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

(Huffington Post)   Are you sitting down? Well, it turns out that the NRA was chiefly responsible for the failure of the background check vote last month   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, NRA, Pennsylvania Republicans, human beings, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, elections in 2000, Gun Owners of America, Mark Begich, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg  
•       •       •

1357 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 May 2013 at 2:18 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-05-01 11:06:32 AM  
i37.tinypic.com

"No farking shiat!"
 
2013-05-01 11:58:56 AM  
Grass green, water wet, sky blue.  Ric Romero with film at 11.
 
2013-05-01 12:07:06 PM  
Where's the hero tag?
 
2013-05-01 12:21:03 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Where's the hero tag?


At the range.
 
2013-05-01 01:52:39 PM  

Damnaged: jehovahs witness protection: Where's the hero tag?

At the range.


It was accidentally shot by the dumbass tag. Just another one of those crazy accidents
 
2013-05-01 02:01:36 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Damnaged: jehovahs witness protection: Where's the hero tag?

At the range.

It was accidentally shot by the dumbass tag. Just another one of those crazy accidents


About a year ago I was sitting in my room on the computer when I heard a rather loud noise come from my living room. Sounded like someone took a large plate of metal and just dropped it on the floor. I went out to see both dogs cowering with their tails tucked and my roommate looking under the couch. Confused, I stood there for a moment trying to figure out what happened.

Then I noticed the hard wood floor was dented, there were 2 holes in the couch, and a hole in the wall.

That motherfarker shot the house. Not intentionally, he was practicing some drills and didn't properly clear the chamber.

I laughed my ass off for about 2 hours straight. It's been a useful, "yeah, I may have done something stupid, but at least I didn't shoot the house" comeback since then.

/Roommate is a vet
//CSB
 
2013-05-01 02:19:31 PM  

Damnaged: Peter von Nostrand: Damnaged: jehovahs witness protection: Where's the hero tag?

At the range.

It was accidentally shot by the dumbass tag. Just another one of those crazy accidents

About a year ago I was sitting in my room on the computer when I heard a rather loud noise come from my living room. Sounded like someone took a large plate of metal and just dropped it on the floor. I went out to see both dogs cowering with their tails tucked and my roommate looking under the couch. Confused, I stood there for a moment trying to figure out what happened.

Then I noticed the hard wood floor was dented, there were 2 holes in the couch, and a hole in the wall.

That motherfarker shot the house. Not intentionally, he was practicing some drills and didn't properly clear the chamber.

I laughed my ass off for about 2 hours straight. It's been a useful, "yeah, I may have done something stupid, but at least I didn't shoot the house" comeback since then.

/Roommate is a vet
//CSB


Well, if that latte-sipping liberal house had had a gun that wouldn't have happened.
 
2013-05-01 02:20:22 PM  
90% of the country thwarted by an organization that represents 4 million people, many of who have a questionable education background.

AMERICA! AMERICA!
 
2013-05-01 02:20:43 PM  
90% of the population wants it, but cannot be done because of NRA?

Tell me how NRA does not stand for: Not Really American?
 
2013-05-01 02:21:11 PM  

coeyagi: 90% of the country thwarted by an organization that represents 4 million people, many of whom have a questionable education background.

AMERICA! AMERICA!


FTFM
 
2013-05-01 02:22:49 PM  
Yet again, here is my shocked face:

:|
 
2013-05-01 02:23:00 PM  
The NRA couldn't have intimidated those Senators if the Senators had guns.
 
2013-05-01 02:23:33 PM  
That is why I am no longer a member of the NRA, I like my guns but we differ on too many important political issues.
 
2013-05-01 02:25:05 PM  
That's almost obvious enough CNN could get it right, if they weren't afraid of being called librul lame MSM mediers.
 
2013-05-01 02:25:11 PM  
NO.
 
2013-05-01 02:25:42 PM  

mayIFark: 90% of the population wants it, but cannot be done because of NRA?

Tell me how NRA does not stand for: Not Really American?


Neanderthals Raping America

Nicely Raping America

Nugent's Retards Association

Norsefire Republican Affiliiates

Naturally Regressive Americans

Necessarily Repulsive Americans
 
2013-05-01 02:27:34 PM  
Uhh, actually it's the members of the legislative body who are chiefly responsible.    NRA has power because they give them power.
 
2013-05-01 02:30:25 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-01 02:30:27 PM  
Well, it turns out that the NRA free speech was chiefly responsible for the failure of the background check vote last month
FTFsubby
 
2013-05-01 02:30:54 PM  
Good.  They should continue in their endeavors.
 
2013-05-01 02:32:12 PM  

coeyagi: 90% of the country thwarted by an organization that represents 4 million people, many of who have a questionable education background.

AMERICA! AMERICA!


90% of the population wants background checks
It drops off massively when you talk about either $$$ or registration
 
2013-05-01 02:33:36 PM  
Who the fark is this 90%?  90% of people cherry picked for a survey?  I have yet to hear of anybody I know being surveyed on their opinion about back ground checks for guns.

Survey zealots annoy the fark out of me because they never seem to understand statistics.
 
2013-05-01 02:34:32 PM  

cabbyman: Good.  They should continue in their endeavors.


Until it's an issue that you don't like.  Then you will scream bloody murder because they aren't doing what the American people want.  A real partisan piece of shiat.
 
2013-05-01 02:35:12 PM  

cabbyman: Good.  They should continue in their endeavors.



-1/10. I had to remove a point because I spent precious seconds reading it.
 
2013-05-01 02:36:35 PM  

Tyrano Soros: Well, it turns out that the NRA free speech was chiefly responsible for the failure of the background check vote last month
FTFsubby


$46 million bucks' worth.

// where can I get my hands on some of that "free" speech?
 
2013-05-01 02:37:17 PM  

ShadowKamui: coeyagi: 90% of the country thwarted by an organization that represents 4 million people, many of who have a questionable education background.

AMERICA! AMERICA!

90% of the population wants background checks
It drops off massively when you talk about either $$$ or registration


Luckily, we're not talking about $$$ or registration,  But thanks for your CONCERN, Strawman-American.
 
2013-05-01 02:45:00 PM  

coeyagi: ShadowKamui: coeyagi: 90% of the country thwarted by an organization that represents 4 million people, many of who have a questionable education background.

AMERICA! AMERICA!

90% of the population wants background checks
It drops off massively when you talk about either $$$ or registration

Luckily, we're not talking about $$$ or registration,  But thanks for your CONCERN, Strawman-American.


The Universal Background checks weren't free and the law had a backdoor registry due to the unnecessary information required.
 
2013-05-01 02:50:41 PM  
I knew I liked that organization for a reason.

I'll say it again, copy protection on software is only a problem for people who buy software, and not for criminals who steal software. Gun laws are only a problem for people who intend to obey the law to begin with, and do nothing to stop criminals. Nothing you are proposing or suggesting is going to stop the next mass shooting nor is it going to stop criminals from getting guns yet you keep crying "For the Children!" and pushing forward anyway.

Incidentally, the people in power... such as Obama... Do not have a single solitary benevolent reason behind pushing for 'tougher gun laws' and we're oh so sorry we didn't give you a new position to argue from... Yes, nobody was fooled in to thinking you were going to be happy if you just got the 'background check' thing you wanted.
 
2013-05-01 02:56:30 PM  

mayIFark: 90% of the population wants it, but cannot be done because of NRA?


90% of people may support the concept of "expanded background checks" but few are actually willing to do anything about it (like call or write their Congressperson, show up to a townhall meeting, etc.) and it doesn't factor much into their political decisions.

Gun owners, particularly NRA members, are more likely to be politically active when it comes to gun-related issues: they will call, write, show up to meetings, tell their friends, etc. There are tens of millions of gun owners in the country, millions of NRA members (not to mention other groups and associations), and a fair number of them are politically active in regards to guns. The gun control groups tend to have dramatically smaller membership levels (~30,000 for the Brady Campaign, one of the larger groups, vs. ~4.5 million for the NRA, ~600,000 for the Second Amendment Foundation, and ~300,000 for the Gun Owners of America) and tend to be funded more by wealthy benefactors like Bloomberg, the Joyce Foundation, etc. while groups like the NRA derive the bulk of their funding from membership dues (donations from the firearms industry makes up less than 2% of the annual budget of the NRA, according to tax records).

It probably doesn't help that the gun control side proposed a bunch of extremely restrictive laws (like the AWB that would cover most modern firearms, magazine size limits, etc.) at the federal level and several states imposed new gun laws (including the extremely restrictive NY SAFE act in New York, which does silly things like impose a 7-round limit on magazines. One can possess 10 round magazines from before the ban but can legally only load 7 rounds into them.). The President, legislators, and gun control advocates also publicly stated that they'd use any measure that made it to the floor of the Senate as a vehicle for other gun control by amending other bills onto it, and that such a measure would only be a "first step". That spooked a lot of gun owners and they got politically involved by calling their legislators and encouraging them to vote "no" on the various measures.

In many (but by no means all) situations, politicians will pay more attention to constituents who are more active and involved regardless of the topic. This should come as no surprise.
 
2013-05-01 02:57:29 PM  

ShadowKamui: The Universal Background checks weren't free and the law had a backdoor registry due to the unnecessary information required.


Marking the first time in history the GOP voted against backdoor anything.
 
2013-05-01 02:59:56 PM  

socodog: Who the fark is this 90%?  90% of people cherry picked for a survey?  I have yet to hear of anybody I know being surveyed on their opinion about back ground checks for guns.


What a coincidence.  Nobody I know voted for Nixon.
 
2013-05-01 03:00:31 PM  

randomjsa: I knew I liked that organization for a reason.

I'll say it again, copy protection on software is only a problem for people who buy software, and not for criminals who steal software. Gun laws are only a problem for people who intend to obey the law to begin with, and do nothing to stop criminals. Nothing you are proposing or suggesting is going to stop the next mass shooting nor is it going to stop criminals from getting guns yet you keep crying "For the Children!" and pushing forward anyway.

Incidentally, the people in power... such as Obama... Do not have a single solitary benevolent reason behind pushing for 'tougher gun laws' and we're oh so sorry we didn't give you a new position to argue from... Yes, nobody was fooled in to thinking you were going to be happy if you just got the 'background check' thing you wanted.


How about this as a reason:
Don't make it easy for criminals to buy guns.  Oh sure, I know they might just have to buy them illegally, but why not make it a little tougher?

A background check isn't onerous to a law-abiding citizen.  You just check to see if they have a felony or have been involuntarily committed, for example.  No records of the purchase need be kept.
 
2013-05-01 03:06:02 PM  

randomjsa: I knew I liked that organization for a reason.

I'll say it again, copy protection on software is only a problem for people who buy software, and not for criminals who steal software. Gun laws are only a problem for people who intend to obey the law to begin with, and do nothing to stop criminals. Nothing you are proposing or suggesting is going to stop the next mass shooting nor is it going to stop criminals from getting guns yet you keep crying "For the Children!" and pushing forward anyway.

Incidentally, the people in power... such as Obama... Do not have a single solitary benevolent reason behind pushing for 'tougher gun laws' and we're oh so sorry we didn't give you a new position to argue from... Yes, nobody was fooled in to thinking you were going to be happy if you just got the 'background check' thing you wanted.


Yes, people are going to break the law anyway, so why bother to even have laws?  BRILLIANT!

Yes, I'm a gun owner and yes, I think we need to do something about our gun culture.  The NRA can GTFO and DIAF.
 
2013-05-01 03:06:08 PM  

RyansPrivates: Don't make it easy for criminals to buy guns.  Oh sure, I know they might just have to buy them illegally, but why not make it a little tougher?


How would the proposed bill make it a little tougher for criminals to acquire guns? They're already acquiring them from suppliers who are willing to violate existing law to sell them guns, why wouldn't they be willing to violate a new law saying they'd need to have a background check? I don't really see how it'd make it any harder for criminals to acquire guns.

A background check isn't onerous to a law-abiding citizen.  You just check to see if they have a felony or have been involuntarily committed, for example.  No records of the purchase need be kept.

Indeed. It'd be nice if the NICS system were made available to the public so law-abiding people don't inadvertently sell guns to criminals, but that was not what was proposed and voted on: the proposed system would mandate that private transfers between non-family-members go through a dealer, who would keep records of the transaction, and that information on the make, model, and serial number of the gun being transferred would be sent to the government (even though it also prohibited the attorney general from keeping records of that information, so why send the information at all?).
 
2013-05-01 03:07:40 PM  

Dog Welder: Yes, people are going to break the law anyway, so why bother to even have laws?  BRILLIANT!


Criminals with guns and the people who supply them are already breaking the law and can (and should!) be prosecuted. This happens relatively rarely. How does making their already-illegal act slightly more illegal help?
 
2013-05-01 03:15:10 PM  

heypete: Dog Welder: Yes, people are going to break the law anyway, so why bother to even have laws?  BRILLIANT!

Criminals with guns and the people who supply them are already breaking the law and can (and should!) be prosecuted. This happens relatively rarely. How does making their already-illegal act slightly more illegal help?


Because you can then find out who sold the gun illegally?

(how do criminals get their guns now?)
 
2013-05-01 03:22:35 PM  

enry: Because you can then find out who sold the gun illegally?


How? None of the measures that were proposed would involve the government retaining such records and the much-hyped Manchin-Toomey bill would make it a felony for the government to retain those records.

(how do criminals get their guns now?)

Many guns enter the illegal market through straw purchasing: a person with a clean record buys some guns from a gun shop, passes the background check, and sells them to criminals. They may or may not also report them as stolen to establish some degree of plausible deniability -- guns can already be traced to the original retail buyer due to records kept at the dealer. Straw purchasing is already a crime, as is the possession of guns by criminals.

Since they're already willing to break the existing laws against straw purchasing for criminals, they're probably ok with breaking a new law saying they'd need to transfer the gun via a licensed dealer who conducts background checks.
 
2013-05-01 03:23:42 PM  
That can't be true, Subby.  I've been assured that the NRA is not a lobbying group.  They're a group of responsible gun owners who teach other responsible gun owners how to own their guns responsibly so Obama doesn't come and take them while they sleep.
 
2013-05-01 03:31:54 PM  
That's OK! According to reports, those who voted against it are facing INTENSE backlash now in the polls.
 
2013-05-01 03:38:30 PM  

heypete: enry: Because you can then find out who sold the gun illegally?

How? None of the measures that were proposed would involve the government retaining such records and the much-hyped Manchin-Toomey bill would make it a felony for the government to retain those records.


It only prevented Holder from doing so not the government as a whole, the information is none of the governments business and you bet it will get abused

    (c)  Prohibition of National Gun Registry.--Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the--
    ``(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by--
    ``(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
    ``(B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or
    ``(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.''.
 
2013-05-01 03:38:50 PM  

heypete: How would the proposed bill make it a little tougher for criminals to acquire guns? They're already acquiring them from suppliers who are willing to violate existing law to sell them guns, why wouldn't they be willing to violate a new law saying they'd need to have a background check? I don't really see how it'd make it any harder for criminals to acquire guns.


And you know this how?  You are asserting that all guns used by criminals were acquired illegally, through backroom sales?  So no sales via gun shows? If not all of them how many were acquired legally?  100?  1000? 10000?  At what point does it makes sense to ensure that criminals have to take the effort to use an illegal channel?

heypete: Indeed. It'd be nice if the NICS system were made available to the public so law-abiding people don't inadvertently sell guns to criminals, but that was not what was proposed and voted on: the proposed system would mandate that private transfers between non-family-members go through a dealer, who would keep records of the transaction, and that information on the make, model, and serial number of the gun being transferred would be sent to the government (even though it also prohibited the attorney general from keeping records of that information, so why send the information at all?).


Legislation, how does it work?  So rather than actually improving the bill or putting forth one that only applies  sales from stores, catalogs, websites, gun shows, etc but not private sales, just torpedo this one.  Gotcha.

As I indicated, I am sympathetic to not making it too onerous to a law abiding gun buyer.  The right to bear arms is pretty clear as far as the courts are concerned.  You see, this is the problem in this country.  People aren't willing to actually work together on something we can agree on.  Schumer screwed up by not budging on the private sales aspect.  Additionally those that disagreed didn't amend the thing or put forth a bill without that provision.  So the right thing doesn't get done, again.
 
2013-05-01 03:40:13 PM  

heypete: RyansPrivates: Don't make it easy for criminals to buy guns.  Oh sure, I know they might just have to buy them illegally, but why not make it a little tougher?

How would the proposed bill make it a little tougher for criminals to acquire guns? They're already acquiring them from suppliers who are willing to violate existing law to sell them guns, why wouldn't they be willing to violate a new law saying they'd need to have a background check? I don't really see how it'd make it any harder for criminals to acquire guns.

A background check isn't onerous to a law-abiding citizen.  You just check to see if they have a felony or have been involuntarily committed, for example.  No records of the purchase need be kept.

Indeed. It'd be nice if the NICS system were made available to the public so law-abiding people don't inadvertently sell guns to criminals, but that was not what was proposed and voted on: the proposed system would mandate that private transfers between non-family-members go through a dealer, who would keep records of the transaction, and that information on the make, model, and serial number of the gun being transferred would be sent to the government (even though it also prohibited the attorney general from keeping records of that information, so why send the information at all?).


I'd love if the NICS system was publicly available.  I could filter tenants so easily....
 
2013-05-01 03:51:35 PM  
So you are saying he was doing his job?
 
2013-05-01 03:51:44 PM  

RyansPrivates: And you know this how?  You are asserting that all guns used by criminals were acquired illegally, through backroom sales?  So no sales via gun shows? If not all of them how many were acquired legally?  100?  1000? 10000?  At what point does it makes sense to ensure that criminals have to take the effort to use an illegal channel?


It is illegal in  any situation whatsoever for a prohibited person (for example, a felon) to acquire a firearm. It doesn't matter if they get it at a gun show, in a parking lot, at their buddy's house, or out of the trunk of a car -- it's still illegal for them to get a gun.

Legislation, how does it work?  So rather than actually improving the bill or putting forth one that only applies  sales from stores, catalogs, websites, gun shows, etc but not private sales, just torpedo this one.  Gotcha.

There were a few alternate proposals, including one supported by the NRA, but they were also defeated.

Personally, I'd like to see the NICS system opened up to the public (with certain restrictions to prevent busybody neighbors from checking everyone they know). Being able to run a check on oneself and get a "certificate" with a verification code that one can present to a seller (who can then verify it online or by phone) would be great. Instead, the proposals would ban private transfers (other than for family members) and would mandate that all sales go through a dealer.

Naturally, criminals would ignore such a system, but it'd help prevent law-abiding people from inadvertently selling to a criminal.

As I indicated, I am sympathetic to not making it too onerous to a law abiding gun buyer.  The right to bear arms is pretty clear as far as the courts are concerned.  You see, this is the problem in this country.  People aren't willing to actually work together on something we can agree on.  Schumer screwed up by not budging on the private sales aspect.  Additionally those that disagreed didn't amend the thing or put forth a bill without that provision.  So the right thing doesn't get done, again.

Yeah. As I said, I'd like to see NICS be available to the public. I'd also be willing to see such a check be mandatory for legal private sales so long as the current policy of destroying all "PASS" NICS records after 24 hours remains in place. In compromise, I'd like to see suppressors ("silencers") removed from the National Firearms Act list so they can be purchased just like any other accessory -- they're quite common in European countries (even those with restrictive gun laws) as a hearing safety/being-polite-to-other-shooters measure. At the very least, change their classification from the current $200 tax stamp to "any other weapon" classification, which only requires a $5 tax stamp.
 
2013-05-01 03:53:33 PM  

mayIFark: 90% of the population wants it, but cannot be done because of NRA?


90% want it, yet 50% are happy that the bill was defeated.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/22/usa-today-poll - finds-support-for-gun-control-ebbs-backing-for-immigration-bill-strong /2103419/">http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/22/usa -today-poll- finds-support-for-gun-control-ebbs-backing-for-immigration-bill-strong /2103419/

/Statisticals - how do they work?
 
2013-05-01 03:55:32 PM  

SCUBA_Archer: 90% want it, yet 50% are happy that the bill was defeated.


Sounds like there's a difference between a bill and a policy to me.  Also I wouldn't be surprised if the polling turns out like Obamacare did...  people seem to love the individual policies in it, but when you call it Obamacare, suddenly they don't like it.
 
2013-05-01 04:00:46 PM  

socodog: Who the fark is this 90%?  90% of people cherry picked for a survey?  I have yet to hear of anybody I know being surveyed on their opinion about back ground checks for guns.

Survey zealots annoy the fark out of me because they never seem to understand statistics.


You only need 3000 or so respondents* to get an accurate read of the US. Just that you don't know any of them doesn't mean much.


*provided its suitibly random, of course.
 
2013-05-01 04:02:53 PM  

mayIFark: 90% of the population wants it, but cannot be done because of NRA?

Tell me how NRA does not stand for: Not Really American?


To be fair, if 90% of Americans wanted to see the institution of slavery, 100% taxation for landowners, or executions for exercising free speech rights, it would be meaningless because we have protections against the tyranny of the majority. So that particular point, while interesting, is moot.

So, how did the NRA kill the vote? Did they make the Democrats try to attach deal-breakers to the bill? Did they make the Senate agree on the 60-vote threshold? It's amazing that this organization composed of a few million Americans has become the bogeyman for why the Democrats constantly sabotage their own efforts to get gun laws passed. It's just this monolithic thing that everybody blames.

Want to pass universal background checks? Propose that as law, vote down each and every amendment as extraneous, and send it through.
 
2013-05-01 04:06:00 PM  

RyansPrivates: randomjsa: I knew I liked that organization for a reason.

I'll say it again, copy protection on software is only a problem for people who buy software, and not for criminals who steal software. Gun laws are only a problem for people who intend to obey the law to begin with, and do nothing to stop criminals. Nothing you are proposing or suggesting is going to stop the next mass shooting nor is it going to stop criminals from getting guns yet you keep crying "For the Children!" and pushing forward anyway.

Incidentally, the people in power... such as Obama... Do not have a single solitary benevolent reason behind pushing for 'tougher gun laws' and we're oh so sorry we didn't give you a new position to argue from... Yes, nobody was fooled in to thinking you were going to be happy if you just got the 'background check' thing you wanted.

How about this as a reason:
Don't make it easy for criminals to buy guns.  Oh sure, I know they might just have to buy them illegally, but why not make it a little tougher?

A background check isn't onerous to a law-abiding citizen.  You just check to see if they have a felony or have been involuntarily committed, for example.  No records of the purchase need be kept.


...and the NRA has outright endorsed background checks with no records before.
 
2013-05-01 04:13:55 PM  

coeyagi: mayIFark: 90% of the population wants it, but cannot be done because of NRA?

Tell me how NRA does not stand for: Not Really American?

Neanderthals Raping America

Nicely Raping America

Nugent's Retards Association

Norsefire Republican Affiliiates

Naturally Regressive Americans

Necessarily Repulsive Americans


Not Rational Anymore
 
Displayed 50 of 96 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report