|
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. |
On April 18 2013 16:30 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 16:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 18 2013 15:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 15:02 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote:http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdfPresidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. "63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"We don't need background checks at gun shows? On April 18 2013 14:39 Defacer wrote:What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion.  The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public. How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun... Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns. Background checks don't hurt accessibility to guns. Never mind my part about background checks. I misread one of the questions in the survey and wrongly made an assumption. I am curious though, how do you think that adding a standard of training doesn't restrict accessibility (you wrote availability, but I assume you meant accessibility) to guns? Training costs time and money. Poor people lack and time and money, so they shouldn't be able to own a gun because they can't afford some training class? That seems like a terrible idea to me. I also want to say that the survey had poorly worded and loaded questions. Missing from the survey was simple questions like "Do you think all gun sales at a gun show should be subject to a background check?" On April 18 2013 15:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Still insane to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise it as cultural relativism. I wouldn't mind if this inalieable freedom to carry guns that the right in America hold so dear was extended to, I don't know drug use so that so much money, prison space etc wasn't being continually being pissed away, or a woman's right to an abortion. Fuck consistency though
To the non-idiot gunowners, there's an argument to be made in your favour, and some of you do a good job.
Saw Obama talking about this briefly, what was he referring to when he mentioned misinformation being spread about the bill? Good to see him speak out for once, but not sure if he was correct in saying that? Wish he had been more forthright when it came to Obamacare and 'death panels' instead of being Mr Bipartisan all the time mind. Obama hasn't been Mr. Bipartisan since being re-elected. It didn't work for him the first time and he isn't doing it. Thank God. Yeah, giving every liberal on the internet his fantasy and going all-out against the Republicans sure just got him a big triumph on legislation covering this very topic. It didn't, he lost. Acting like the Chicago bareknuckle politician he is got him smacked in the mouth and he's angry about it. Too bad for him. What course of action and tone do you advocate then?
First call for greater spending on mental health, including funding for existing institutions and the reopening of old ones or the creation of new ones. I'm conservative, this is something I think the government should spare no expense on. Reagan's experiment of shutting down funding for both federal and state mental institutions has been a huge failure. Most of the people released into outpatient care or simply let out into the streets have had a horrible time since. People like Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner should have been behind strong, locked doors far before they killed anyone.
The next thing would be to not send mixed messages. They say they don't want to take our guns, that's ridiculous, and then they want to pass laws or do pass laws that ban a big list of guns! How can they expect pro-gun people to swallow that and expect the Democrats to negotiate in good faith? And keep Obama out of negotiating period, his compulsion to lecture and be a dick about it has made it so that Republicans simply won't talk with him. They want to negotiate with Biden because Biden isn't a dick and he actually negotiates.
Expand background checks fully to gun shows. Most gun sellers at shows are already licensed federal dealers who have to do background checks anyway, extend that to everyone in the show. Leave personal transactions alone. That's a step too far on privacy to me. Selling a gun to a criminal or selling it when you know it will be used in a crime or being a criminal in possession of a gun and selling it to anyone is already illegal. Shouldn't have it in the first place and selling it is just another charge on top. We don't need paperwork for family members or friends giving or selling guns to each other.
These are things I think would have helped, and I think they would have been a good first step in establishing cooperation and trust among both sides. I also think they would be good reforms that would help reduce gun violence.
But instead we got Nurse Ratchet Bloomberg and Lecturing You're Never Good Father Obama. Because all he really cares about is winning next year so he can do whatever he wants his last 2 years. He wants to use guns as a wedge issue against Republicans. It's incredibly bad political strategy. You can't beat the Republicans on guns. What kind of weed is Obama smoking? I'd say I want some but I don't, it's making him stoned stupid.
Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 16:37 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 16:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 18 2013 15:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 15:02 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote:http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdfPresidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. "63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"We don't need background checks at gun shows? On April 18 2013 14:39 Defacer wrote:What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion. The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public. How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun... Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns. Background checks don't hurt accessibility to guns. Never mind my part about background checks. I misread one of the questions in the survey and wrongly made an assumption. I am curious though, how do you think that adding a standard of training doesn't restrict accessibility (you wrote availability, but I assume you meant accessibility) to guns? Training costs time and money. Poor people lack and time and money, so they shouldn't be able to own a gun because they can't afford some training class? That seems like a terrible idea to me. I also want to say that the survey had poorly worded and loaded questions. Missing from the survey was simple questions like "Do you think all gun sales at a gun show should be subject to a background check?" On April 18 2013 15:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Still insane to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise it as cultural relativism. I wouldn't mind if this inalieable freedom to carry guns that the right in America hold so dear was extended to, I don't know drug use so that so much money, prison space etc wasn't being continually being pissed away, or a woman's right to an abortion. Fuck consistency though
To the non-idiot gunowners, there's an argument to be made in your favour, and some of you do a good job.
Saw Obama talking about this briefly, what was he referring to when he mentioned misinformation being spread about the bill? Good to see him speak out for once, but not sure if he was correct in saying that? Wish he had been more forthright when it came to Obamacare and 'death panels' instead of being Mr Bipartisan all the time mind. Obama hasn't been Mr. Bipartisan since being re-elected. It didn't work for him the first time and he isn't doing it. Thank God. Yeah, giving every liberal on the internet his fantasy and going all-out against the Republicans sure just got him a big triumph on legislation covering this very topic. It didn't, he lost. Acting like the Chicago bareknuckle politician he is got him smacked in the mouth and he's angry about it. Too bad for him. I have to say, I actually thought the Chicago politician-routine was going to work. He seemed to get the conversation about gun control further than anyone else in recent memory. Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the current gun legislation? Are you fine with it or is there anything you'd like to see changed.
I feel like it was would have been ineffectual and probably in some ways unconstitutional, particularly the magazine limit. I feel like there were die-hards on both sides that weren't going to budge period, but there were about 10 Senators, maybe a few more, really trying to get some compromise. And I feel like reaching a deal failed because of the aggressive and demeaning way people like Bloomberg and Obama behaved and talked about the issue this entire time.
|
On April 18 2013 16:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I feel like it was would have been ineffectual and probably in some ways unconstitutional, particularly the magazine limit. I feel like there were die-hards on both sides that weren't going to budge period, but there were about 10 Senators, maybe a few more, really trying to get some compromise. And I feel like reaching a deal failed because of the aggressive and demeaning way people like Bloomberg and Obama behaved and talked about the issue this entire time.
In light of Sandy Hook and Aurora, Colorado still being fresh in the public consciousness, I don't blame him for going 'all-in' and trying to shame congress and senate into tougher legislation.
I'm not convince that the strategy of 'reaching across the aisle' would have worked well either. Those 10 senators are pussies that would have flaked anyway.
|
On April 18 2013 16:49 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 16:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I feel like it was would have been ineffectual and probably in some ways unconstitutional, particularly the magazine limit. I feel like there were die-hards on both sides that weren't going to budge period, but there were about 10 Senators, maybe a few more, really trying to get some compromise. And I feel like reaching a deal failed because of the aggressive and demeaning way people like Bloomberg and Obama behaved and talked about the issue this entire time. In light of Sandy Hook and Aurora, Colorado still being fresh in the public consciousness, I don't blame him for going 'all-in' and trying to shame congress and senate into tougher legislation. I'm not convince that the strategy of 'reaching across the aisle' would have worked well either. Those 10 senators are pussies that would have flaked anyway.
"Victory has a hundred fathers; defeat is an orphan."
I agree that at the time, flush with triumph from winning last November and outraged like everyone else by Sandy Hook, it looked like a good idea.
But I wouldn't say he isn't to blame, because he's the President. The President is unofficially the guy in charge of his party, and he and his party just lost on an issue very big to them that they expended a lot of time and political capital on. They've said they want to raise the stakes, to come back and fight again, and I think that that is as bad an idea as their plans and actions this time.
|
On April 18 2013 16:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 16:49 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 16:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:
I feel like it was would have been ineffectual and probably in some ways unconstitutional, particularly the magazine limit. I feel like there were die-hards on both sides that weren't going to budge period, but there were about 10 Senators, maybe a few more, really trying to get some compromise. And I feel like reaching a deal failed because of the aggressive and demeaning way people like Bloomberg and Obama behaved and talked about the issue this entire time. In light of Sandy Hook and Aurora, Colorado still being fresh in the public consciousness, I don't blame him for going 'all-in' and trying to shame congress and senate into tougher legislation. I'm not convince that the strategy of 'reaching across the aisle' would have worked well either. Those 10 senators are pussies that would have flaked anyway. "Victory has a hundred fathers; defeat is an orphan." I agree that at the time, flush with triumph from winning last November and outraged like everyone else by Sandy Hook, it looked like a good idea. But I wouldn't say he isn't to blame, because he's the President. The President is unofficially the guy in charge of his party, and he and his party just lost on an issue very big to them that they expended a lot of time and political capital on. They've said they want to raise the stakes, to come back and fight again, and I think that that is as bad an idea as their plans and actions this time.
Hmmm. I agree.
You make me sad sometimes.
|
I hope not too many times! Off to bed for me now, goodnight TL!
|
Northern Ireland25073 Posts
On April 18 2013 16:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 16:30 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 18 2013 16:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 18 2013 15:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 15:02 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote:http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdfPresidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. "63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"We don't need background checks at gun shows? On April 18 2013 14:39 Defacer wrote:What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion. The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public. How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun... Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns. Background checks don't hurt accessibility to guns. Never mind my part about background checks. I misread one of the questions in the survey and wrongly made an assumption. I am curious though, how do you think that adding a standard of training doesn't restrict accessibility (you wrote availability, but I assume you meant accessibility) to guns? Training costs time and money. Poor people lack and time and money, so they shouldn't be able to own a gun because they can't afford some training class? That seems like a terrible idea to me. I also want to say that the survey had poorly worded and loaded questions. Missing from the survey was simple questions like "Do you think all gun sales at a gun show should be subject to a background check?" On April 18 2013 15:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Still insane to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise it as cultural relativism. I wouldn't mind if this inalieable freedom to carry guns that the right in America hold so dear was extended to, I don't know drug use so that so much money, prison space etc wasn't being continually being pissed away, or a woman's right to an abortion. Fuck consistency though
To the non-idiot gunowners, there's an argument to be made in your favour, and some of you do a good job.
Saw Obama talking about this briefly, what was he referring to when he mentioned misinformation being spread about the bill? Good to see him speak out for once, but not sure if he was correct in saying that? Wish he had been more forthright when it came to Obamacare and 'death panels' instead of being Mr Bipartisan all the time mind. Obama hasn't been Mr. Bipartisan since being re-elected. It didn't work for him the first time and he isn't doing it. Thank God. Yeah, giving every liberal on the internet his fantasy and going all-out against the Republicans sure just got him a big triumph on legislation covering this very topic. It didn't, he lost. Acting like the Chicago bareknuckle politician he is got him smacked in the mouth and he's angry about it. Too bad for him. What course of action and tone do you advocate then? First call for greater spending on mental health, including funding for existing institutions and the reopening of old ones or the creation of new ones. I'm conservative, this is something I think the government should spare no expense on. Reagan's experiment of shutting down funding for both federal and state mental institutions has been a huge failure. Most of the people released into outpatient care or simply let out into the streets have had a horrible time since. People like Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner should have been behind strong, locked doors far before they killed anyone. The next thing would be to not send mixed messages. They say they don't want to take our guns, that's ridiculous, and then they want to pass laws or do pass laws that ban a big list of guns! How can they expect pro-gun people to swallow that and expect the Democrats to negotiate in good faith? And keep Obama out of negotiating period, his compulsion to lecture and be a dick about it has made it so that Republicans simply won't talk with him. They want to negotiate with Biden because Biden isn't a dick and he actually negotiates. Expand background checks fully to gun shows. Most gun sellers at shows are already licensed federal dealers who have to do background checks anyway, extend that to everyone in the show. Leave personal transactions alone. That's a step too far on privacy to me. Selling a gun to a criminal or selling it when you know it will be used in a crime or being a criminal in possession of a gun and selling it to anyone is already illegal. Shouldn't have it in the first place and selling it is just another charge on top. We don't need paperwork for family members or friends giving or selling guns to each other. These are things I think would have helped, and I think they would have been a good first step in establishing cooperation and trust among both sides. I also think they would be good reforms that would help reduce gun violence. But instead we got Nurse Ratchet Bloomberg and Lecturing You're Never Good Father Obama. Because all he really cares about is winning next year so he can do whatever he wants his last 2 years. He wants to use guns as a wedge issue against Republicans. It's incredibly bad political strategy. You can't beat the Republicans on guns. What kind of weed is Obama smoking? I'd say I want some but I don't, it's making him stoned stupid. Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 16:37 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 16:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 18 2013 15:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 15:02 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote:http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdfPresidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. "63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"We don't need background checks at gun shows? On April 18 2013 14:39 Defacer wrote:What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion. The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public. How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun... Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns. Background checks don't hurt accessibility to guns. Never mind my part about background checks. I misread one of the questions in the survey and wrongly made an assumption. I am curious though, how do you think that adding a standard of training doesn't restrict accessibility (you wrote availability, but I assume you meant accessibility) to guns? Training costs time and money. Poor people lack and time and money, so they shouldn't be able to own a gun because they can't afford some training class? That seems like a terrible idea to me. I also want to say that the survey had poorly worded and loaded questions. Missing from the survey was simple questions like "Do you think all gun sales at a gun show should be subject to a background check?" On April 18 2013 15:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Still insane to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise it as cultural relativism. I wouldn't mind if this inalieable freedom to carry guns that the right in America hold so dear was extended to, I don't know drug use so that so much money, prison space etc wasn't being continually being pissed away, or a woman's right to an abortion. Fuck consistency though
To the non-idiot gunowners, there's an argument to be made in your favour, and some of you do a good job.
Saw Obama talking about this briefly, what was he referring to when he mentioned misinformation being spread about the bill? Good to see him speak out for once, but not sure if he was correct in saying that? Wish he had been more forthright when it came to Obamacare and 'death panels' instead of being Mr Bipartisan all the time mind. Obama hasn't been Mr. Bipartisan since being re-elected. It didn't work for him the first time and he isn't doing it. Thank God. Yeah, giving every liberal on the internet his fantasy and going all-out against the Republicans sure just got him a big triumph on legislation covering this very topic. It didn't, he lost. Acting like the Chicago bareknuckle politician he is got him smacked in the mouth and he's angry about it. Too bad for him. I have to say, I actually thought the Chicago politician-routine was going to work. He seemed to get the conversation about gun control further than anyone else in recent memory. Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the current gun legislation? Are you fine with it or is there anything you'd like to see changed. I feel like it was would have been ineffectual and probably in some ways unconstitutional, particularly the magazine limit. I feel like there were die-hards on both sides that weren't going to budge period, but there were about 10 Senators, maybe a few more, really trying to get some compromise. And I feel like reaching a deal failed because of the aggressive and demeaning way people like Bloomberg and Obama behaved and talked about the issue this entire time.
Agree with some tbh very strongly, especially regarding mental health provisions. Disagree vehemently with the notion that Republicans by and large have had any intention of really negotiating/compromising with Obama, and don't because of his attitude. They have been wilfully obstructionist for his entire time in office as a political strategy, and affiliated media haven't exactly helped in this regard.
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
As a British resident and a shooter, I can't stress enough to my American friends how important it is that they keep fighting for their 2A rights. I live in a country where self defence is effectively prohibited. If you carry anything that can be construed as a weapon, you're gonna get locked up. Pepperspray is considered "Section 5" - it's a firearms category that means it's absolutely prohibited for civilians. So you've got pepperspray in the same classification as handguns, machineguns and explosives. If I carry a cane and I say it's for self defence, I will be arrested for possession of an offensive weapon. If you do defend yourself from some attacker, either with your fists or some improvised-on-the-spot weapon, you better not have used excessive (to be determined by a jury in the cold light of day) force.
Registration precedes confiscation. History has shown that. Does the government not trust the people? If they do, then why do they need to know who has what? Federal government should not have that power. It's what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights sought to prevent.
|
Northern Ireland25073 Posts
Never before have I read so much nonsense in my life.
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
Care to what and why you think it's nonsense?
|
Northern Ireland25073 Posts
How about the whole post?
Will reply to it later if I have time I guess
|
On April 18 2013 18:20 ahswtini wrote:
Registration precedes confiscation. History has shown that. Does the government not trust the people? If they do, then why do they need to know who has what? Federal government should not have that power. It's what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights sought to prevent.
Instead of "the government", you should think more along the lines of: "people who are legally voted as representatives from among citizens". If it´s a trust issue for you, then it´s not "the goverment" distrusting "the people", but the majority of the people not wanting individuals to be able to handle power over life and death so easily. Thus the legally voted representatives act on behalf of their interest and restrict gun ownership. It´s not "the government" being afraid of their armed people, it´s the majority of the people afraid of an armed minority.
|
On April 18 2013 13:49 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:23 Millitron wrote:
You want to require background checks for private sales? Good luck enforcing it. Not like that'd stop straw purchasing anyways.
I just want to say that there isn't a law in the land that is enforced 100% of the time. It's like speeding. You can't pull everyone over. But you pull people over sometimes to discourage everyone else from driving like fucking maniacs. And if you're caught too many times they impound your car.
The primary difference being that speeding laws do not place undue bureaucratic processes and responsibilities on legal and responsible drivers. A better analogy would be the issuance of drivers licenses and the requirement for car insurance.
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
On April 18 2013 21:06 Daswollvieh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 18:20 ahswtini wrote:
Registration precedes confiscation. History has shown that. Does the government not trust the people? If they do, then why do they need to know who has what? Federal government should not have that power. It's what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights sought to prevent. Instead of "the government", you should think more along the lines of: "people who are legally voted as representatives from among citizens". If it´s a trust issue for you, then it´s not "the goverment" distrusting "the people", but the majority of the people not wanting individuals to be able to handle power over life and death so easily. Thus the legally voted representatives act on behalf of their interest and restrict gun ownership. It´s not "the government" being afraid of their armed people, it´s the majority of the people afraid of an armed minority.
If the government really thought the majority of people were against guns, why are they campaigning so hard and putting ads out and skewing facts/outright lying? I guess we'll find out in November 2014. Keep in mind the last time the Dems pushed through a major gun control bill in 1994, they were destroyed in the following elections. Clinton himself, in his autobiography attributed their defeat to the passing of the '94 AWB:
+ Show Spoiler +Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)
"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)
"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)
And here's evidence that existing background check laws aren't even enforced, straight from Biden himself:
In response to Mr. Baker's comments, Vice-President Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately." That's right: Biden said the administration just doesn't have time to prosecute crimes (felonies punishable by up to a 10-year prison sentence) under existing laws, but is proposing a host of sweeping new laws.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/biden-says-administration-doesn't-have-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks.aspx
|
On April 18 2013 13:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:18 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 13:04 Millitron wrote:
I don't know the laws in every state, but pretty much all rifles have a simple background check, and pistols have a more thorough one and a 3 day waiting period. Are you trolling? You can buy a rifle at a gun show in every state except Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, and Illinois without a background check! A pistol, you'll need a check pr permit in Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and certain counties in Florida. "In 2000, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) published the "Following the Gun" report.[18] The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation. "Straw purchasing was the most common channel in trafficking investigations."[19] These investigations involved a total of 84,128 firearms that had been diverted from legal to illegal commerce. All told, the report identified more than 26,000 firearms that had been illegally trafficked through gun shows in 212 separate investigations. The report stated that: "A prior review of ATF gun show investigations shows that prohibited persons, such as convicted felons and juveniles, do personally buy firearms at gun shows and gun shows are sources of firearms that are trafficked to such prohibited persons. The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers. Felons were associated with selling or purchasing firearms in 46 percent of the gun show investigations. Firearms that were illegally diverted at or through gun shows were recovered in subsequent crimes, including homicide and robbery, in more than a third of the gun show investigations." Sales at gun shows are private sales. I thought we were discussing going to a store and buying a gun. You want to require background checks for private sales? Good luck enforcing it. Not like that'd stop straw purchasing anyways. Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 13:20 omgimonfire15 wrote:On April 18 2013 13:04 Millitron wrote:On April 18 2013 12:56 omgimonfire15 wrote:
I don't know much about firearms, but I assume you need a license to buy some firearms. Why not then make it so that when getting a gun license, you have to get a background check and a psychological check? Then every 5 years or so, to get it renewed, you have to go through those checks again? Criminals who want guns are gonna get them regardless, but we have to weed out people with mental disorders who could possibly go postal at any moment. That way, the responsible gunowners will all have guns legally, we make it harder for the mentally ill to get it, and we make it illegal for criminals with backgrounds to have them. Criminals will manage to get the guns anyways, but then we can get them in trouble for having firearms without a license. the ones who have a spotless record but commit crimes with guns later and have no mental illness... those we can't avoid but we won't avoid it anyways because either they will get the guns illegally or they will just go out and buy it. Because that's registration, and that's basically exactly what they did in the UK. They said they only wanted background checks, and wouldn't use the registry to confiscate guns, but then they totally did just start confiscating guns. Then there's also the problem that any background checks for mental illness would violate the 4th amendment. It might even be counterproductive. Mental illness is already pretty heavily stigmatized, meaning people are often too ashamed to get the help they need. This would scare off even more people, because they don't want their name in some database in DC. I don't know the laws in every state, but pretty much all rifles have a simple background check, and pistols have a more thorough one and a 3 day waiting period. I feel as though there is a major difference between registering every gun, and allowing a license to handle and buy as many guns as you want. Its one thing to say you have to register every car for instance, but it would be different if we said you have a license to drive but don't have to drive a car. We register all our cars, but imagine if we didn't and for some reason the government wanted to possess all cars. Many people would claim they had the license just in case and never bought a car and hide them. If we did have gun licenses and the government wanted to possess all guns, it would be incredibly difficult as many would simply claim they never bought guns and just had the license to handle a friends gun or have it just in case they needed to buy a gun. In addition, as a psych major, I can agree with your idea that mental disorders are stigmatizing (to a certain degree). But I fail to see why this is a problem. Even if we didn't have a mandatory psychological check, they would not get help anyways due to being 'stigmatized'. Then we would have people with mental disorder having guns. At least if we have mental checks, the people who don't care about what others think about them (antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy) are weeded out. Mental checks should not be a problem at all and in my opinion is one of the most underappreciated issues in the United States. Did you know that we spend over 55 billion dollars paying for mental health which is the same amount as cancer? These costs come from losses from the mental disorder in the workplace. Productivity and potential are ruined. If only depression increases at the rate it is, by 2020, it will be the second leading cause of disability behind heart disease. Mental illness should not be underestimated at all, the United States should be actively working to acknowledge, screen, and treat all of this. Leaving mental conditions out of gun control will not help that at all. There isn't a difference between registering all guns, and needing a license to handle guns. The government still knows who's door to knock on when they want to confiscate them. Simply having that license would be enough to get a search warrant, so hiding it isn't really an option. I'm not a psych major, so take what I say here with a grain of salt, but there are disorders with which the victim still does care about what others think. So while you might weed out the two disorders you mentioned, you hinder the treatment of others. I agree that mental illness is a big deal in general, but I don't think its a big deal when it comes to guns. Adam Lanza stole the guns he used, meaning no amount of background checks could've stopped him. And the other mass murderers could easily have chosen other, just as lethal weapons. Timothy McVeigh chose a truck and some fertilizer for instance. Most gun violence isn't because the perpetrator is mentally ill, its because they're a common criminal.
Drugs are illegal yet everyone seems to have no problem hiding them. Heck, we're not allowed to have hard alcohol in the dorm rooms yet everyone does. You underestimate the extent to which we can hide things. I highly doubt the US government is capable of searching the homes of gun license owners who may or may not have guns and find all of them. People in the UK seem to indicate that people still have guns regardless of the registry. The United States has the potential to be rash and stupid, but if they underwent the system I suggested (registering people who are allowed to handle guns instead of registering every weapon) it would be impossible to take the guns. Let's say the government made a liquor license for everyone. Then reinstalled prohibition. Would they have reasonable cause to search the home of someone who had it to just drink it at a friends home?
As for the psych thing, you seemed to have missed my point. if the people care so much about being stigmatized, they would not get treatment regardless of there being a mental health check on gun control. They would not get help anyways, and sadly this is the case today as thousands do not get treatment because they think they are okay or they are too embarrassed. Therefore, I fail to see why installing mental checks in gun licenses (or anywhere else in the system that matter) is harmful. You seem to claim that they would get guns illegally or that two shooters you mentioned did not have problems. Besides the fact that other shooters bought guns legally and had mental problems (Columbine shooters for instance) you seem to be saying that because it wouldn't work for a handful of people we should just not have it at all. Why do we have laws in the first place? Of course they are going to be broken, they are not meant to be perfect. We have checks and laws like this to catch some of the people, not all of the people. If we can catch even 1 out of 100 people with mental disorder, I would call it a success.
But you seem to severely underestimate the extent to which people with mental disorders may buy guns, I only posted two disorders as an example of lack of disregard of self, others are a variety of personality disorders (schizoid for instance), autism, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. Other possible factors include lack of anger control, maniac episodes, severe depression (suicide by gun has by far the highest success rates among suicide attempts), episodes from drug abuse, etc. Mental disorders are nothing to be sniffed at.
|
The more I read about the Democrat's reactions to this, the more I steel my nerve.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/gun-control-vote-obamas-biggest-loss-90244.html
A delay, not a defeat? ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ sir.
By the way, I stand by my offer to any Anti-gunners out there: Whole 9 yards on gun control, background checks, clip limits, AWB, Limits on ammo volume per purchase, etc all yours. In exchange, bring back land requirements to vote.
+ Show Spoiler +
No one will take it. Because the franchise is seen as something not to be limited or infringed by a segment of the population...hmmmm....I'm sensing an unintentional analogy here...
|
On April 18 2013 21:21 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 21:06 Daswollvieh wrote:On April 18 2013 18:20 ahswtini wrote:
Registration precedes confiscation. History has shown that. Does the government not trust the people? If they do, then why do they need to know who has what? Federal government should not have that power. It's what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights sought to prevent. Instead of "the government", you should think more along the lines of: "people who are legally voted as representatives from among citizens". If it´s a trust issue for you, then it´s not "the goverment" distrusting "the people", but the majority of the people not wanting individuals to be able to handle power over life and death so easily. Thus the legally voted representatives act on behalf of their interest and restrict gun ownership. It´s not "the government" being afraid of their armed people, it´s the majority of the people afraid of an armed minority. If the government really thought the majority of people were against guns, why are they campaigning so hard and putting ads out and skewing facts/outright lying? I guess we'll find out in November 2014. Keep in mind the last time the Dems pushed through a major gun control bill in 1994, they were destroyed in the following elections. Clinton himself, in his autobiography attributed their defeat to the passing of the '94 AWB: + Show Spoiler +Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)
"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)
"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699) And here's evidence that existing background check laws aren't even enforced, straight from Biden himself: Show nested quote +In response to Mr. Baker's comments, Vice-President Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately." That's right: Biden said the administration just doesn't have time to prosecute crimes (felonies punishable by up to a 10-year prison sentence) under existing laws, but is proposing a host of sweeping new laws. http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/biden-says-administration-doesn't-have-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks.aspx
Because yelling at each other has sadly become the only way of being heard by the American public.
|
So Republicans defeated the most benign form of gun regulation imaginable, which the vast majority of the actual American people wanted. They did this with a minority vote, 46/100.
That's not a victory, it's shameful. No gun owner is more "free" or secure in their gun ownership now because this bill was defeated. This is partisan politics.
I'm reading people's reactions, and they don't even make sense. "It wouldn't completely work." Well nothing does. This is the reality of law enforcement -- you take what preventative measures you can and make the best with what you're given. And the gun-advocates have made it clear that they don't care about law enforcement or public safety nearly as much as they care about partisanship and meaningless political points.
Background checks will eventually pass because it's common sense and a vast majority want to see it happen. I didn't even think people would argue against it -- in fact, until this legislation became newsworthy, most gun-advocates dismissed background checks as a non-issue that they'd be happy to go along with. But it's just the usual intellectual dishonesty with them. They like sounding reasonable, until it comes time for them to actually compromise.
On April 18 2013 16:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 16:30 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 18 2013 16:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 18 2013 15:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 15:02 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote:http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdfPresidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. "63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"We don't need background checks at gun shows? On April 18 2013 14:39 Defacer wrote:What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion. The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public. How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun... Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns. Background checks don't hurt accessibility to guns. Never mind my part about background checks. I misread one of the questions in the survey and wrongly made an assumption. I am curious though, how do you think that adding a standard of training doesn't restrict accessibility (you wrote availability, but I assume you meant accessibility) to guns? Training costs time and money. Poor people lack and time and money, so they shouldn't be able to own a gun because they can't afford some training class? That seems like a terrible idea to me. I also want to say that the survey had poorly worded and loaded questions. Missing from the survey was simple questions like "Do you think all gun sales at a gun show should be subject to a background check?" On April 18 2013 15:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Still insane to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise it as cultural relativism. I wouldn't mind if this inalieable freedom to carry guns that the right in America hold so dear was extended to, I don't know drug use so that so much money, prison space etc wasn't being continually being pissed away, or a woman's right to an abortion. Fuck consistency though
To the non-idiot gunowners, there's an argument to be made in your favour, and some of you do a good job.
Saw Obama talking about this briefly, what was he referring to when he mentioned misinformation being spread about the bill? Good to see him speak out for once, but not sure if he was correct in saying that? Wish he had been more forthright when it came to Obamacare and 'death panels' instead of being Mr Bipartisan all the time mind. Obama hasn't been Mr. Bipartisan since being re-elected. It didn't work for him the first time and he isn't doing it. Thank God. Yeah, giving every liberal on the internet his fantasy and going all-out against the Republicans sure just got him a big triumph on legislation covering this very topic. It didn't, he lost. Acting like the Chicago bareknuckle politician he is got him smacked in the mouth and he's angry about it. Too bad for him. What course of action and tone do you advocate then? First call for greater spending on mental health, including funding for existing institutions and the reopening of old ones or the creation of new ones. I'm conservative, this is something I think the government should spare no expense on. Reagan's experiment of shutting down funding for both federal and state mental institutions has been a huge failure. Most of the people released into outpatient care or simply let out into the streets have had a horrible time since. People like Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner should have been behind strong, locked doors far before they killed anyone. The next thing would be to not send mixed messages. They say they don't want to take our guns, that's ridiculous, and then they want to pass laws or do pass laws that ban a big list of guns! How can they expect pro-gun people to swallow that and expect the Democrats to negotiate in good faith? And keep Obama out of negotiating period, his compulsion to lecture and be a dick about it has made it so that Republicans simply won't talk with him. They want to negotiate with Biden because Biden isn't a dick and he actually negotiates. Expand background checks fully to gun shows. Most gun sellers at shows are already licensed federal dealers who have to do background checks anyway, extend that to everyone in the show. Leave personal transactions alone. That's a step too far on privacy to me. Selling a gun to a criminal or selling it when you know it will be used in a crime or being a criminal in possession of a gun and selling it to anyone is already illegal. Shouldn't have it in the first place and selling it is just another charge on top. We don't need paperwork for family members or friends giving or selling guns to each other. These are things I think would have helped, and I think they would have been a good first step in establishing cooperation and trust among both sides. I also think they would be good reforms that would help reduce gun violence. But instead we got Nurse Ratchet Bloomberg and Lecturing You're Never Good Father Obama. Because all he really cares about is winning next year so he can do whatever he wants his last 2 years. He wants to use guns as a wedge issue against Republicans. It's incredibly bad political strategy. You can't beat the Republicans on guns. What kind of weed is Obama smoking? I'd say I want some but I don't, it's making him stoned stupid. Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 16:37 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 16:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 18 2013 15:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 15:02 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote:http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdfPresidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. "63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"We don't need background checks at gun shows? On April 18 2013 14:39 Defacer wrote:What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion. The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public. How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun... Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns. Background checks don't hurt accessibility to guns. Never mind my part about background checks. I misread one of the questions in the survey and wrongly made an assumption. I am curious though, how do you think that adding a standard of training doesn't restrict accessibility (you wrote availability, but I assume you meant accessibility) to guns? Training costs time and money. Poor people lack and time and money, so they shouldn't be able to own a gun because they can't afford some training class? That seems like a terrible idea to me. I also want to say that the survey had poorly worded and loaded questions. Missing from the survey was simple questions like "Do you think all gun sales at a gun show should be subject to a background check?" On April 18 2013 15:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Still insane to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise it as cultural relativism. I wouldn't mind if this inalieable freedom to carry guns that the right in America hold so dear was extended to, I don't know drug use so that so much money, prison space etc wasn't being continually being pissed away, or a woman's right to an abortion. Fuck consistency though
To the non-idiot gunowners, there's an argument to be made in your favour, and some of you do a good job.
Saw Obama talking about this briefly, what was he referring to when he mentioned misinformation being spread about the bill? Good to see him speak out for once, but not sure if he was correct in saying that? Wish he had been more forthright when it came to Obamacare and 'death panels' instead of being Mr Bipartisan all the time mind. Obama hasn't been Mr. Bipartisan since being re-elected. It didn't work for him the first time and he isn't doing it. Thank God. Yeah, giving every liberal on the internet his fantasy and going all-out against the Republicans sure just got him a big triumph on legislation covering this very topic. It didn't, he lost. Acting like the Chicago bareknuckle politician he is got him smacked in the mouth and he's angry about it. Too bad for him. I have to say, I actually thought the Chicago politician-routine was going to work. He seemed to get the conversation about gun control further than anyone else in recent memory. Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the current gun legislation? Are you fine with it or is there anything you'd like to see changed. I feel like it was would have been ineffectual and probably in some ways unconstitutional, particularly the magazine limit. I feel like there were die-hards on both sides that weren't going to budge period, but there were about 10 Senators, maybe a few more, really trying to get some compromise. And I feel like reaching a deal failed because of the aggressive and demeaning way people like Bloomberg and Obama behaved and talked about the issue this entire time.
Many, many pages ago someone had this argument, about how "both sides need to be more compromising", and I was hoping it'd stay dead. Not surprising it isn't, because it's pure political BS. It makes no sense to say that the Democrats need to be more compromising. It's a pathetic rewrite of current events. The Democrats have done everything possible to give the Republicans a gun-control measure they could vote for. But it still wasn't enough.
Let me explain some basic logistics -- you don't negotiate or compromise by demanding things stay status quo. That is the opposite of compromise in fact. Get a dictionary. I get you think it's great politics (because let's not kid ourselves) to blame anything you can on your political opposites, but in this case you're arguing something as wrong as 1+1=5. You fight for status quo -- you don't compromise for it. By negotiating or compromising, you're abandoning status quo. Obama and the Democrats asked the Republicans to compromise. They asked for the smallest changes to the status quo that they possibly could. And yet the Republicans refused.
End of story. It doesn't take five long paragraphs of nonsense filled with baseless pontificating and media-based character judgments to explain that the Republicans refused to compromise. This was the most menial piece of gun regulation the Democrats could come up with, in order to appease the Republicans, and yet it wasn't enough. Republicans have offered no alternatives. They simply demand status quo.
Are you suggesting that Republicans denied Americans better safety because Obama wasn't "nice" enough to them? In somehow winding your way into calling Obama a stupid pothead, you don't actually say anything of substance about why this legislation would be harmful or didn't deserve to be passed.
There is nothing from the Republicans that suggests their willingness to compromise on this issue. In your rambling, you don't mention one thing the Republicans have done to further gun-safety and to strengthen law-enforcement in their fight against gun violence. Not one thing.
Speaking politically, Republicans still haven't figured out that they're too political. We've heard this same routine a thousand times in regards to other issues -- you obstruct anything from your political opponent and then accuse them of not being able to compromise. Just good old fashion schoolyard BS. You've been doing this for 5-6 years now. It's not going to change the political climate. You guys lie and play with politics like its a game, when in reality its life and death. People aren't getting any more gullible. This was the one time you guys should've shown yourselves to be something more than political children.
You defeated this bill by a minority vote in the Senate. This does not reflect the American people -- it actually does the opposite. The American people -- even gun owners -- have shown that they're interested in strengthening our gun-registration processes. Republicans can either propose their own method, or vote on the Democrats. By doing neither,while still complaining about "compromise", their actions are speaking louder than their rhetoric. Everyone knows who needs to compromise on this issue, and it isn't the President, that "idiot pothead".
|
On April 18 2013 23:06 Leporello wrote:So Republicans defeated the most benign form of gun regulation imaginable, which the vast majority of the actual American people wanted. They did this with a minority vote, 46/100. That's not a victory, it's shameful. No gun owner is more "free" or secure in their gun ownership now because this bill was defeated. This is partisan politics. I'm reading people's reactions, and they don't even make sense. "It wouldn't completely work." Well nothing does. This is the reality of law enforcement -- you take what preventative measures you can and make the best with what you're given. And the gun-advocates have made it clear that they don't care about law enforcement or public safety nearly as much as they care about partisanship and meaningless political points. Background checks will eventually pass because it's common sense and a vast majority want to see it happen. I didn't even think people would argue against it -- in fact, until this legislation became newsworthy, most gun-advocates dismissed background checks as a non-issue that they'd be happy to go along with. But it's just the usual intellectual dishonesty with them. They like sounding reasonable, until it comes time for them to actually compromise. Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 16:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 18 2013 16:30 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 18 2013 16:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 18 2013 15:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 15:02 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote:http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdfPresidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. "63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"We don't need background checks at gun shows? On April 18 2013 14:39 Defacer wrote:What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion. The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public. How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun... Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns. Background checks don't hurt accessibility to guns. Never mind my part about background checks. I misread one of the questions in the survey and wrongly made an assumption. I am curious though, how do you think that adding a standard of training doesn't restrict accessibility (you wrote availability, but I assume you meant accessibility) to guns? Training costs time and money. Poor people lack and time and money, so they shouldn't be able to own a gun because they can't afford some training class? That seems like a terrible idea to me. I also want to say that the survey had poorly worded and loaded questions. Missing from the survey was simple questions like "Do you think all gun sales at a gun show should be subject to a background check?" On April 18 2013 15:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Still insane to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise it as cultural relativism. I wouldn't mind if this inalieable freedom to carry guns that the right in America hold so dear was extended to, I don't know drug use so that so much money, prison space etc wasn't being continually being pissed away, or a woman's right to an abortion. Fuck consistency though
To the non-idiot gunowners, there's an argument to be made in your favour, and some of you do a good job.
Saw Obama talking about this briefly, what was he referring to when he mentioned misinformation being spread about the bill? Good to see him speak out for once, but not sure if he was correct in saying that? Wish he had been more forthright when it came to Obamacare and 'death panels' instead of being Mr Bipartisan all the time mind. Obama hasn't been Mr. Bipartisan since being re-elected. It didn't work for him the first time and he isn't doing it. Thank God. Yeah, giving every liberal on the internet his fantasy and going all-out against the Republicans sure just got him a big triumph on legislation covering this very topic. It didn't, he lost. Acting like the Chicago bareknuckle politician he is got him smacked in the mouth and he's angry about it. Too bad for him. What course of action and tone do you advocate then? First call for greater spending on mental health, including funding for existing institutions and the reopening of old ones or the creation of new ones. I'm conservative, this is something I think the government should spare no expense on. Reagan's experiment of shutting down funding for both federal and state mental institutions has been a huge failure. Most of the people released into outpatient care or simply let out into the streets have had a horrible time since. People like Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner should have been behind strong, locked doors far before they killed anyone. The next thing would be to not send mixed messages. They say they don't want to take our guns, that's ridiculous, and then they want to pass laws or do pass laws that ban a big list of guns! How can they expect pro-gun people to swallow that and expect the Democrats to negotiate in good faith? And keep Obama out of negotiating period, his compulsion to lecture and be a dick about it has made it so that Republicans simply won't talk with him. They want to negotiate with Biden because Biden isn't a dick and he actually negotiates. Expand background checks fully to gun shows. Most gun sellers at shows are already licensed federal dealers who have to do background checks anyway, extend that to everyone in the show. Leave personal transactions alone. That's a step too far on privacy to me. Selling a gun to a criminal or selling it when you know it will be used in a crime or being a criminal in possession of a gun and selling it to anyone is already illegal. Shouldn't have it in the first place and selling it is just another charge on top. We don't need paperwork for family members or friends giving or selling guns to each other. These are things I think would have helped, and I think they would have been a good first step in establishing cooperation and trust among both sides. I also think they would be good reforms that would help reduce gun violence. But instead we got Nurse Ratchet Bloomberg and Lecturing You're Never Good Father Obama. Because all he really cares about is winning next year so he can do whatever he wants his last 2 years. He wants to use guns as a wedge issue against Republicans. It's incredibly bad political strategy. You can't beat the Republicans on guns. What kind of weed is Obama smoking? I'd say I want some but I don't, it's making him stoned stupid. On April 18 2013 16:37 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 16:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 18 2013 15:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 15:02 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote:http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdfPresidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. "63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"We don't need background checks at gun shows? On April 18 2013 14:39 Defacer wrote:What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion. The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public. How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun... Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns. Background checks don't hurt accessibility to guns. Never mind my part about background checks. I misread one of the questions in the survey and wrongly made an assumption. I am curious though, how do you think that adding a standard of training doesn't restrict accessibility (you wrote availability, but I assume you meant accessibility) to guns? Training costs time and money. Poor people lack and time and money, so they shouldn't be able to own a gun because they can't afford some training class? That seems like a terrible idea to me. I also want to say that the survey had poorly worded and loaded questions. Missing from the survey was simple questions like "Do you think all gun sales at a gun show should be subject to a background check?" On April 18 2013 15:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Still insane to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise it as cultural relativism. I wouldn't mind if this inalieable freedom to carry guns that the right in America hold so dear was extended to, I don't know drug use so that so much money, prison space etc wasn't being continually being pissed away, or a woman's right to an abortion. Fuck consistency though
To the non-idiot gunowners, there's an argument to be made in your favour, and some of you do a good job.
Saw Obama talking about this briefly, what was he referring to when he mentioned misinformation being spread about the bill? Good to see him speak out for once, but not sure if he was correct in saying that? Wish he had been more forthright when it came to Obamacare and 'death panels' instead of being Mr Bipartisan all the time mind. Obama hasn't been Mr. Bipartisan since being re-elected. It didn't work for him the first time and he isn't doing it. Thank God. Yeah, giving every liberal on the internet his fantasy and going all-out against the Republicans sure just got him a big triumph on legislation covering this very topic. It didn't, he lost. Acting like the Chicago bareknuckle politician he is got him smacked in the mouth and he's angry about it. Too bad for him. I have to say, I actually thought the Chicago politician-routine was going to work. He seemed to get the conversation about gun control further than anyone else in recent memory. Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the current gun legislation? Are you fine with it or is there anything you'd like to see changed. I feel like it was would have been ineffectual and probably in some ways unconstitutional, particularly the magazine limit. I feel like there were die-hards on both sides that weren't going to budge period, but there were about 10 Senators, maybe a few more, really trying to get some compromise. And I feel like reaching a deal failed because of the aggressive and demeaning way people like Bloomberg and Obama behaved and talked about the issue this entire time. Many, many pages ago someone had this argument, and I was hoping it'd stay dead. Not surprising it isn't, because it's pure political BS. Let me explain some basic logistics -- you don't negotiate or compromise by demanding things stay status quo. I get you think it's great politics (because let's not kid ourselves) to blame anything you can on your political opposites, but in this case you're arguing something as wrong as 1+1=5. You fight for status quo -- you don't compromise for it. By negotiating or compromising, you're abandoning status quo. Obama and the Democrats asked the Republicans to compromise. They asked for the smallest changes to the status quo that they possibly could. And yet the Republicans refused. End of story. It doesn't take five long paragraphs of nonsense filled with baseless pontificating and media-based character judgments to explain that the Republicans refused to compromise. This was the most menial piece of gun regulation the Democrats could come up with, in order to appease the Republicans, and yet it wasn't enough. Republicans have offered no alternatives. They simply demand status quo. Are you suggesting that Republicans denied Americans better safety because Obama wasn't "nice" enough to them? There is nothing from the Republicans that suggests their willingness to compromise on this issue. In your rambling, you don't mention one thing the Republicans have done to further gun-safety and to strengthen law-enforcement in their fight against gun violence. Not one thing.
What you are addressing is the difference between a whim and a conviction. I, along with many other Americans, view my right to bear arms as the equivalent to the right to vote. No limitation or infringements. Period.
Dems had voter ID as their horse, Reps have background checks. Simply a matter of differing convictions. At this point we have two vastly different cultures living in the country which refuse to reconcile with one another. I'm for Balkanization. It's either that, or both sides admit they're waging an ideological war with the intent of exterminating (brainwashing) the other side out of existence.
|
On April 18 2013 23:20 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 23:06 Leporello wrote:So Republicans defeated the most benign form of gun regulation imaginable, which the vast majority of the actual American people wanted. They did this with a minority vote, 46/100. That's not a victory, it's shameful. No gun owner is more "free" or secure in their gun ownership now because this bill was defeated. This is partisan politics. I'm reading people's reactions, and they don't even make sense. "It wouldn't completely work." Well nothing does. This is the reality of law enforcement -- you take what preventative measures you can and make the best with what you're given. And the gun-advocates have made it clear that they don't care about law enforcement or public safety nearly as much as they care about partisanship and meaningless political points. Background checks will eventually pass because it's common sense and a vast majority want to see it happen. I didn't even think people would argue against it -- in fact, until this legislation became newsworthy, most gun-advocates dismissed background checks as a non-issue that they'd be happy to go along with. But it's just the usual intellectual dishonesty with them. They like sounding reasonable, until it comes time for them to actually compromise. On April 18 2013 16:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 18 2013 16:30 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 18 2013 16:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 18 2013 15:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 15:02 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote:http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdfPresidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. "63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"We don't need background checks at gun shows? On April 18 2013 14:39 Defacer wrote:What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion. The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public. How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun... Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns. Background checks don't hurt accessibility to guns. Never mind my part about background checks. I misread one of the questions in the survey and wrongly made an assumption. I am curious though, how do you think that adding a standard of training doesn't restrict accessibility (you wrote availability, but I assume you meant accessibility) to guns? Training costs time and money. Poor people lack and time and money, so they shouldn't be able to own a gun because they can't afford some training class? That seems like a terrible idea to me. I also want to say that the survey had poorly worded and loaded questions. Missing from the survey was simple questions like "Do you think all gun sales at a gun show should be subject to a background check?" On April 18 2013 15:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Still insane to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise it as cultural relativism. I wouldn't mind if this inalieable freedom to carry guns that the right in America hold so dear was extended to, I don't know drug use so that so much money, prison space etc wasn't being continually being pissed away, or a woman's right to an abortion. Fuck consistency though
To the non-idiot gunowners, there's an argument to be made in your favour, and some of you do a good job.
Saw Obama talking about this briefly, what was he referring to when he mentioned misinformation being spread about the bill? Good to see him speak out for once, but not sure if he was correct in saying that? Wish he had been more forthright when it came to Obamacare and 'death panels' instead of being Mr Bipartisan all the time mind. Obama hasn't been Mr. Bipartisan since being re-elected. It didn't work for him the first time and he isn't doing it. Thank God. Yeah, giving every liberal on the internet his fantasy and going all-out against the Republicans sure just got him a big triumph on legislation covering this very topic. It didn't, he lost. Acting like the Chicago bareknuckle politician he is got him smacked in the mouth and he's angry about it. Too bad for him. What course of action and tone do you advocate then? First call for greater spending on mental health, including funding for existing institutions and the reopening of old ones or the creation of new ones. I'm conservative, this is something I think the government should spare no expense on. Reagan's experiment of shutting down funding for both federal and state mental institutions has been a huge failure. Most of the people released into outpatient care or simply let out into the streets have had a horrible time since. People like Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner should have been behind strong, locked doors far before they killed anyone. The next thing would be to not send mixed messages. They say they don't want to take our guns, that's ridiculous, and then they want to pass laws or do pass laws that ban a big list of guns! How can they expect pro-gun people to swallow that and expect the Democrats to negotiate in good faith? And keep Obama out of negotiating period, his compulsion to lecture and be a dick about it has made it so that Republicans simply won't talk with him. They want to negotiate with Biden because Biden isn't a dick and he actually negotiates. Expand background checks fully to gun shows. Most gun sellers at shows are already licensed federal dealers who have to do background checks anyway, extend that to everyone in the show. Leave personal transactions alone. That's a step too far on privacy to me. Selling a gun to a criminal or selling it when you know it will be used in a crime or being a criminal in possession of a gun and selling it to anyone is already illegal. Shouldn't have it in the first place and selling it is just another charge on top. We don't need paperwork for family members or friends giving or selling guns to each other. These are things I think would have helped, and I think they would have been a good first step in establishing cooperation and trust among both sides. I also think they would be good reforms that would help reduce gun violence. But instead we got Nurse Ratchet Bloomberg and Lecturing You're Never Good Father Obama. Because all he really cares about is winning next year so he can do whatever he wants his last 2 years. He wants to use guns as a wedge issue against Republicans. It's incredibly bad political strategy. You can't beat the Republicans on guns. What kind of weed is Obama smoking? I'd say I want some but I don't, it's making him stoned stupid. On April 18 2013 16:37 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 16:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 18 2013 15:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 18 2013 15:02 Defacer wrote:On April 18 2013 14:41 BronzeKnee wrote:http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2009/pr442-09_report.pdfPresidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have all called for the end of private sales without instant background checks at gun shows. "63 percent of private sellers approached by investigators failed the integrity test by selling to a purchaser who said he probably could not pass a background check; some private sellers failed this test multiple times at multiple shows"We don't need background checks at gun shows? On April 18 2013 14:39 Defacer wrote:[quote] What I find interesting about this survey is that it pretty much reinforces my opinion. The barrier of entry, or standard of training for owning and operating should be higher. There should be stiffer penalties for misusing guns and gun trafficking. And I don't see either of these things as being the same as restricting the availability of guns to the public. How does a background check hurt the accessibility to guns? You only can't get a gun if you can't pass the check, and people who don't pass the check shouldn't be getting a gun... Furthermore, I'd like to add that a standard of training severely restricts the accessibility of guns. Background checks don't hurt accessibility to guns. Never mind my part about background checks. I misread one of the questions in the survey and wrongly made an assumption. I am curious though, how do you think that adding a standard of training doesn't restrict accessibility (you wrote availability, but I assume you meant accessibility) to guns? Training costs time and money. Poor people lack and time and money, so they shouldn't be able to own a gun because they can't afford some training class? That seems like a terrible idea to me. I also want to say that the survey had poorly worded and loaded questions. Missing from the survey was simple questions like "Do you think all gun sales at a gun show should be subject to a background check?" On April 18 2013 15:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Still insane to me, no matter how much I try to rationalise it as cultural relativism. I wouldn't mind if this inalieable freedom to carry guns that the right in America hold so dear was extended to, I don't know drug use so that so much money, prison space etc wasn't being continually being pissed away, or a woman's right to an abortion. Fuck consistency though
To the non-idiot gunowners, there's an argument to be made in your favour, and some of you do a good job.
Saw Obama talking about this briefly, what was he referring to when he mentioned misinformation being spread about the bill? Good to see him speak out for once, but not sure if he was correct in saying that? Wish he had been more forthright when it came to Obamacare and 'death panels' instead of being Mr Bipartisan all the time mind. Obama hasn't been Mr. Bipartisan since being re-elected. It didn't work for him the first time and he isn't doing it. Thank God. Yeah, giving every liberal on the internet his fantasy and going all-out against the Republicans sure just got him a big triumph on legislation covering this very topic. It didn't, he lost. Acting like the Chicago bareknuckle politician he is got him smacked in the mouth and he's angry about it. Too bad for him. I have to say, I actually thought the Chicago politician-routine was going to work. He seemed to get the conversation about gun control further than anyone else in recent memory. Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the current gun legislation? Are you fine with it or is there anything you'd like to see changed. I feel like it was would have been ineffectual and probably in some ways unconstitutional, particularly the magazine limit. I feel like there were die-hards on both sides that weren't going to budge period, but there were about 10 Senators, maybe a few more, really trying to get some compromise. And I feel like reaching a deal failed because of the aggressive and demeaning way people like Bloomberg and Obama behaved and talked about the issue this entire time. Many, many pages ago someone had this argument, and I was hoping it'd stay dead. Not surprising it isn't, because it's pure political BS. Let me explain some basic logistics -- you don't negotiate or compromise by demanding things stay status quo. I get you think it's great politics (because let's not kid ourselves) to blame anything you can on your political opposites, but in this case you're arguing something as wrong as 1+1=5. You fight for status quo -- you don't compromise for it. By negotiating or compromising, you're abandoning status quo. Obama and the Democrats asked the Republicans to compromise. They asked for the smallest changes to the status quo that they possibly could. And yet the Republicans refused. End of story. It doesn't take five long paragraphs of nonsense filled with baseless pontificating and media-based character judgments to explain that the Republicans refused to compromise. This was the most menial piece of gun regulation the Democrats could come up with, in order to appease the Republicans, and yet it wasn't enough. Republicans have offered no alternatives. They simply demand status quo. Are you suggesting that Republicans denied Americans better safety because Obama wasn't "nice" enough to them? There is nothing from the Republicans that suggests their willingness to compromise on this issue. In your rambling, you don't mention one thing the Republicans have done to further gun-safety and to strengthen law-enforcement in their fight against gun violence. Not one thing. What you are addressing is the difference between a whim and a conviction. I, along with many other Americans, view my right to bear arms as the equivalent to the right to vote. No limitation or infringements. Period. Dems had voter ID as their horse, Reps have background checks. Simply a matter of differing convictions. At this point we have two vastly different cultures living in the country which refuse to reconcile with one another. I'm for Balkanization. It's either that, or both sides admit they're waging an ideological war with the intent of exterminating (brainwashing) the other side out of existence.
There have always been limitations on your right to vote. For example: women. A current example: felons. There are limitations, nuances to everything, which is why God gave us the ability of discretion. Your second amendment right to "arms" has several severe limitations already, which no one argues about, because everyone pretty much agrees that civilians don't need to own "arms" that are capable of mass destruction. Some will argue that people don't need to own any more "arms" than is necessary to protect their home, or go hunting, which makes sense to me.
|
On April 18 2013 21:21 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2013 21:06 Daswollvieh wrote:On April 18 2013 18:20 ahswtini wrote:
Registration precedes confiscation. History has shown that. Does the government not trust the people? If they do, then why do they need to know who has what? Federal government should not have that power. It's what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights sought to prevent. Instead of "the government", you should think more along the lines of: "people who are legally voted as representatives from among citizens". If it´s a trust issue for you, then it´s not "the goverment" distrusting "the people", but the majority of the people not wanting individuals to be able to handle power over life and death so easily. Thus the legally voted representatives act on behalf of their interest and restrict gun ownership. It´s not "the government" being afraid of their armed people, it´s the majority of the people afraid of an armed minority. If the government really thought the majority of people were against guns, why are they campaigning so hard and putting ads out and skewing facts/outright lying? I guess we'll find out in November 2014. Keep in mind the last time the Dems pushed through a major gun control bill in 1994, they were destroyed in the following elections. Clinton himself, in his autobiography attributed their defeat to the passing of the '94 AWB: + Show Spoiler +Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)
"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)
"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699) And here's evidence that existing background check laws aren't even enforced, straight from Biden himself: Show nested quote +In response to Mr. Baker's comments, Vice-President Biden said, "And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don't have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately." That's right: Biden said the administration just doesn't have time to prosecute crimes (felonies punishable by up to a 10-year prison sentence) under existing laws, but is proposing a host of sweeping new laws. http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/1/biden-says-administration-doesn't-have-time-to-prosecute-people-who-lie-on-background-checks.aspx
This is pure BS. What Biden is saying is there's no point in prosecuting people for the crime of lying -- but that's not what those forms are made for!! Jesus Christ, Biden is not saying that the Forms are therefore not useful to law-enforcement. They are useful for a lot of things other than catching people lying on their paperwork...
None of what you wrote or quoted says anything about all the help gun-registration gives us in solving murders and convicting the murderers.
Just because the federal government isn't prosecuting everyone who lies on their registration form, doesn't mean the forms aren't being used in a plethora of other matters useful to public safety and law-enforcement.
This is the kind of BS I'm talking about. Quit playing games with gun-registration. Gun-registration does work, and in doing so works -- even if it doesn't work all the time -- it saves lives, helps our police, and doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms. Doesn't it bother you that you mislead people on an issue like this? Do you ever reflect on what might be the hidden consequences of spreading such BS? I'm not a perfectly honest man myself, but I don't think I'd be capable of so blatantly misrepresenting an issue that I supposedly care about. I just don't get how your brain reconciles your act of lying, with your supposed convictions on the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
