Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
The NRA got their way again. What a spineless, pitiful Congress.
You mean we didn't have to sacrifice our constitutional rights from unreasonable sacrifices based on legislation sparked by a tragedy they wouldn't prevent?
DAMN CONGRESS!
/s
Facts don't support gun control legislation arguments. It's entirely an emotional argument.
Universal background checks do now impede any sane or law-abiding citizen from exercising their rights.
America already restricts the rights of criminals and crazy people for the sake of public safety. Equating the right to bear arms with allowing any dipshit to get a gun without meeting the basic qualifications of competence or sanity is an emotional argument.
Yes they do. Wanna pass on a gun to a relative or close family friend? Nope, gotta go through a FFL. Want to BORROW a friend's rifle? Nope, can't do that. And how do you plan on enforcing UBC? Policeman stops you and asks how you obtained that gun. How will he know you went through a background check? Answer: he can't. And then the anti-crowd will say "you see, this is why we need UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION". THAT is how UBC leads to registration.
And this will affect your average criminal how? Not one iota.
I know you're being facetious, but you just made an argument that would have prevented the Newtown massacre. Maybe you're pro-gun control and pro-responsible gun ownership afterall!
The NRA got their way again. What a spineless, pitiful Congress.
You mean we didn't have to sacrifice our constitutional rights from unreasonable sacrifices based on legislation sparked by a tragedy they wouldn't prevent?
DAMN CONGRESS!
/s
Facts don't support gun control legislation arguments. It's entirely an emotional argument.
Universal background checks do now impede any sane or law-abiding citizen from exercising their rights.
America already restricts the rights of criminals and crazy people for the sake of public safety. Equating the right to bear arms with allowing any dipshit to get a gun without meeting the basic qualifications of competence or sanity is an emotional argument.
Yes they do. Wanna pass on a gun to a relative or close family friend? Nope, gotta go through a FFL. Want to BORROW a friend's rifle? Nope, can't do that. And how do you plan on enforcing UBC? Policeman stops you and asks how you obtained that gun. How will he know you went through a background check? Answer: he can't. And then the anti-crowd will say "you see, this is why we need UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION". THAT is how UBC leads to registration.
And this will affect your average criminal how? Not one iota.
Don't be stupid, go read instead of pretending to know what you're talking about. The bill didn't require background checks from sales to friends and family only gunshows and Internet sales, ironically making it essentially useless in stopping straw sales.
No, the Schumer bill does require background checks. The Toomey-Manchin AMENDMENT to that bill is what you're talking about. Get a clue.
what exactly do you think is being talked about and voted on today?
The NRA got their way again. What a spineless, pitiful Congress.
You mean we didn't have to sacrifice our constitutional rights from unreasonable sacrifices based on legislation sparked by a tragedy they wouldn't prevent?
DAMN CONGRESS!
/s
Facts don't support gun control legislation arguments. It's entirely an emotional argument.
Universal background checks do now impede any sane or law-abiding citizen from exercising their rights.
America already restricts the rights of criminals and crazy people for the sake of public safety. Equating the right to bear arms with allowing any dipshit to get a gun without meeting the basic qualifications of competence or sanity is an emotional argument.
Yes they do. Wanna pass on a gun to a relative or close family friend? Nope, gotta go through a FFL. Want to BORROW a friend's rifle? Nope, can't do that. And how do you plan on enforcing UBC? Policeman stops you and asks how you obtained that gun. How will he know you went through a background check? Answer: he can't. And then the anti-crowd will say "you see, this is why we need UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION". THAT is how UBC leads to registration.
And this will affect your average criminal how? Not one iota.
I know you're being facetious, but you just made an argument that would have prevented the Newtown massacre. Maybe you're pro-gun control and pro-responsible gun ownership afterall!
What, my comment about registration, or having to go through a FFL to pass a gun to a relative? I also fail to see how this has anything to do with responsible gun ownership.
what exactly do you think is being talked about?
Proposed gun control measures in the United States. Today? The Toomey-Manchin amendment.
On April 18 2013 09:13 ahswtini wrote: NRA is [...] comprised of millions of everyday American citizens.
Uh... you phrased it in a very loose, open-to-interpretation way, so maybe you had a different definition of "everyday American citizen" in mind. Personally, I'd strongly disagree that its members are "everyday American citizens". On the other hand, if some massive anti-gun organization existed akin to the NRA, I would also disagree that its members would be "everyday American citizens". Yes, the members are also citizens of the US everyday they live here in the US, but they really don't hold neutral views, which I would associate more comfortably with the term "everyday citizen" (one without an agenda or polarized opinion on something).
Or... to put it in a more quantitative way... Imagine you took a random sampling of NRA members. Imagine you had them provide intricate explanations of their views on social and political issues. Imagine you took a random sampling of US citizens. I would hypothesize that the two groups would be distinct in their patterns of social and political views, which would mean members of the NRA, as a whole, aren't likely to represent perfectly members of the US, as a whole... something like that. It's an unsubstantiated thought, so of course I cannot back this idea up with numbers
Do you really think a background check will have stopped Lanza? I can just imagine what he would've been thinking: "I could shoot my own mother right now with her guns, but that would be illegal because I haven't had a background check to allow me to have her guns!"
On April 18 2013 09:13 ahswtini wrote: NRA is [...] comprised of millions of everyday American citizens.
Uh... you phrased it in a very loose, open-to-interpretation way, so maybe you had a different definition of "everyday American citizen" in mind. Personally, I'd strongly disagree that its members are "everyday American citizens". On the other hand, if some massive anti-gun organization existed akin to the NRA, I would also disagree that its members would be "everyday American citizens". Yes, the members are also citizens of the US everyday they live here in the US, but they really don't hold neutral views, which I would associate more comfortably with the term "everyday citizen" (one without an agenda or polarized opinion on something).
So your idea of an everyday citizen is someone who has no opinion or anything? My idea of an everyday citizen is someone who is virtually indistinguishable from anyone else, except in this case, they all share a common love of firearms, support the 2A and believe in safe and responsible gun ownership. The NRA isn't a fringe group, as many of the antis love to paint it as, nor is it an evil entity backed by shadowy corporate arms manufacturers.
On April 18 2013 09:38 ahswtini wrote: Do you really think a background check will have stopped Lanza? I can just imagine what he would've been thinking: "I could shoot my own mother right now with her guns, but that would be illegal because I haven't had a background check to allow me to have her guns!"
Probably not, but maybe it is not useful to view the potential effects of small steps toward tighter gun control through the lens of how they might impact or prevent a more extreme example.
On April 18 2013 09:43 Defacer wrote: It just blows my mind that nothing got done on this issue. That's all.
There you have it. Gun laws in the US are fine the way they are. Hoooo-ray?
Go fix the underlying social problems first (ie the same social problems that manifest themselves into most of our social ills). Worry about the guns later. It is not difficult.
On April 18 2013 09:13 ahswtini wrote: NRA is [...] comprised of millions of everyday American citizens.
Uh... you phrased it in a very loose, open-to-interpretation way, so maybe you had a different definition of "everyday American citizen" in mind. Personally, I'd strongly disagree that its members are "everyday American citizens". On the other hand, if some massive anti-gun organization existed akin to the NRA, I would also disagree that its members would be "everyday American citizens". Yes, the members are also citizens of the US everyday they live here in the US, but they really don't hold neutral views, which I would associate more comfortably with the term "everyday citizen" (one without an agenda or polarized opinion on something).
So your idea of an everyday citizen is someone who has no opinion or anything?
No, it's one who has an opinion held by most people, on average. I think that the opinion, on average, of NRA members, likely does not align with the opinion, on average, of US citizens as a whole collection.
On April 18 2013 09:38 ahswtini wrote: Do you really think a background check will have stopped Lanza? I can just imagine what he would've been thinking: "I could shoot my own mother right now with her guns, but that would be illegal because I haven't had a background check to allow me to have her guns!"
More like, "Why won't my mommy buy me guns! Waaaaaah!"
Who know's right? If it was illegal for her to share guns with her son, maybe she wouldn't have bought them in the first place. It was my understanding the only reason she collected guns was so she could share a hobby with her weird, distant son.
Again, doesn't keep a crazy person from trying to do something crazy, but why make it easy?
Everytime there's a high profile shooting, in the US or in my country the UK, there's the immediate call for more laws. And yet there are so many existing laws on the books that are not enforced. Where existing laws would've sufficed. The NRA has been pushing to make mental health records available on a federal level to include them in the NICS system. The NRA have been calling for armed security or armed teachers in schools. Does that not count as something to can be done?
On April 18 2013 09:47 ahswtini wrote: Everytime there's a high profile shooting, in the US or in my country the UK, there's the immediate call for more laws. And yet there are so many existing laws on the books that are not enforced. Where existing laws would've sufficed. The NRA has been pushing to make mental health records available on a federal level to include them in the NICS system. The NRA have been calling for armed security or armed teachers in schools. Does that not count as something to can be done?
On April 18 2013 09:38 ahswtini wrote: Do you really think a background check will have stopped Lanza? I can just imagine what he would've been thinking: "I could shoot my own mother right now with her guns, but that would be illegal because I haven't had a background check to allow me to have her guns!"
Probably not, but maybe it is not useful to view the potential effects of small steps toward tighter gun control through the lens of how they might impact or prevent a more extreme example.
Yet Obama exploits those grieving families, dragging them in front of the cameras for what? He's not a stupid man, he knows damn well these measures would not have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook. It's just his way of exploiting a tragedy to advance his agenda. Feinstein admitted that she had her AWB bill sitting on her desk waiting for the right moment to introduce it.
TBH i haven't noticed that at all about the UK.
Derrick Bird had a criminal record of theft, drink driving, and allegations of threatening behaviour. Six month suspended sentence for theft. That should automatically ban you from having firearms for 5 years.
Raoul Moat had a history of violent behaviour as well. There were laws in place to prevent these people from having access to guns.
On April 18 2013 09:43 Defacer wrote: It just blows my mind that nothing got done on this issue. That's all.
There you have it. Gun laws in the US are fine the way they are. Hoooo-ray?
Go fix the underlying social problems first (ie the same social problems that manifest themselves into most of our social ills). Worry about the guns later. It is not difficult.
Baby steps man, baby steps. You think monitoring and providing care for mental illness is easier? Like, once we get rid of all the poor, crazy, angry and evil people, we can start talking about gun laws?
I think it's fair to say that the average person doesn't want anyone to sell a gun to a crazy person or a criminal legally. The same way we don't want to give driver's licences to blind old-ladies or people prone to epileptic fits. You'd think their would be something there with that basic premise.
On April 18 2013 09:38 ahswtini wrote: Do you really think a background check will have stopped Lanza? I can just imagine what he would've been thinking: "I could shoot my own mother right now with her guns, but that would be illegal because I haven't had a background check to allow me to have her guns!"
Probably not, but maybe it is not useful to view the potential effects of small steps toward tighter gun control through the lens of how they might impact or prevent a more extreme example.
Yet Obama exploits those grieving families, dragging them in front of the cameras for what? He's not a stupid man, he knows damn well these measures would not have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook. It's just his way of exploiting a tragedy to advance his agenda. Feinstein admitted that she had her AWB bill sitting on her desk waiting for the right moment to introduce it.
Ummm, I think those grieving families would have done that, given ANY opportunity to do so. I can say with confidence that they're not big on guns for very personal reasons. Call it a hunch ...
I'm pretty shocked that Obama wasn't able to get anything at all. Even as weak as background checks were to any gun control he still couldn't get it anywhere. He then after getting royaly defeated in the senate goes back to the shame and guilt shtick that didn't work the whole time.
Democrats spent all their steam rallying up for the "assault weapons are evil" trip and never had a horse in the game when that flopped as it should have.
NRA members arn't "everyday people" but they are a hell of a lot closer to the moderates that decide elections then the pro gun control crowd.
On April 18 2013 09:13 ahswtini wrote: NRA is [...] comprised of millions of everyday American citizens.
Uh... you phrased it in a very loose, open-to-interpretation way, so maybe you had a different definition of "everyday American citizen" in mind. Personally, I'd strongly disagree that its members are "everyday American citizens". On the other hand, if some massive anti-gun organization existed akin to the NRA, I would also disagree that its members would be "everyday American citizens". Yes, the members are also citizens of the US everyday they live here in the US, but they really don't hold neutral views, which I would associate more comfortably with the term "everyday citizen" (one without an agenda or polarized opinion on something).
So your idea of an everyday citizen is someone who has no opinion or anything?
No, it's one who has an opinion held by most people, on average. I think that the opinion, on average, of NRA members, likely does not align with the opinion, on average, of US citizens as a whole collection.
The problem with the average citizen, is that the average citizen knows NOTHING about the issue. If you ask them what an assault weapon is, they'll say a machine gun, or assault rifle. Except that those aren't what an "Assault Weapon" is, and are already strictly regulated. They don't realize that gun deaths are at the lowest they've been since the early 90's. They don't realize more people die from alcohol (even excluding liver failure) and alcohol related accidents. They don't realize there's 300,000,000 guns in the US, but only 300,000 gun crimes a year. Even if EVERY crime was a different gun, that still leaves 299,700,000 guns that weren't involved in a crime.
The average citizen shouldn't get to decide, or even really have much say at all, because the average citizen doesn't really know what they're talking about.
On April 18 2013 09:38 ahswtini wrote: Do you really think a background check will have stopped Lanza? I can just imagine what he would've been thinking: "I could shoot my own mother right now with her guns, but that would be illegal because I haven't had a background check to allow me to have her guns!"
Probably not, but maybe it is not useful to view the potential effects of small steps toward tighter gun control through the lens of how they might impact or prevent a more extreme example.
Yet Obama exploits those grieving families, dragging them in front of the cameras for what? He's not a stupid man, he knows damn well these measures would not have prevented what happened at Sandy Hook. It's just his way of exploiting a tragedy to advance his agenda. Feinstein admitted that she had her AWB bill sitting on her desk waiting for the right moment to introduce it.
Ummm, I think those grieving families would have done that, given ANY opportunity to do so. I can say with confidence that they're not big on guns for very personal reasons. Call it a hunch ...
Darrell Scott, father of one of the children killed at Columbine, has spoken out against increased gun control. You shouldn't make assumptions about how people will act in the face of tragedy.
They're fed the lies by Obama and his cronies. When Obama even now talks about how a "fully automatic" weapon was used in Sandy Hook. You can't let people make laws about things they know nothing about. You would expect Feinstein to know a great deal about guns, having legislated against for the past two decades at least, and having a concealed weapons permit herself. Yet you see her talking about 'clips', and waving guns around with her finger on the trigger, breaking every safety rule there is. These are the people the NRA are fighting against. Here are some examples of lawmakers demonstrating they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about:
On April 18 2013 10:00 Millitron wrote: Darrell Scott, father of one of the children killed at Columbine, has spoken out against increased gun control. You shouldn't make assumptions about how people will act in the face of tragedy.
In fact, the father of one of the children killed at Sandy Hook has spoken out against more gun control:
EPT
