase rare or hard to find weapons.

So that's a good thing. I'd hate to think there are unscrupulous gun dealers out there who use the flimsy tissue-thin "restrictions" on gun sales to sell guns to people who have no business owning them.

FREEDOM!!!!

If he said that, then he's admitting to some pretty serious crimes. First and foremost, a dealer engaging in the business of selling arms must complete a 4473 form on all sales, and they must be recorded in the dealer's A&D book.  Secondly, if one is selling guns as a private individual and is doing it in such a way as to make a business of it, it's also a felony and subject to restrictions for selling without an FFL.

I'm pretty sure that if the guy were telling the truth about that, then the ATF should be notified and they will go over his books with a fine tooth comb and at the least he'll lose his license and have to spend thousands in court costs.


This!
 
2013-04-17 07:32:32 PM

WippitGuud: Explain why a background check is such a bad thing?


To be at all effective it there has to be a defacto registry, which I do not support.
 
2013-04-17 07:33:01 PM

gilgigamesh: MichiganFTL: I thought CL didn't allow guns? Are you sure it wasn't a plant?

It might not have been Craigslist.


It was this:

armslist.com. My mistake.
 
2013-04-17 07:33:40 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Secret Master of All Flatulence: Oh, Obama's on C-Span now.  He's telling us how stupid we are for not supporting his brilliant ideas, just because he wants to flat-out violate our Constitutionally-enumerated rights.

I didn't know the Constitution addressed waiting periods.

Man, those guys were thorough.


If you erect a barrier to the exercise of a Right, then you MUST demonstrate why that barrier not only necessary, but is also implemented by the 'least restrictive means'.  That is why Voter-ID laws are being subjected to intensive judicial review.   The state has an interest in ensuring that only those eligible to vote, do vote.  However, the means by which the state ensures that only eligible voters go to the polls must be implemented in the manner which restricts the exercise of the Right no more than is minimally necessary to ensure that the state's interest is achieved.

In addition, unnecessary delay is unacceptable.  The phrase, 'A Right delayed is a Right denied.' comes to mind.
 
2013-04-17 07:33:52 PM

OgreMagi: MichiganFTL: gilgigamesh: Hey funny story:

I was just listening to an interview on NPR, and they were interviewing a gun dealer from NC. His company advertises on Craigslist as a 'private seller', which they use to carry out transactions -- Bob Mondello's quick search found 20 of them -- presumably to skirt background checks.

He asked the dealer the appeal for selling this way. Funny thing is he didn't say the obvious answer, which is they are a gun dealer who sell guns to people who want to avoid background checks. No, he said was because that was how people liked to purchase rare or hard to find weapons.

So that's a good thing. I'd hate to think there are unscrupulous gun dealers out there who use the flimsy tissue-thin "restrictions" on gun sales to sell guns to people who have no business owning them.

FREEDOM!!!!

I thought CL didn't allow guns? Are you sure it wasn't a plant?

Good catch.  CL stopped allowing gun ads a few years ago.  This sounds like a made up story.


It could be from armslist.com
 
2013-04-17 07:34:13 PM

Bane of Broone: MichiganFTL: Bane of Broone: My disgust with congress has reached a new level. It was said earlier, sorry for failing to quote, but with the vast majority of people in favor of legislation like this and the fact the vote was this close I am confident that background checks will eventually be implemented, but unfortunately it will take another rampage and more dead children to do so. These gun nuts remind me of the global warming deniers. The will never do anything that could be an improvement because it would admit that they were wrong on some level. They cannot do what is good because they are selfish and weak. fark each and every one of you.

At the time ObamaCare was voted in, the majority of the people of America were not in favor of it iirc (smaller margin, like 55-45), but Congress did it anyway. So should we have not done that too?

I was in favor of that was well. Ok, so made many points and you poked a whole in one. Woo hoo. If you saw this measure as a bad thing you are a sick, sad human being who will eventually lose.


This measure was a bad thing. If you care so much about stopping this, as I do, and come from a realistic, intellectual place rather than an emotional place, you would realize that there was a lot of money in this for gun dealers because it would have 'forced' citizens to go to FFL's for each transfer and those cost money. Now, that's not inherently wrong, but the means is way off. What you should do is:

Make a civilian accessible version of the NICS system which allows you to go to a website, input a potential buyers name/DOB/Driver's License # (no SSN#) and it will return to you a positive YES to be able to purchase a firearm or a 'NO' where they cannot. That's all, no registry or further details. I, along with many gun owners in that 90% figure, want this form. It protects us, the gun owners/sellers, you, the concerned citizen, and keeps guns out of hands of people who legally can't have them. Now, the information is only as good as what has been put into it, so we need to work on that to. We need to make this system ACCESSIBLE, not to have to set up a meeting with your local FFL and pay them money for an FFL transfer when it could be quicker/safer/simpler with the above description. 

Also, I'm a healthy, happy human being who will continue to propose reasonable ideas and compromises rather than blanket statements of us vs them that does not willfully want to join a conversation and create real solutions.
 
2013-04-17 07:34:58 PM

eagles95: OgreMagi: cman: Background checks. No waiting period, no weapons ban, no barring a pink pistol, but background checks. Is this unreasonable in the wake of these massive shootings?

If that was all the bill was, it would have easily passed.  It went beyond background checks and essentially implemented a gun registry program.

Why does it matter if a registry was involved?


www.doublehammer.com
 
2013-04-17 07:35:32 PM
still waiting for the 'improve mental health' bill that would actually do something.  oh yeah, it's not about solving problems it's about liberals wanting to make your decisions for you.
 
2013-04-17 07:35:35 PM
I know a few gun store owners that will be disappointed in this.

They were hoping that closing the loophole could bring people into their stores since there would be no advantage on going to a swap meet to get a weapon that they stock at often cheaper prices since many times people jack-up prices at gun shows because they know there are people who purposely only go swap-meets and guns shows to avoid the background checks. Not that I have a problem with people making money off of other peoples paranoia.
 
2013-04-17 07:35:38 PM

gilgigamesh: gilgigamesh: MichiganFTL: I thought CL didn't allow guns? Are you sure it wasn't a plant?

It might not have been Craigslist.

It was this:

armslist.com. My mistake.


I love browsing that site. All the idiots that bought up gold now think guns are the new gold. Bubba'd "sniper" Nagants that go for $350 crack me up.
 
2013-04-17 07:35:50 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: 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.


Reid has had two opportunities to fix this. It's almost as if the dems are not all that interested in getting anything accomplished.