Background check gun bill is dead

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

WTG_Nightbringer:
How is 54 : 46 a losing vote? 54 isn't greater than 46?I just don't understand anything anymore. I must be doing math wrong >.>

Filibusters. It has now become the norm that bills need 60 votes because the Republicans filibuster everything. It's fucked up. The Democrats are themselves at fault, too, of course, because when they had the chance to change the filibuster, they decided to again try bipartisanship and trust their opposing party. Filibusters need change. Regardless which party is in power. Because it cripples the process.

WTG_Nightbringer:
How is 54 : 46 a losing vote? 54 isn't greater than 46?I just don't understand anything anymore. I must be doing math wrong >.>

Basically for this kind of vote you need 60 votes to pass.

And beyond that, it was supported by something like 85% of people in a poll. And it was still somehow a contentious law? Is 85% barely a majority now?

Actually the problem is that the polls are meaningless. For example, the CNN poll says that 94% of Americans support background checks for gun buyers. The thing is that we already have background checks for gun buyers. In other words the polls are vague and don't really reflect anything. All of the other polls are just as vague except for the NRA poll (which was performed on just NRA members) that asked about regulating private gun sales. So the NRA poll is very specific about what it is asking. The other polls are not.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/2451
http://www.nraila.org/media/10850041/113topline.pdf

farson135:
And NRA members are forced to contribute to the NRA now? Oh wait, we are not forced to contribute and you are talking out of your ass. Why would people pay money to an organization that they do not support? Also, why do NRA members keep voting for people (NRA board members) that they do not support?

What does that have to do with anything? You're acting as if the NRA represented its members, I'm saying they don't. I don't care whether they have to contribute to the NRA, they're not represented regardless.

So it is the attack ads that make politicians change their votes not the fact that NRA members will vote against them. Politicians must be really sensitive to criticism but not care much for votes.

Attack ads --> loss of votes. Publicity. Controversy. Duh. Of course it's the votes they care about, but much more the votes of the populace overall than the NRA members' votes specifically. Luckily, though, it appears as if times are changing slowly. I mean, there were actually races where a good NRA rating was used against candidates. Plus, the vast majority of NRA-backed candidates lost last time. It's a good thing that hopefully continues/increases. LaPierre and his ilk should be toxic to candidates.

Skeleon:

WTG_Nightbringer:
How is 54 : 46 a losing vote? 54 isn't greater than 46?I just don't understand anything anymore. I must be doing math wrong >.>

Filibusters. It has now become the norm that bills need 60 votes because the Republicans filibuster everything. It's fucked up. The Democrats are themselves at fault, too, of course, because when they had the chance to change the filibuster, they decided to again try bipartisanship and trust their opposing party. Filibusters need change. Regardless which party is in power. Because it cripples the process.

That was the general idea. Make it difficult to centralize power, create MAD scenarios for consolidated power to act against a minority that with the electoral swing of a pendulum steamroll the had been majority.

Skeleon:
What does that have to do with anything? You're acting as if the NRA represented its members, I'm saying they don't. I don't care whether they have to contribute to the NRA, they're not represented regardless.

Once again, why would NRA members contribute to an organization that does not represent their interest? You cannot avoid this question. You have to answer it or your argument is meaningless.

Also, why don't you prove that the NRA is not representing its members. Internal polling shows that the NRA is generally representing its members. What do you have?

http://www.nraila.org/media/10850041/113topline.pdf

Attack ads --> loss of votes. Publicity. Controversy. Duh.

So it is the ads and not the members. Can you back that up?

Luckily, though, it appears as if times are changing slowly. I mean, there were actually races where a good NRA rating was used against candidates. It's a good thing that hopefully continues/increases.

NRA ratings have always been used against candidates in certain areas.

La Pierre and his ilk should be toxic to candidates.

In your opinion. However, you have yet to show that anything of significance is changing for the NRA. In fact, you have not proven anything. You completely ignored my earlier requests for information. If you cannot prove your position then don't post.

aelreth:
That was the general idea. Make it difficult to centralize power, create MAD scenarios for consolidated power to act against a minority that with the electoral swing of a pendulum steamroll the had been majority.

The problem is, though, when it becomes so common a technique that it's simply assumed everything needs 60 votes. Is there an appropriate use of the filibuster? Perhaps. Was this an appropriate use considering how controversial it is among the politicians (not among the populace)? Maybe, sure. I was more talking about in general than about this specific case here.

Mr. Omega:
So the loophole that prevents background checks at gun shows stays wide open. Then again I doubt the bill would have closed it. But hey, as long as those folks who need their firearms in a hurry aren't inconvenienced, guess we don't need to bother. Because as we all know, background checks lead directly into Nazism.

Ah, the mythical "gun show loophole".

As a matter of fact, if you attempt to purchase a gun from a vendor at a gun show, you are subjected to a back ground check.

Privately purchasing a gun at a gun show, you are not.

So what happens if you tell people that they must undergo back ground checks no matter who they're buying from at a gun show?

"Hey man, I'll buy that AK from you AFTER the gun show... meet me at my house". And that's TOTALLY legal, according to this law that was just defeated.

So, since that's the case, what fucking good would the new law have done? Zero. None.

Don't fool yourself... the "gun show loophole" is an overblown notion that was meant to sway you to the anti-gun side of the argument.

Captcha:
case closed

LOL

farson135:
Once again, why would NRA members contribute to an organization that does not represent their interest? You cannot avoid this question. You have to answer it or your argument is meaningless.

I'd say it's pretty basic. They feel they need to. The NRA may be crazily over the top with their opposition to sensible regulation, but its members are probably afraid that - without them - the regulation will go over the top in the other direction. They are gun-enthusiasts after all and wouldn't want to have those guns be regulated - in their view - too much. That doesn't mean that their views are represented by the NRA, though, like on the background-checks issue. The NRA is a powerful and established group with enormous political clout. It makes sense to be a member and support them even if they don't represent one, if one thinks the alternative is worse.

Also, why don't you prove that the NRA is not representing its members. Internal polling shows that the NRA is generally representing its members. What do you have?

You've stated several times in this thread alone that you don't accept the polling. There was polling that shows even NRA-members are largely in favour of background-checks and other basic additional regulations. The NRA oppposes them as its official stance. Ergo, the NRA does not represent its members on this issue, for instance. But since you don't accept the polling, why should I bother? I find it ironic that you would use NRA polling in return, by the way. I'll dismiss it with the same carelessness that you dismiss other polls.

So it is the ads and not the members. Can you back that up?

What do you mean? Do you want me to find sources for the effect of attack ads?

NRA ratings have always been used against candidates in certain areas.

Let me rephrase that: Let's hope it continues, increases and spreads.

In your opinion. However, you have yet to show that anything of significance is changing for the NRA. In fact, you have not proven anything. You completely ignored my earlier requests for information. If you cannot prove your position then don't post.

Of course "in my opinion". Here's the thing, though. I've read a wee bit of your debates with Agema and Jux recently. I realize I shouldn't bother wasting too much time looking for sources you'll dismiss, anyway. I'll continue to post what you have so correctly identified as "my opinion" and I'll decide when to expend additional time to support it more thoroughly and when not to.

Skeleon:
I'd say it's pretty basic. They feel they need to. The NRA may be crazily over the top with their opposition to sensible regulation, but its members are probably afraid that - without them - the regulation will go over the top in the other direction. They are gun-enthusiasts after all and wouldn't want to have those guns be regulated - in their view - too much. That doesn't mean that their views are represented by the NRA, though, like on the background-checks issue. The NRA is a powerful and established group with enormous political clout. It makes sense to be a member and support them even if they don't represent one, if one thinks the alternative is worse.

OK, then why do the people who support the NRA keep voting in people who they do not believe support their interests?

Also, why not support one of the other organizations? There are hundreds of them and some of them have been around about as long as the NRA. The NRA is powerful because of its members. Even if your point about money being most important is true, NRA members contribute of the NRA's money. The members are what makes the NRA powerful.

You've stated several times in this thread alone that you don't accept the polling.

But you do.

There was polling that shows even NRA-members are largely in favour of background-checks. The NRA oppposes them as its official stance. Ergo, the NRA does not represent its members on this issue, for instance. But since you don't accept the polling, why should I bother?

Actually the NRA does represent its members on this issue. The NRA supports background checks. It just does not support the kind of "universal" background checks that some people are calling for. The polls are useless because they just talk about background checks. That can mean a less restrictive system than we have now, then system we have now, or a more restrictive system than what we have now. In other words the poll questions are too vague to mean anything.

What do you mean? Do you want me to find sources for the effect of attack ads?

Yes, as opposed to membership effects.

Of course "in my opinion". Here's the thing, though. I've read a wee bit of your debates with Agema and Jux recently. I realize I shouldn't bother wasting too much time looking for sources you'll dismiss, anyway. I'll continue to post what you have so correctly identified as "my opinion" and I'll decide when to expend time to support it and when not to.

Care to cite sources from them that I dismissed? Agema does not use sources for me and Jux generally doesn't either. BTW you are one to talk about dismissing sources. You have done so several times on this very topic.

If you cannot support your opinion then it has no basis. You have never shown that your opinion is anything more than that and because of that I dismiss your opinion. YOU make statement that you have never come close to proving. What's worse is that you usually do not even try to prove them. Show me something or admit that your opinion is just that.

Skeleon:

aelreth:
That was the general idea. Make it difficult to centralize power, create MAD scenarios for consolidated power to act against a minority that with the electoral swing of a pendulum steamroll the had been majority.

The problem is, though, when it becomes so common a technique that it's simply assumed everything needs 60 votes. Is there an appropriate use of the filibuster? Perhaps. Was this an appropriate use considering how controversial it is among the politicians (not among the populace)? Maybe, sure. I was more talking about in general than about this specific case here.

As am I, laws carry with it the force of the state behind it and if used unwisely could be applied unjustly.

It was placed inside it to slow things deliberately. The idea was to resist quick change at the federal level, and when it happens the people would breathe it in through Constitutional Amendment with the consent of 3/4 of the states.

Quick changes can provoke violent reactions.

WTG_Nightbringer:
I am not in the United States, I am watching this unfold from up here in Canada. Maybe I don't understand how numbers work, or apparently don't understand how democracy works.

How is 54 : 46 a losing vote? 54 isn't greater than 46?I just don't understand anything anymore. I must be doing math wrong >.>

And beyond that, it was supported by something like 85% of people in a poll. And it was still somehow a contentious law? Is 85% barely a majority now?

American politics can be really confusing at times.

The 60 votes are not to pass the bill, but to bring it to Congress.

For every piece of legislation, it needs 60% (60 votes because we currently have 100 senators) of the senate to vote on it without any senator having unlimited time to discuss it. If the 60% is not reached, then any senator can keep talking and debating about the bill for as long as they please. After 60% of the vote has been reached, then senators are limited to less than an hour to speak on the matter. Note, this does not apply to budgets, but that is entire other mess of worms.

So, if the bill passed the filibuster, it would go through the standard procedures of going through the House, then the Senate, then sent to the president, yadada, where the actual voting and discussion on what is on the bill will be held. But since it hasn't, the Republicans can hold off the debate for eons if they so desire. It is a loss for the Democrats because much of their support was coming from people remembering the Sandy Hook massacre. The longer the actual voting is held off, the less and less support they have on the measure.

WIth what happened in boston and to a lesser extent Texas capturing the attention of the country, chances of this bill flying are basically none.

farson135:
OK, then why do the people who support the NRA keep voting in people who they do not believe support their interests?

Also, why not support one of the other organizations? There are hundreds of them and some of them have been around about as long as the NRA. The NRA is powerful because of its members. Even if your point about money being most important is true, NRA members contribute of the NRA's money. The members are what makes the NRA powerful.

Almost. The members are what keeps the NRA powerful. As I said before, they are already a well-established group with powerful political clout and influence. While I would hope that they would lose members to as yet smaller, more representative groups, one can't expect them to be easily replaced by them. Even if they slowly lost members to them, massacres and the following gun rights scares probably ensure the NRA will not be replaced any time soon. People are in a bad spot when it comes to wanting to protect their gun rights sensibly.

But you do.

Yes. Well, rather, I look at the various polls and think they significantly point in that particular direction, yes. And?

Actually the NRA does represent its members on this issue. The NRA supports background checks. It just does not support the kind of "universal" background checks that some people are calling for. The polls are useless because they just talk about background checks. That can mean a less restrictive system than we have now, then system we have now, or a more restrictive system than what we have now. In other words the poll questions are too vague to mean anything.

Here's a source for you specifically about "universal background checks". Now, I'm sure you'll dismiss this one as well for being vague, untrustworthy or methodologically off on the part of the referred-to polls or on the part of PolitiFact's evaluation or something, thus leaving me having wasted time.

Austin's mayor said 90 percent of Americans and 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support universal background checks for gun purchases.

Polls taken in 2012 and 2013 support both figures, though one taken closest to Leffingwell's press conference indicates support among all Americans possibly slipping a bit below 90 percent. Also, the 2012 poll he cited for NRA members rolled together responses of current and former/lapsed members. Then again, a 2013 poll similarly suggests that 74 percent of NRA members favor universal background checks.

We rate this claim as True.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/apr/04/lee-leffingwell/lee-leffingwell-says-polls-show-90-percent-america/

---

Yes, as opposed to membership effects.

And do you mean the effects on voters (i. e., voting habits as a result of attack ads being broadcasted) or on the candidates (i. e. timidness around particular issues, willingness to please certain lobbying groups etc. for fear of reprisals)?

...and because of that I dismiss your opinion. YOU make statement that you have never come close to proving.

Please don't make me laugh. You have dismissed my and every other gun rights opponents' or critics' opinion from the outset. Because of that I don't really care whether you dismiss my opinion or not. I like providing sources where appropriate, but I dislike having to dig through piles of information only to have you dismiss it anyway because it doesn't fit your view. I'm not going to waste my time on such an exercise for as long as Agema and Jux have. Plus, I have to go to work now.

aelreth:
As am I, laws carry with it the force of the state behind it and if used unwisely could be applied unjustly.

It was placed inside it to slow things deliberately. The idea was to resist quick change at the federal level, and when it happens the people would breathe it in through Constitutional Amendment with the consent of 3/4 of the states.

Quick changes can provoke violent reactions.

But isn't the filibuster being used for far more things than "quick change"? If it were only used to block highly controversial things, I would agree with you, but the way things are going I must consider it abused.
Plus - and this was one of the major points that would-be filibuster-reformers brought up - the filibuster used to be about taking a stand and actually slowing down the proceedings. How often does that still happen? Rand Paul recently did an actual "talking filibuster" that garnered some media attention, but most of the time it's used like this: "This bill will need 60 votes because we say so." And that's that. No actual filibuster taking place, no investment, no public speaking, no price to pay.
And by "price to pay" I don't mean the physical effort of doing a filibuster, I mean the ramifications of publicly and openly taking a stand on such a controversial issue. Which might, in turn, affect future voting results both for better and for worse for the politician in question.

Skeleon:
As I said before, they are already a well-established group with powerful political clout and influence. While I would hope that they would lose members to as yet smaller, more representative groups, one can't expect them to be easily replaced by them. Even if they slowly lost members to them, massacres and the following gun rights scares probably ensure the NRA will not be replaced any time soon. People are in a bad spot when it comes to wanting to protect their gun rights sensibly.

You STILL have not explained why NRA members keep voting for board members that do not support what they support.

Here's a source for you specifically about "universal background checks". Now, I'm sure you'll dismiss this one as well for being vague, untrustworthy or methodologically off or something, thus leaving me having wasted time.

So you deliberately use a source that does not back up its claims by showing the actual polls (like I did). Instead all it shows is sources like Mayors Against Illegal Guns (you know damn well that if I tried that you would never stop complaining about it so do not give me shit for it). How about this, show the damn polls. I showed you the CBS poll (that was referred to in your source) and it DID NOT discuss UNIVERSAL background checks but instead only background checks. The closest you get is the PEW poll but that also mentions Gun Shows and that skews the result because we already have background checks at gun shows.

So that you don't whine (well you will anyway but at least this way I can call you out for it) here is another source that actually includes direct links to the polls- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/

Guess what, they all say background check. No universal in any of the polls. Even if we accept the "expansion" idea we still have the problem that I support expanding it by actually prosecuting people for breaking the law (which we do not do now AND the NRA supports us actually prosecuting those people). However, I fully expect you to ignore this. Despite your claims to the contrary YOU are the one who needs to stop dismissing sources.

Please don't make me laugh. You have dismissed my and every other gun rights opponents' opinion from the outset.

Have I? Shall I talk about the number of times that I have stated to the effect that, "there are very sensible and level headed anti-gunners out there"? I have stated that several times on this forum. Of course not to you. After all, you do not back up your claims. I would be more than happy to show you exactly where I said that, but I know that you do not give a shit. After all, I need to be that biased in order for your worldview to remain intact. Just like how I need to be a shill for the NRA despite the lack of evidence.

I like providing sources where appropriate, but I dislike having to dig through piles of information only to have you dismiss it anyway because it doesn't fit your view.

And how many times have YOU dismissed my sources without even reading them? Also, how many times can you cite me dismissing one of your sources?

I'm not going to waste my time on such an exercise for as long as Agema and Jux have.

You have not shown that they cited ANY sources that I dismissed. Amazing how that works. You make a claim, then you don't back it up, then you insult me and accuse me of doing exactly what you are already doing. Once again, if you cannot prove your case then don't post.

farson135:

Actually the problem is that the polls are meaningless. For example, the CNN poll says that 94% of Americans support background checks for gun buyers. The thing is that we already have background checks for gun buyers. In other words the polls are vague and don't really reflect anything. All of the other polls are just as vague except for the NRA poll (which was performed on just NRA members) that asked about regulating private gun sales. So the NRA poll is very specific about what it is asking. The other polls are not.

Yea, I can see how the polls aren't a great measure. Unfortunately, that's a problem in alot of media. They tend to try and word their polls in such a way that they get the results they want.

Thx @Skeleon, @Farson135 and @Not G. Ivingname (Awesome name). Cleared up issues for me, you are all quite helpful. I don't have all the answers, tough to stay current with 2 countries worth of politics haha, but as a gun owning Canadian, who had to deal with our wasteful long-gun registry, I can't see a reason why you wouldn't want background checks.

Honestly, we gun owners already have enough bad rep (Typically just one or two stories which are covered intensely), that we should be for this type of thing. Build up as much good reputation as possible, make us all look like responsible individuals, who use their weapons safely and responsibly. And sure, it won't solve all shootings or gun violence, but it will make the guns just that much harder to obtain. Same as how other laws don't completely eliminate the behavior, but they still act as a deterrent.

I understand my opinion probably isn't right, but that's just how I see it.

farson135:
The bill was redundant and the justification for the "change" was questionable at best. Let us see if the Cruz bill gets passed (it is being labeled as the alternative to the background check bill). From what I have seen I can get behind that bill. For those of y'all who do not know about the bill here is a summary-

Amazing what happens when you actually ask what NRA members want instead of telling them what they want.

Cant see anything wrong with that bill. I got a little annoyed when i saw the meme saying "You can have this much gun control" and a zero symbol. I mean really? Zero? No control at all? Free guns for every ex con and mentally unstable person? Its good to see some people are sensible about this. If this bill is agreed on then i see some significant improvements.

I love shooting, and i think these kinds of agreements where he accept that gun control IS necessary and IS useful are good. We just need to agree where that control should go. This bill seems to have some good ideas.

It's a shame that the senate couldn't have agreed to what should have been a fairly common sense bill to extend background checks across all gun purchases- to cover online and gun fair purchases. It's especially strange to a foreign observer because every other Western country wouldn't have given a second thought about passing this bill. The BBC or Guardian who did some some interesting undercover journalism where they sent a reporter to a gunfair and she managed to walk away with an AR-15 despite the fact she's wasn't an American citizen. You'd have thought that everyone in the senate could have agreed to close up these loopholes. All it's doing is taking an extra precaution before each gun purchase to minimise the chances that a gun gets into the wrong hands.

WTG_Nightbringer:
I can't see a reason why you wouldn't want background checks.

We have background checks already. We just do not want intrusive background checks. For example, the wording of some of the Universal Background Check laws would have required a background check if we simply lend a firearm to (for example) a friend so that we can go on a hunting trip. The reason is because that is a "transfer" and therefore you have to PAY MONEY to transfer the firearms from you to your friend and then back again after the trip was over. Unfortunately there are extreme proposals like that out there being labeled as "common sense". You really have to dig into these laws. The background check law that was proposed in the Senate was so complex that I am not completely sure what is and is not illegal to do according to the law. That is a problem.

I understand my opinion probably isn't right, but that's just how I see it.

Your opinion is not wrong. Gun owners get dragged through the mud in the US because of bad apples.

BiscuitTrouser:
I got a little annoyed when i saw the meme saying "You can have this much gun control" and a zero symbol.

What exactly are you looking at? Are you speaking in general or did you see it somewhere in my link?

I mean really? Zero? No control at all? Free guns for every ex con and mentally unstable person?

I would argue yes on a Federal Level (the Second Amendment was only meant for the Feds) but the states have a lot more leeway within reason.

Nickolai77:
It's a shame that the senate couldn't have agreed to what should have been a fairly common sense bill to extend background checks across all gun purchases- to cover online and gun fair purchases.

Online sales and gun show purchases usually require a background check.

The BBC or Guardian who did some some interesting undercover journalism where they sent a reporter to a gunfair and she managed to walk away with an AR-15 despite the fact she's wasn't an American citizen.

So much for American xenophobia. Anyway finding one if you look hard enough is possible at the huge gun shows. Full AR15s are not easy to get without a background check here in the US unless something special is going on. For example, antis are stirring up so much fear that ARs are effectively worth double their normal price. So lots of people are thinking to themselves, I can sell my AR now for double and buy a new one later.

All it's doing is taking an extra precaution before each gun purchase to minimise the chances that a gun gets into the wrong hands.

Without knowing who has what guns the law is useless. Basically, you can break the law and there is no proof you broke the law because there is no record. Unless someone turns you in. That is where law abiding citizens get screwed because the law that was proposed was so complex that you cannot be 100% sure that what you are doing is illegal (if I send an email to my friend with a quote for a firearm I want to sell him does that count as an internet sell?).

MichiganMuscle77:

Mr. Omega:
So the loophole that prevents background checks at gun shows stays wide open. Then again I doubt the bill would have closed it. But hey, as long as those folks who need their firearms in a hurry aren't inconvenienced, guess we don't need to bother. Because as we all know, background checks lead directly into Nazism.

Ah, the mythical "gun show loophole".

As a matter of fact, if you attempt to purchase a gun from a vendor at a gun show, you are subjected to a back ground check.

Privately purchasing a gun at a gun show, you are not.

So what happens if you tell people that they must undergo back ground checks no matter who they're buying from at a gun show?

"Hey man, I'll buy that AK from you AFTER the gun show... meet me at my house". And that's TOTALLY legal, according to this law that was just defeated.

So, since that's the case, what fucking good would the new law have done? Zero. None.

Don't fool yourself... the "gun show loophole" is an overblown notion that was meant to sway you to the anti-gun side of the argument.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/national-rifle-association/nra-says-manchin-toomey-would-have-criminalized-so/

If the gun is advertised there has to be a background check according to the amendment. So in your example a background check would have to be required since the gun was advertised.

It effectively closes that loophole though only really limits a few purchases because criminals will go elsewhere. That doesn't mean it doesn't fix it's goal of preventing people from legally selling firearms to criminals. Sure a guy with no criminal record could go in get a couple guns then sell them to criminals but one avenue for buying them is gone now. Assuming you need perfect protection to make protective legislation is faulty in my view.

farson135:

Online sales and gun show purchases usually require a background check.

The source i read before commenting on this thread stated that backgrounds checks online and on gun sales don't always require background checks.

"On Wednesday, the Senate blocked a compromise that would have expanded background checks to gun shows and Internet sales, but left an exception for private sales. The vote was 54-46, but it needed 60 votes to pass under an agreement to avoid a filibuster." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/18/senate-gun-bill-what-next/2093419/

Of course, the effectiveness of background checks are limited unless you have a formal method of recording firearm ownership or a firearm licensing scheme.

This is what I'm seeing in this thread so far: Back that up! Back that up! Source? Source? This thread is going nowhere.

OT: There was no loophole and this vote was purely symbolic and it all ended exactly how it should have: Dead on arrival.

Nickolai77:
The BBC or Guardian who did some some interesting undercover journalism where they sent a reporter to a gunfair and she managed to walk away with an AR-15 despite the fact she's wasn't an American citizen.

If she was here on a resident work visa(which was almost certainly the case) that was completely legal.

farson135:

What exactly are you looking at? Are you speaking in general or did you see it somewhere in my link?

I would argue yes on a Federal Level (the Second Amendment was only meant for the Feds) but the states have a lot more leeway within reason.

The comic ive seen around, its been in this thread.

I hate the way "Gun control" has become a dirty phrase though. I agree that "Needlessly Intrusive gun control" should be a dirty phrase. But the idea of making sure that everyone taking on the responsibility of a firearm is mature and stable enough to make that purchase is just sensible. Its like making sure you cant buy a litter of puppies if youve previously killed dogs in dog fighting. We have laws that prohibit people from owning pets if they have shown they cant handle that responsibility. Similarly owning a gun is a responsibility. It empowers you. And in principle thats good. But the power of a firearm is a pretty heavy responsibility and its important we dont just throw it at random people when its clear that giving those people power is a god awful idea.

The massacres that have occured have been commited by people who shouldnt have those firearms. If you own a family and purchase a firearm i think it should be made pretty damn clear what precautions to take to ensure only you and the family members you trust have access to those weapons, then liability for your gun and how safe you ensure its keeping is on you. Your responsibility and your fault if its taken or used by someone who shouldnt have it. Sure its obvious and easy for 99.999% of people. But hell the ones that get through are the ones that make the news eh?

Ive come to agree that guns are tools rather than outright weapons. But you still wouldnt let anyone use a crane or a digger unless you knew they knew what they were doing. Some tools are more dangerous tools that require a sound mind and some amount of personal understanding of the consequences if you fuck up.

Nickolai77:
The source i read before commenting on this thread stated that backgrounds checks online and on gun sales don't always require background checks.

Not always but in most cases yes. The exceptions include antiques (you do not need a background check for a black powder firearm). And there are some states that do not deal with inner state private transfers. However, in 99% of cases for the firearms you are thinking about you have to go through an FFL at some point UNLESS you are purchasing a firearm from a friend or family member. But that is not covered in the bill anyway.

What the source you read is referring to is online advertising. For example, on the site Armslist.com you can see the city where a person is. If you happen to live in that city you could email them and ask them to meet up with you and trade the firearm directly. The bill would have stopped that by making it illegal to advertise a firearm sale without a background check online. It is confusing and that is another reason that I have such a major problem with the legislation.

BiscuitTrouser:
But the idea of making sure that everyone taking on the responsibility of a firearm is mature and stable enough to make that purchase is just sensible.

That is sensible and most gun owners agree with you. What we do not agree with is the methods that some people try to impose on us. Most gun owners support firearm safety training in schools. Many antis have told me that we are trying to indoctrinate children into becoming gun owners (kind of like the argument for why we should not have sex ed in schools). What do some antis use to counter to that? Require all gun owners to undergo a mandatory safety class that covers everything from hunting to self defense. An insanely long class that would cover things that are completely irrelevant to most gun owners.

Most gun owners are fine with some form of gun control. What we do not like is how far some people go with it.

Your responsibility and your fault if its taken or used by someone who shouldnt have it. Sure its obvious and easy for 99.999% of people. But hell the ones that get through are the ones that make the news eh?

That is fine as long as the expectations are reasonable. Once again, certain antis that I know are pissed at me because I do not put a gun lock on all of my firearms and keep them in a gun safe. Including the firearms that are chained to a wall, inside a padlocked closet, inside a padlocked room, inside a locked apartment. If someone can get through all of that I do not think I should be held responsible because I doubt a gun safe would have stopped them anyway (not that I could get a gun safe since my floors are not solid concrete) and I highly doubt anyone would steal my Kentucky Long Rifle in order to rob a bank.

Ive come to agree that guns are tools rather than outright weapons. But you still wouldnt let anyone use a crane or a digger unless you knew they knew what they were doing. Some tools are more dangerous tools that require a sound mind and some amount of personal understanding of the consequences if you fuck up.

Agreed but once again there has to be a limit on how much the government can and even should regulate and that limit should be discussed. I would love to discuss those limits but as of yet no one on this site has taken me up on the offer.

farson135:

That is sensible and most gun owners agree with you. What we do not agree with is the methods that some people try to impose on us. Most gun owners support firearm safety training in schools. Many antis have told me that we are trying to indoctrinate children into becoming gun owners (kind of like the argument for why we should not have sex ed in schools). What do some antis use to counter to that? Require all gun owners to undergo a mandatory safety class that covers everything from hunting to self defense. An insanely long class that would cover things that are completely irrelevant to most gun owners.

See i like the parallel you used here because the argument also has the same obvious theme. Trying to stamp something out thats pervasive in a culture doesnt work. The younger generation are gonna have sex. A nation that prides itself on fire arm ownership is gonna want to own firearms. Trying to ignore this problem in the hope it goes away fails in both cases. I think basic firearm ownership is a good lesson to teach kids. Shooting is a damn fun sport that teaches responsibility. I mean im usually a bit "meh" and silly when it comes to things. Learning to shoot really taught me how to try at something my hardest and not fuck around when something is important. Its a good lesson and a fun sport.

That is fine as long as the expectations are reasonable. Once again, certain antis that I know are pissed at me because I do not put a gun lock on all of my firearms and keep them in a gun safe. Including the firearms that are chained to a wall, inside a padlocked closet, inside a padlocked room, inside a locked apartment. If someone can get through all of that I do not think I should be held responsible because I doubt a gun safe would have stopped them anyway (not that I could get a gun safe since my floors are not solid concrete) and I highly doubt anyone would steal my Kentucky Long Rifle in order to rob a bank.

Naturally yeah, there should be an agreed upon "Maximum reasonable safety standard" that people should be reaching. if someone burns through your locks with a blow torch that isnt your fault at all. Its the family who leave their guns within easy reach untrained people, especially those known to be unstable or maybe dangerous to others, that need a lesson in how to properly keep such a tool safe. I think classes as a young adult would help kids understand the culture in which they live. You cant hide it. And you cant force parents to explain everything about living in their nation to them. Thats what school is for, to help prepare for adult life. We need to accept sex is part of our culture and teach to nullify the bad elements of that. Your culture has guns in it. Accepting that and teach to best nullify the bad elements of that too.

Not G. Ivingname:
While I am not sure about the Virginia tech, the Aurora shooter stole his gun from a relative of his, and both hadn't done anything that would of put a stopped a gun purchase even if they did have a background check.

The Virginia Tech shooter had a documented history of untreated mental illness. A background check that is expanded to include more details like that could've caught that important detail. I doubt any reasonable person would ignore it when a person with a history of mental illness and violence tries to buy a gun and a obscene amount of ammo.

As for the Aurora shooter, even if the gun was stolen, he managed to purchase well over a thousand rounds of ammunition without giving pause. I think he got it at an unregistered business, which is yet another thing that needs to be wrapped up.

Good. America can continue it's cultural and genetic legacy of violence.

MarsAtlas:

Not G. Ivingname:
While I am not sure about the Virginia tech, the Aurora shooter stole his gun from a relative of his, and both hadn't done anything that would of put a stopped a gun purchase even if they did have a background check.

The Virginia Tech shooter had a documented history of untreated mental illness. A background check that is expanded to include more details like that could've caught that important detail. I doubt any reasonable person would ignore it when a person with a history of mental illness and violence tries to buy a gun and a obscene amount of ammo.

As for the Aurora shooter, even if the gun was stolen, he managed to purchase well over a thousand rounds of ammunition without giving pause. I think he got it at an unregistered business, which is yet another thing that needs to be wrapped up.

He wasn't flagged because his psychiatrist didn't flagged him, as being a problem despite the fact that he had issues. Buying over thousand rounds is actually normal.

MarsAtlas:

Not G. Ivingname:
While I am not sure about the Virginia tech, the Aurora shooter stole his gun from a relative of his, and both hadn't done anything that would of put a stopped a gun purchase even if they did have a background check.

The Virginia Tech shooter had a documented history of untreated mental illness. A background check that is expanded to include more details like that could've caught that important detail. I doubt any reasonable person would ignore it when a person with a history of mental illness and violence tries to buy a gun and a obscene amount of ammo.

As for the Aurora shooter, even if the gun was stolen, he managed to purchase well over a thousand rounds of ammunition without giving pause. I think he got it at an unregistered business, which is yet another thing that needs to be wrapped up.

Since someone already explained why the mental illness thing would not of worked, let you explain about the bullets.

Buying in such bulk isn't so uncommon. For some, there are obvious reasons, security companies, for example. Why does a private citizen need so much? Target shooting.

You would not believe how much ammo one goes through on a good day at the range. It is easy to go through several hundred rounds. Buying in bulk is just better worth for your money.

BiscuitTrouser:

farson135:

What exactly are you looking at? Are you speaking in general or did you see it somewhere in my link?

I would argue yes on a Federal Level (the Second Amendment was only meant for the Feds) but the states have a lot more leeway within reason.

The comic ive seen around, its been in this thread.

I hate the way "Gun control" has become a dirty phrase though. I agree that "Needlessly Intrusive gun control" should be a dirty phrase. But the idea of making sure that everyone taking on the responsibility of a firearm is mature and stable enough to make that purchase is just sensible. Its like making sure you cant buy a litter of puppies if youve previously killed dogs in dog fighting. We have laws that prohibit people from owning pets if they have shown they cant handle that responsibility. Similarly owning a gun is a responsibility. It empowers you. And in principle thats good. But the power of a firearm is a pretty heavy responsibility and its important we dont just throw it at random people when its clear that giving those people power is a god awful idea.

The massacres that have occured have been commited by people who shouldnt have those firearms. If you own a family and purchase a firearm i think it should be made pretty damn clear what precautions to take to ensure only you and the family members you trust have access to those weapons, then liability for your gun and how safe you ensure its keeping is on you. Your responsibility and your fault if its taken or used by someone who shouldnt have it. Sure its obvious and easy for 99.999% of people. But hell the ones that get through are the ones that make the news eh?

Ive come to agree that guns are tools rather than outright weapons. But you still wouldnt let anyone use a crane or a digger unless you knew they knew what they were doing. Some tools are more dangerous tools that require a sound mind and some amount of personal understanding of the consequences if you fuck up.

Mass gross negligence is really what this is about. From not paying attention to one's problems to mixing up guns and mental illness without a concern to pushing away corruption from cops and politicians that might help improve your neighborhood, it's a vicious cycle that has to stop. That is probably why Sandy Hook was the last straw to break the camel's back.

Didn't the Dems add the Federal assault weapon ban into the background check bill? If so then it is completely the Dems fault for it not passing.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/18/gun-bills-withdrawal-in-senate-kills-hopes-for-house-bill/?hpt=po_t1

"After the Senate bill - pushed by pro-gun rights Sens. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, and Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania - along with measures banning assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines all failed to pass on Wednesday, Reid said he's taking a pause and shelving gun legislation for the time being."

MarsAtlas:

Not G. Ivingname:
While I am not sure about the Virginia tech, the Aurora shooter stole his gun from a relative of his, and both hadn't done anything that would of put a stopped a gun purchase even if they did have a background check.

The Virginia Tech shooter had a documented history of untreated mental illness. A background check that is expanded to include more details like that could've caught that important detail. I doubt any reasonable person would ignore it when a person with a history of mental illness and violence tries to buy a gun and a obscene amount of ammo.

As for the Aurora shooter, even if the gun was stolen, he managed to purchase well over a thousand rounds of ammunition without giving pause. I think he got it at an unregistered business, which is yet another thing that needs to be wrapped up.

Serious shooters will go through a thousand rounds in a month, easy. Sometimes just a single weekend. As for the VT shooter, had he been forcible committed like he was initially supposed to be, he would have been barred from owning a firearm. The courts were the one who dropped the ball, not the NICS system.

Nickolai77:

farson135:

Online sales and gun show purchases usually require a background check.

The source i read before commenting on this thread stated that backgrounds checks online and on gun sales don't always require background checks.

"On Wednesday, the Senate blocked a compromise that would have expanded background checks to gun shows and Internet sales, but left an exception for private sales. The vote was 54-46, but it needed 60 votes to pass under an agreement to avoid a filibuster." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/18/senate-gun-bill-what-next/2093419/

Of course, the effectiveness of background checks are limited unless you have a formal method of recording firearm ownership or a firearm licensing scheme.

The thing is that to order online you have to have it shipped to an FFL holder, who you then pay to transfer ownership to you. It is at the transfer that the background check occurs. At least here in Alabama

You know there's something wrong with your country's psychology when twenty dead children on the floor of a suburban classroom isn't sufficient for anything to be done.

Fuck us, man. We're messed up.

image

Gorfias:
Even Joe Biden seems to concede this was all just pretty symbolic:

There's real work to be done in the USA. I'd like to see what can be done to keep fertilizer plants from exploding. Unless that happened on purpose, I have to believe factory safety more controllable than the violence of the murderously deranged.

I C WUT U DID THAR, Miss Erin. Jockeying for a position at Fox are we, hmm? With spin like that she could be Bill-O's right-hand man. Er, woman.

farson135:

http://www.nraila.org/media/10850041/113topline.pdf

Dafuq is wrong with these people? 72% think ZOMG THE EVUL LIBRUL PREZ IS COMIN FER OUR GUNZ!!!!

And then there's this gem attributed to 79% of respondents:

Some (Other) people say regardless of President Obama's recent comments of pursuing a
balanced approach his real goal is to pass sweeping gun control regulation that will take away
our 2nd Amendment rights.

Well at least 9 out of 10 of 'em support "Reforming our mental health laws to help keep firearms out of the hands of people with mental illness." Though I'm not sure quite how that'll work without ZOMG MOAR REGULATIONZ.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked