***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (7 Viewers)

[FootballDummy]

It is absolutely correct that this bill would not likely have prevented any mass shooting tragedies. In fact, if you go back to my very first post in this long long thread, I wrote that none of the gun control measures being considered would have prevented Newtown. Newtown served to focus attention on an issue that was well worth discussing, but nothing being proposed would have stopped it.

That being said, I strongly believe that universal background checks would decrease gun violence in general in this country, and perhaps significantly. I have made this argument several times in this thread, but for those who have missed it, here it is again:

First off, we have no idea how many private purchases and transfers of guns, which currently do not require a background check, are illegal sales (meaning the purchaser is either a convicted felon or mentally ill). Law enforcement suspects that a large percentage of bad guys acquire guns in this fashion, but we don't know (and never will) what that percentage is. Right now, for an illegal sale to happen, only one party needs to break the law: the buyer. The buyer simply does not inform the seller that he, the buyer, is a convicted felon. The seller, under no obligation to make a background check, doesn't know any better. He simply sells his gun for cash and that is the end of the transaction. And this happens all the time at gun shows.

But if we require universal background checks, in order for an illegal sale to happen, TWO parties will need to break the law: both the buyer AND the seller. Even if the buyer lies about who he is; the seller will have to either neglect to run the background check, or be willing to sell his weapon to a felon anyhow. I believe that most gun sellers are honest and do not deliberately want to sell their weapons to felons or crazy people. So they won't. Which means it will be that much more difficult for the bad guys to acquire guns. Impossible? No. But more difficult, yes. And that is the key to effective laws.

So if those opposed to this bill tell you that it failed because it would have been ineffective, they are wrong. It would have been quite effective. This bill failed because the NRA successfully convinced it's supporters, who successfully convinced their Senators, that this bill was the first step in a concerted government effort to seize all private firearms.

Bunch of whores, imo. Scared of the NRA, it's the same as being controlled by corporate interests, which they all are. We're screwed.

 

[jwp]

The assault weapons ban could've definitely prevented Newtown. The guy would've had to reload more times which would give others more of a chance to stop him.

 

[timschochet]

The assault weapons ban could've definitely prevented Newtown. The guy would've had to reload more times which would give others more of a chance to stop him.

I dunno. Seems like any semi-automatic gun would have done the same amount of damage. And since the ban only made certain semi-auto weapons illegal, while ignoring others, I doubt that would have made any difference.

 

[jwp]

The assault weapons ban could've definitely prevented Newtown. The guy would've had to reload more times which would give others more of a chance to stop him.

I dunno. Seems like any semi-automatic gun would have done the same amount of damage. And since the ban only made certain semi-auto weapons illegal, while ignoring others, I doubt that would have made any difference.

The type of gun used would've been banned. At least that's what Rachel Maddow was reporting a few weeks ago.

 

[mad sweeney]

You're really something. Can't admit your own failings but still want to pile on others and pretend you're not the cowardly poster that you are.

Out for a late evening trolling session?

Whatever's clever, joke. I just want you to admit you were wrong, after all your horsecrap. You still post and post and try to forget. I'll remind you until you actually man up. Now run away little child, you've got a self proclaimed "easy" homework assignment!

 

[mad sweeney]

I wonder how many anti-gun nuts are eagerly awaiting the next mass murder so they can jump up and down and say "haha! I told you so!"

That would be almost as idiotic as the gun nuts who profess sympathy immediately after every mass shooting yet then oppose any changes to prevent future tragedies.

Nothing in the bill would have prevented previous or future tragedies

You absolutely cannot claim that it won't help in the future. And you can't say it wouldn't prevent any of the thousands of murders every year. That's an unsupportable statement. It may be negligible, but it would have, or would have had in the past, an effect.

 

[Novice2]

Five republicans and four democrats voted against their party. If the outcome was different I'd wager bipartisanship would be the word choice in the news.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I wonder how many anti-gun nuts are eagerly awaiting the next mass murder so they can jump up and down and say "haha! I told you so!"

That would be almost as idiotic as the gun nuts who profess sympathy immediately after every mass shooting yet then oppose any changes to prevent future tragedies.

Nothing in the bill would have prevented previous or future tragedies

You absolutely cannot claim that it won't help in the future. And you can't say it wouldn't prevent any of the thousands of murders every year. That's an unsupportable statement. It may be negligible, but it would have, or would have had in the past, an effect.

What? One of the leaders of your own party says it won't help. Did you miss this post?

 

[MaxThreshold]

The assault weapons ban could've definitely prevented Newtown. The guy would've had to reload more times which would give others more of a chance to stop him.

I dunno. Seems like any semi-automatic gun would have done the same amount of damage. And since the ban only made certain semi-auto weapons illegal, while ignoring others, I doubt that would have made any difference.

The type of gun used would've been banned. At least that's what Rachel Maddow was reporting a few weeks ago.

Bringing up Rachel Maddow does NOT help your case. In fact, it actually hurts it.

 

[jamny]

If this couldn't pass, nothing will. What a joke.

 

[TobiasFunke]

If this couldn't pass, nothing will. What a joke.

That's a pretty defeatist attitude.

This didn't pass because a group of senators determined that the harm that the NRA could do them in the next election if they voted for it was greater than the harm that those who favor the legislation could do them in the next election if they voted against it. It's up to the people who favor the legislation to prove them wrong by voting for someone else. It's really pretty simple.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

It is absolutely correct that this bill would not likely have prevented any mass shooting tragedies. In fact, if you go back to my very first post in this long long thread, I wrote that none of the gun control measures being considered would have prevented Newtown. Newtown served to focus attention on an issue that was well worth discussing, but nothing being proposed would have stopped it.

That being said, I strongly believe that universal background checks would decrease gun violence in general in this country, and perhaps significantly. I have made this argument several times in this thread, but for those who have missed it, here it is again:

First off, we have no idea how many private purchases and transfers of guns, which currently do not require a background check, are illegal sales (meaning the purchaser is either a convicted felon or mentally ill). Law enforcement suspects that a large percentage of bad guys acquire guns in this fashion, but we don't know (and never will) what that percentage is. Right now, for an illegal sale to happen, only one party needs to break the law: the buyer. The buyer simply does not inform the seller that he, the buyer, is a convicted felon. The seller, under no obligation to make a background check, doesn't know any better. He simply sells his gun for cash and that is the end of the transaction. And this happens all the time at gun shows.

But if we require universal background checks, in order for an illegal sale to happen, TWO parties will need to break the law: both the buyer AND the seller. Even if the buyer lies about who he is; the seller will have to either neglect to run the background check, or be willing to sell his weapon to a felon anyhow. I believe that most gun sellers are honest and do not deliberately want to sell their weapons to felons or crazy people. So they won't. Which means it will be that much more difficult for the bad guys to acquire guns. Impossible? No. But more difficult, yes. And that is the key to effective laws.

So if those opposed to this bill tell you that it failed because it would have been ineffective, they are wrong. It would have been quite effective. This bill failed because the NRA successfully convinced it's supporters, who successfully convinced their Senators, that this bill was the first step in a concerted government effort to seize all private firearms.

In 1991, California passed Penal Code 12078 which required all sales to use a California-licensed FFL dealer.

Graph of Oakland, California homicides compared to 3 other cities of similar size from 1985 through 2011

I don't see any noticeable drop in homicides when compared against Cleveland which never passed such legislation, if anything the homicide rate tracked higher (this is not to say as a result of this legislation).

 

[timschochet]

It is absolutely correct that this bill would not likely have prevented any mass shooting tragedies. In fact, if you go back to my very first post in this long long thread, I wrote that none of the gun control measures being considered would have prevented Newtown. Newtown served to focus attention on an issue that was well worth discussing, but nothing being proposed would have stopped it.

That being said, I strongly believe that universal background checks would decrease gun violence in general in this country, and perhaps significantly. I have made this argument several times in this thread, but for those who have missed it, here it is again:

First off, we have no idea how many private purchases and transfers of guns, which currently do not require a background check, are illegal sales (meaning the purchaser is either a convicted felon or mentally ill). Law enforcement suspects that a large percentage of bad guys acquire guns in this fashion, but we don't know (and never will) what that percentage is. Right now, for an illegal sale to happen, only one party needs to break the law: the buyer. The buyer simply does not inform the seller that he, the buyer, is a convicted felon. The seller, under no obligation to make a background check, doesn't know any better. He simply sells his gun for cash and that is the end of the transaction. And this happens all the time at gun shows.

But if we require universal background checks, in order for an illegal sale to happen, TWO parties will need to break the law: both the buyer AND the seller. Even if the buyer lies about who he is; the seller will have to either neglect to run the background check, or be willing to sell his weapon to a felon anyhow. I believe that most gun sellers are honest and do not deliberately want to sell their weapons to felons or crazy people. So they won't. Which means it will be that much more difficult for the bad guys to acquire guns. Impossible? No. But more difficult, yes. And that is the key to effective laws.

So if those opposed to this bill tell you that it failed because it would have been ineffective, they are wrong. It would have been quite effective. This bill failed because the NRA successfully convinced it's supporters, who successfully convinced their Senators, that this bill was the first step in a concerted government effort to seize all private firearms.

In 1991, California passed Penal Code 12078 which required all sales to use a California-licensed FFL dealer.

Graph of Oakland, California homicides compared to 3 other cities of similar size from 1985 through 2011

I don't see any noticeable drop in homicides when compared against Cleveland which never passed such legislation, if anything the homicide rate tracked higher (this is not to say as a result of this legislation).

It's easy enough for a felon in Oakland to subvert this law by driving to Nevada to purchase his guns. In order for such a law to work, it has to be federal, applied to all 50 states. Therefore, your info doesn't apply.

 

[Brony]

If this couldn't pass, nothing will. What a joke.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

It is absolutely correct that this bill would not likely have prevented any mass shooting tragedies. In fact, if you go back to my very first post in this long long thread, I wrote that none of the gun control measures being considered would have prevented Newtown. Newtown served to focus attention on an issue that was well worth discussing, but nothing being proposed would have stopped it.

That being said, I strongly believe that universal background checks would decrease gun violence in general in this country, and perhaps significantly. I have made this argument several times in this thread, but for those who have missed it, here it is again:

First off, we have no idea how many private purchases and transfers of guns, which currently do not require a background check, are illegal sales (meaning the purchaser is either a convicted felon or mentally ill). Law enforcement suspects that a large percentage of bad guys acquire guns in this fashion, but we don't know (and never will) what that percentage is. Right now, for an illegal sale to happen, only one party needs to break the law: the buyer. The buyer simply does not inform the seller that he, the buyer, is a convicted felon. The seller, under no obligation to make a background check, doesn't know any better. He simply sells his gun for cash and that is the end of the transaction. And this happens all the time at gun shows.

But if we require universal background checks, in order for an illegal sale to happen, TWO parties will need to break the law: both the buyer AND the seller. Even if the buyer lies about who he is; the seller will have to either neglect to run the background check, or be willing to sell his weapon to a felon anyhow. I believe that most gun sellers are honest and do not deliberately want to sell their weapons to felons or crazy people. So they won't. Which means it will be that much more difficult for the bad guys to acquire guns. Impossible? No. But more difficult, yes. And that is the key to effective laws.

So if those opposed to this bill tell you that it failed because it would have been ineffective, they are wrong. It would have been quite effective. This bill failed because the NRA successfully convinced it's supporters, who successfully convinced their Senators, that this bill was the first step in a concerted government effort to seize all private firearms.

In 1991, California passed Penal Code 12078 which required all sales to use a California-licensed FFL dealer.

Graph of Oakland, California homicides compared to 3 other cities of similar size from 1985 through 2011

I don't see any noticeable drop in homicides when compared against Cleveland which never passed such legislation, if anything the homicide rate tracked higher (this is not to say as a result of this legislation).

It's easy enough for a felon in Oakland to subvert this law by driving to Nevada to purchase his guns. In order for such a law to work, it has to be federal, applied to all 50 states. Therefore, your info doesn't apply.

I've got some swampland in FL to sell you if you think every felon is driving to Vegas first.

 

[timschochet]

It is absolutely correct that this bill would not likely have prevented any mass shooting tragedies. In fact, if you go back to my very first post in this long long thread, I wrote that none of the gun control measures being considered would have prevented Newtown. Newtown served to focus attention on an issue that was well worth discussing, but nothing being proposed would have stopped it.

That being said, I strongly believe that universal background checks would decrease gun violence in general in this country, and perhaps significantly. I have made this argument several times in this thread, but for those who have missed it, here it is again:

First off, we have no idea how many private purchases and transfers of guns, which currently do not require a background check, are illegal sales (meaning the purchaser is either a convicted felon or mentally ill). Law enforcement suspects that a large percentage of bad guys acquire guns in this fashion, but we don't know (and never will) what that percentage is. Right now, for an illegal sale to happen, only one party needs to break the law: the buyer. The buyer simply does not inform the seller that he, the buyer, is a convicted felon. The seller, under no obligation to make a background check, doesn't know any better. He simply sells his gun for cash and that is the end of the transaction. And this happens all the time at gun shows.

But if we require universal background checks, in order for an illegal sale to happen, TWO parties will need to break the law: both the buyer AND the seller. Even if the buyer lies about who he is; the seller will have to either neglect to run the background check, or be willing to sell his weapon to a felon anyhow. I believe that most gun sellers are honest and do not deliberately want to sell their weapons to felons or crazy people. So they won't. Which means it will be that much more difficult for the bad guys to acquire guns. Impossible? No. But more difficult, yes. And that is the key to effective laws.

So if those opposed to this bill tell you that it failed because it would have been ineffective, they are wrong. It would have been quite effective. This bill failed because the NRA successfully convinced it's supporters, who successfully convinced their Senators, that this bill was the first step in a concerted government effort to seize all private firearms.

In 1991, California passed Penal Code 12078 which required all sales to use a California-licensed FFL dealer.

Graph of Oakland, California homicides compared to 3 other cities of similar size from 1985 through 2011

I don't see any noticeable drop in homicides when compared against Cleveland which never passed such legislation, if anything the homicide rate tracked higher (this is not to say as a result of this legislation).

It's easy enough for a felon in Oakland to subvert this law by driving to Nevada to purchase his guns. In order for such a law to work, it has to be federal, applied to all 50 states. Therefore, your info doesn't apply.

I've got some swampland in FL to sell you if you think every felon is driving to Vegas first.

Not every felon, but enough so that the law has no noticeable effect.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

It is absolutely correct that this bill would not likely have prevented any mass shooting tragedies. In fact, if you go back to my very first post in this long long thread, I wrote that none of the gun control measures being considered would have prevented Newtown. Newtown served to focus attention on an issue that was well worth discussing, but nothing being proposed would have stopped it.

That being said, I strongly believe that universal background checks would decrease gun violence in general in this country, and perhaps significantly. I have made this argument several times in this thread, but for those who have missed it, here it is again:

First off, we have no idea how many private purchases and transfers of guns, which currently do not require a background check, are illegal sales (meaning the purchaser is either a convicted felon or mentally ill). Law enforcement suspects that a large percentage of bad guys acquire guns in this fashion, but we don't know (and never will) what that percentage is. Right now, for an illegal sale to happen, only one party needs to break the law: the buyer. The buyer simply does not inform the seller that he, the buyer, is a convicted felon. The seller, under no obligation to make a background check, doesn't know any better. He simply sells his gun for cash and that is the end of the transaction. And this happens all the time at gun shows.

But if we require universal background checks, in order for an illegal sale to happen, TWO parties will need to break the law: both the buyer AND the seller. Even if the buyer lies about who he is; the seller will have to either neglect to run the background check, or be willing to sell his weapon to a felon anyhow. I believe that most gun sellers are honest and do not deliberately want to sell their weapons to felons or crazy people. So they won't. Which means it will be that much more difficult for the bad guys to acquire guns. Impossible? No. But more difficult, yes. And that is the key to effective laws.

So if those opposed to this bill tell you that it failed because it would have been ineffective, they are wrong. It would have been quite effective. This bill failed because the NRA successfully convinced it's supporters, who successfully convinced their Senators, that this bill was the first step in a concerted government effort to seize all private firearms.

In 1991, California passed Penal Code 12078 which required all sales to use a California-licensed FFL dealer.

Graph of Oakland, California homicides compared to 3 other cities of similar size from 1985 through 2011

I don't see any noticeable drop in homicides when compared against Cleveland which never passed such legislation, if anything the homicide rate tracked higher (this is not to say as a result of this legislation).

It's easy enough for a felon in Oakland to subvert this law by driving to Nevada to purchase his guns. In order for such a law to work, it has to be federal, applied to all 50 states. Therefore, your info doesn't apply.

I've got some swampland in FL to sell you if you think every felon is driving to Vegas first.

Not every felon, but enough so that the law has no noticeable effect.

So they are buying them off of the black market (i.e. a single straw purchase in the state of California is also a black market).

A black market will always exist : see prohibition

A 2000 ATF Crime Guns Trace Report, outdated as it may be, is one of the few publicly available documents on the firearms problem in Oakland. ATF's researchers ran 325 trace requests for guns recovered in the city that year, including 145 semiautomatic pistols, 95 revolvers, 42 rifles, 38 shotguns, and 5 derringers. The ATF's report made it clear that two-thirds of the firearms recovered in Oakland in 2000 were legally purchased from a federally licensed dealer inside California. Although California has some of the strictest controls on assault weapons in the nation, the majority of firearms used in violent crimes on the streets of Oakland in 2000 were handguns, which are readily available at gun stores in Alameda County and neighboring areas. It was not the gun smugglers who provided most of the weapons used by criminals.

 

[Kal El]

I can understand the Newtown families' desires to see less gun violence, but a lot of what I'm seeing put forward doesn't seem to do much for getting weapons out of criminal hands, and makes it harder for the law-abiding citizens to arm themselves in defense. I'm sure it's been covered in here, but I haven't gone back to look.

In any case, if a criminal is hell-bent on committing a crime using a gun, they can get their hands on one. More regulation isn't going to stop criminal activity. At best, it'll slow it down, unless we realize that the weapon isn't the problem, it's the criminals who are.

 

[ichris]

The debate is over now. Reasonable minds concluded we don't need any new gun laws. The ones on the books will suffice when they are enforced.

If you want to be constructive start asking local law enforcement officials to prosecute criminals who illegally try to buy guns by lying on the form 4473.

 

[Christo]

It is absolutely correct that this bill would not likely have prevented any mass shooting tragedies.

Yet, you claimed in no uncertain terms less than one page ago that you had repeatedly explained that they would.

 

[Caveman_Nick]

The assault weapons ban could've definitely prevented Newtown. The guy would've had to reload more times which would give others more of a chance to stop him.

I dunno. Seems like any semi-automatic gun would have done the same amount of damage. And since the ban only made certain semi-auto weapons illegal, while ignoring others, I doubt that would have made any difference.

Or he would have brought some "New York Reloads"

As for universal background checks, the answer is very simple and yet somehow vehemently opposed by both the right and the left.

Make concealed carry permits shall issue unless the applicant has statuitory disqualifiers and force recognition everywhere as is the case with driver's licenses. Obtaining a permit requires an in depth background check and purchasing any firearm outside of certain long guns (pump action shotguns, bolt action rifles, etc.) requires a permit.

Everyone should be happy. Anyone can get a permit so long as they are not a convicted violent criminal and averyone has to go through a thorough check to make sure they fit the criteria. Nobody's rights are being violated as this background check is a reasonable search.

Why is this so difficult?

 

[TobiasFunke]

The debate is over now. Reasonable minds concluded we don't need any new gun laws. The ones on the books will suffice when they are enforced.

If you want to be constructive start asking local law enforcement officials to prosecute criminals who illegally try to buy guns by lying on the form 4473.

This is a terrible way to think about the democratic process. If you disagree with something an elected official does you have the chance to make your voice heard every 2-6 years by replacing them with someone who you'll like more. There's no "double jeopardy" rule when it comes to legislative proposals. They could reintroduce legislation tomorrow if they want, or in the 114th Congress, or in the 124th.

Thankfully most activists (on both sides of every issue) don't have the same narrow, resigned perspective that you have.

ETA: Also, "reasonable minds" didn't conclude anything like what you say. A narrow minority of Senators concluded that the Senate wouldn't vote on certain bills. That's all that happened. Effectivelty it stalls the legislative process for certain proposals, but that's not the same as saying that a majority made a substantive conclusion.

 

[timschochet]

It is absolutely correct that this bill would not likely have prevented any mass shooting tragedies.

Yet, you claimed in no uncertain terms less than one page ago that you had repeatedly explained that they would.

I never said mass shootings. I said tragedies. Every gun death is tragic IMO. Universal Background Checks would have significantly reduced gun violence.

 

[timschochet]

The debate is over now. Reasonable minds concluded we don't need any new gun laws. .

Sure they did.

 

[Rayderr]

The debate is over now. Reasonable minds concluded we don't need any new gun laws. The ones on the books will suffice when they are enforced.

If you want to be constructive start asking local law enforcement officials to prosecute criminals who illegally try to buy guns by lying on the form 4473.

Oddly enough, in a much less reported story, the Cruz-Grassley bill which would've increased funding to enforce existing gun laws got blocked by democrats.

 

[Christo]

It is absolutely correct that this bill would not likely have prevented any mass shooting tragedies.

Yet, you claimed in no uncertain terms less than one page ago that you had repeatedly explained that they would.

I never said mass shootings. I said tragedies. Every gun death is tragic IMO. Universal Background Checks would have significantly reduced gun violence.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The debate is over now. Reasonable minds concluded we don't need any new gun laws. The ones on the books will suffice when they are enforced.

If you want to be constructive start asking local law enforcement officials to prosecute criminals who illegally try to buy guns by lying on the form 4473.

Oddly enough, in a much less reported story, the Cruz-Grassley bill which would've increased funding to enforce existing gun laws got blocked by democrats.

Yes, that would be odd if that's all the amendment did. But it's not. It also would have permitted the interstate sale and transportation of firearms. And it was introduced literally just hours before the vote, giving nobody any time to read, discuss and research its potential negative and positive impacts. It was pure political theater, done so Republicans looking for political cover could point at Dems and say "but they didn't support this!"

 

[Christo]

The debate is over now. Reasonable minds concluded we don't need any new gun laws. The ones on the books will suffice when they are enforced.

If you want to be constructive start asking local law enforcement officials to prosecute criminals who illegally try to buy guns by lying on the form 4473.

Oddly enough, in a much less reported story, the Cruz-Grassley bill which would've increased funding to enforce existing gun laws got blocked by democrats.

Yes, that would be odd if that's all the amendment did. But it's not. It also would have permitted the interstate sale and transportation of firearms. And it was introduced literally just hours before the vote, giving nobody any time to read, discuss and research its potential negative and positive impacts. It was pure political theater, done so Republicans looking for political cover could point at Dems and say "but they didn't support this!"

Kinda Obamacare-ish, no?

 

[TobiasFunke]

The debate is over now. Reasonable minds concluded we don't need any new gun laws. The ones on the books will suffice when they are enforced.

If you want to be constructive start asking local law enforcement officials to prosecute criminals who illegally try to buy guns by lying on the form 4473.

Oddly enough, in a much less reported story, the Cruz-Grassley bill which would've increased funding to enforce existing gun laws got blocked by democrats.

Yes, that would be odd if that's all the amendment did. But it's not. It also would have permitted the interstate sale and transportation of firearms. And it was introduced literally just hours before the vote, giving nobody any time to read, discuss and research its potential negative and positive impacts. It was pure political theater, done so Republicans looking for political cover could point at Dems and say "but they didn't support this!"

Kinda Obamacare-ish, no?

Not remotely. Drafts of that circulated among all members and staff for months and were debated and analyzed ad nauseum. Not the case with this legislation- Cruz said some drafts were circulated last week but that's hardly the same.

And even if it was "Obamacare-ish," I learned in kindergarten that two wrongs don't make a right. I also learned how to stay on the same topic for five minutes.

 

[Rayderr]

The debate is over now. Reasonable minds concluded we don't need any new gun laws. The ones on the books will suffice when they are enforced.

If you want to be constructive start asking local law enforcement officials to prosecute criminals who illegally try to buy guns by lying on the form 4473.

Oddly enough, in a much less reported story, the Cruz-Grassley bill which would've increased funding to enforce existing gun laws got blocked by democrats.

Yes, that would be odd if that's all the amendment did. But it's not. It also would have permitted the interstate sale and transportation of firearms. And it was introduced literally just hours before the vote, giving nobody any time to read, discuss and research its potential negative and positive impacts. It was pure political theater, done so Republicans looking for political cover could point at Dems and say "but they didn't support this!"

Can't people already do that?

 

[Christo]

The debate is over now. Reasonable minds concluded we don't need any new gun laws. The ones on the books will suffice when they are enforced.

If you want to be constructive start asking local law enforcement officials to prosecute criminals who illegally try to buy guns by lying on the form 4473.

Oddly enough, in a much less reported story, the Cruz-Grassley bill which would've increased funding to enforce existing gun laws got blocked by democrats.

Yes, that would be odd if that's all the amendment did. But it's not. It also would have permitted the interstate sale and transportation of firearms. And it was introduced literally just hours before the vote, giving nobody any time to read, discuss and research its potential negative and positive impacts. It was pure political theater, done so Republicans looking for political cover could point at Dems and say "but they didn't support this!"

Kinda Obamacare-ish, no?

Not remotely. Drafts of that circulated among all members and staff for months and were debated and analyzed ad nauseum. Not the case with this legislation- Cruz said some drafts were circulated last week but that's hardly the same.

And even if it was "Obamacare-ish," I learned in kindergarten that two wrongs don't make a right. I also learned how to stay on the same topic for five minutes.

And I grew up and learned I could multi-task.

 

[eurotrashman]

And now we wait for the next tragedy......................................As I was telling Tim,this battle was won but the war is far from over for either side.

Are you really implying that passage of this bill would prevent another tragedy?

I doubt anyone is suggesting that this bill would have solved the problem of gun violence in its entirety. But yeah, passing this bill would have undoubtedly prevented some tragedies.

Name one.

It's your position that not a single gun death would be prevented by expanding background checks?

I'm asking you to name one.

You are asking him to predict the future?

I'm asking him (now anyone) to name one of the tragedies we've had (Newtown/Columbine/Ft. Hood/Northern Illinois/Virginia Tech) where the perpetrator purchased his guns at a gun show where if background checks had been in effect the purchase would have been stopped.

How about any gun fatalities? There have been 900,000 deaths by gun since 1980. You are telling me that not one of those could have been presented. We don't just have to focus on mass tragedies, do we????

 

[eurotrashman]

The debate is over now. Reasonable minds concluded we don't need any new gun laws. The ones on the books will suffice when they are enforced.

If you want to be constructive start asking local law enforcement officials to prosecute criminals who illegally try to buy guns by lying on the form 4473.

Yep.....WE'RE ALL SET!

 

[ichris]

The debate is over now. Reasonable minds concluded we don't need any new gun laws. The ones on the books will suffice when they are enforced.

If you want to be constructive start asking local law enforcement officials to prosecute criminals who illegally try to buy guns by lying on the form 4473.

This is a terrible way to think about the democratic process. If you disagree with something an elected official does you have the chance to make your voice heard every 2-6 years by replacing them with someone who you'll like more. There's no "double jeopardy" rule when it comes to legislative proposals. They could reintroduce legislation tomorrow if they want, or in the 114th Congress, or in the 124th.

Thankfully most activists (on both sides of every issue) don't have the same narrow, resigned perspective that you have.

ETA: Also, "reasonable minds" didn't conclude anything like what you say. A narrow minority of Senators concluded that the Senate wouldn't vote on certain bills. That's all that happened. Effectivelty it stalls the legislative process for certain proposals, but that's not the same as saying that a majority made a substantive conclusion.

A terrible way to think about the democratic process? lol

Obama and the liberal gun grabbers lost the gun debate. Again. Last time they used the democratic process to pass anti-gun laws happened in 1994. Democrats got their butts handed to them the next election. Reasonable minds in the senate did not want that to happen to the democratic party again.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The debate is over now. Reasonable minds concluded we don't need any new gun laws. The ones on the books will suffice when they are enforced.

If you want to be constructive start asking local law enforcement officials to prosecute criminals who illegally try to buy guns by lying on the form 4473.

Oddly enough, in a much less reported story, the Cruz-Grassley bill which would've increased funding to enforce existing gun laws got blocked by democrats.

Yes, that would be odd if that's all the amendment did. But it's not. It also would have permitted the interstate sale and transportation of firearms. And it was introduced literally just hours before the vote, giving nobody any time to read, discuss and research its potential negative and positive impacts. It was pure political theater, done so Republicans looking for political cover could point at Dems and say "but they didn't support this!"

Kinda Obamacare-ish, no?

Not remotely. Drafts of that circulated among all members and staff for months and were debated and analyzed ad nauseum. Not the case with this legislation- Cruz said some drafts were circulated last week but that's hardly the same.

And even if it was "Obamacare-ish," I learned in kindergarten that two wrongs don't make a right. I also learned how to stay on the same topic for five minutes.

And I grew up and learned I could multi-task.

Me too! That's why I pointed out that the comparison was also a poor one and was irrelevant in addition to being off-topic.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The debate is over now. Reasonable minds concluded we don't need any new gun laws. The ones on the books will suffice when they are enforced.

If you want to be constructive start asking local law enforcement officials to prosecute criminals who illegally try to buy guns by lying on the form 4473.

Oddly enough, in a much less reported story, the Cruz-Grassley bill which would've increased funding to enforce existing gun laws got blocked by democrats.

Yes, that would be odd if that's all the amendment did. But it's not. It also would have permitted the interstate sale and transportation of firearms. And it was introduced literally just hours before the vote, giving nobody any time to read, discuss and research its potential negative and positive impacts. It was pure political theater, done so Republicans looking for political cover could point at Dems and say "but they didn't support this!"

Can't people already do that?

I'm not an interstate guns expert, but this writeup says that the bill would have made it a lot easier to do it.

 

[Rayderr]

The debate is over now. Reasonable minds concluded we don't need any new gun laws. The ones on the books will suffice when they are enforced.

If you want to be constructive start asking local law enforcement officials to prosecute criminals who illegally try to buy guns by lying on the form 4473.

Oddly enough, in a much less reported story, the Cruz-Grassley bill which would've increased funding to enforce existing gun laws got blocked by democrats.

Yes, that would be odd if that's all the amendment did. But it's not. It also would have permitted the interstate sale and transportation of firearms. And it was introduced literally just hours before the vote, giving nobody any time to read, discuss and research its potential negative and positive impacts. It was pure political theater, done so Republicans looking for political cover could point at Dems and say "but they didn't support this!"

Can't people already do that?

I'm not an interstate guns expert, but this writeup says that the bill would have made it a lot easier to do it.

According to details provided by a source close to the negotiations, the bill would allow for the interstate sale of firearms, and for the interstate transportation of firearms providing certain conditions are met. Guns transported across state lines will have to be unloaded, locked in a vehicle or kept in the trunk.

Another pro-gun provision of the bill will allow military members to buy guns in the states where they’re stationed.

Not sure how that makes it so much easier that the bill must be blocked.

 

[ATC1]

The assault weapons ban could've definitely prevented Newtown. The guy would've had to reload more times which would give others more of a chance to stop him.

I dunno. Seems like any semi-automatic gun would have done the same amount of damage. And since the ban only made certain semi-auto weapons illegal, while ignoring others, I doubt that would have made any difference.

Or he would have brought some "New York Reloads"

As for universal background checks, the answer is very simple and yet somehow vehemently opposed by both the right and the left.

Make concealed carry permits shall issue unless the applicant has statuitory disqualifiers and force recognition everywhere as is the case with driver's licenses. Obtaining a permit requires an in depth background check and purchasing any firearm outside of certain long guns (pump action shotguns, bolt action rifles, etc.) requires a permit.

Everyone should be happy. Anyone can get a permit so long as they are not a convicted violent criminal and averyone has to go through a thorough check to make sure they fit the criteria. Nobody's rights are being violated as this background check is a reasonable search.

Why is this so difficult?

i agree with this. Make the permit holders pass a self defense course as well. In return for those on the right, all "Gun Free Zones" are removed as those with a permit have proved to be reliable to carry anywhere. This will prevent more victims in these mass shootings. Sandhook, Aurora movie theater, VTech, Colombine were all mass shootings in gun free zones because their targets where easy and had less resistance to worry about.

 

[Christo]

The debate is over now. Reasonable minds concluded we don't need any new gun laws. The ones on the books will suffice when they are enforced.

If you want to be constructive start asking local law enforcement officials to prosecute criminals who illegally try to buy guns by lying on the form 4473.

Oddly enough, in a much less reported story, the Cruz-Grassley bill which would've increased funding to enforce existing gun laws got blocked by democrats.

Yes, that would be odd if that's all the amendment did. But it's not. It also would have permitted the interstate sale and transportation of firearms. And it was introduced literally just hours before the vote, giving nobody any time to read, discuss and research its potential negative and positive impacts. It was pure political theater, done so Republicans looking for political cover could point at Dems and say "but they didn't support this!"

Kinda Obamacare-ish, no?

Not remotely. Drafts of that circulated among all members and staff for months and were debated and analyzed ad nauseum. Not the case with this legislation- Cruz said some drafts were circulated last week but that's hardly the same.

And even if it was "Obamacare-ish," I learned in kindergarten that two wrongs don't make a right. I also learned how to stay on the same topic for five minutes.

And I grew up and learned I could multi-task.

Me too! That's why I pointed out that the comparison was also a poor one and was irrelevant in addition to being off-topic.

That's why I said "kinda" rather than "exactly". Your explanation of why they weren't comparable was kinda off too. Obamacare was 2400 pages. Cruz-Grassley was 80. So the fact that there was less time to vet Cruz-Grassley doesn't make the difference you seem to think it does. As for being off-topic, I'm a FBG and reserve the right to make comparisons you feel are off-topic.

Deal with it,

C

 

[TobiasFunke]

The debate is over now. Reasonable minds concluded we don't need any new gun laws. The ones on the books will suffice when they are enforced.

If you want to be constructive start asking local law enforcement officials to prosecute criminals who illegally try to buy guns by lying on the form 4473.

Oddly enough, in a much less reported story, the Cruz-Grassley bill which would've increased funding to enforce existing gun laws got blocked by democrats.

Yes, that would be odd if that's all the amendment did. But it's not. It also would have permitted the interstate sale and transportation of firearms. And it was introduced literally just hours before the vote, giving nobody any time to read, discuss and research its potential negative and positive impacts. It was pure political theater, done so Republicans looking for political cover could point at Dems and say "but they didn't support this!"

Can't people already do that?

I'm not an interstate guns expert, but this writeup says that the bill would have made it a lot easier to do it.

>According to details provided by a source close to the negotiations, the bill would allow for the interstate sale of firearms, and for the interstate transportation of firearms providing certain conditions are met. Guns transported across state lines will have to be unloaded, locked in a vehicle or kept in the trunk.

Another pro-gun provision of the bill will allow military members to buy guns in the states where they’re stationed.

Not sure how that makes it so much easier that the bill must be blocked.

Neither am I. I could probably figure it out, if I read the amendment carefully and cross-referenced it with existing law and regulations and looked at some statistics, but that's the kind of thing that takes more than a couple of hours. Alas, that's all the members were given.

The larger point was that it wasn't a simple bill to fund enforcement of existing laws. It did a bunch of different things.

 

[Rayderr]

The debate is over now. Reasonable minds concluded we don't need any new gun laws. The ones on the books will suffice when they are enforced.

If you want to be constructive start asking local law enforcement officials to prosecute criminals who illegally try to buy guns by lying on the form 4473.

Oddly enough, in a much less reported story, the Cruz-Grassley bill which would've increased funding to enforce existing gun laws got blocked by democrats.

Yes, that would be odd if that's all the amendment did. But it's not. It also would have permitted the interstate sale and transportation of firearms. And it was introduced literally just hours before the vote, giving nobody any time to read, discuss and research its potential negative and positive impacts. It was pure political theater, done so Republicans looking for political cover could point at Dems and say "but they didn't support this!"

Can't people already do that?

I'm not an interstate guns expert, but this writeup says that the bill would have made it a lot easier to do it.

>According to details provided by a source close to the negotiations, the bill would allow for the interstate sale of firearms, and for the interstate transportation of firearms providing certain conditions are met. Guns transported across state lines will have to be unloaded, locked in a vehicle or kept in the trunk.

Another pro-gun provision of the bill will allow military members to buy guns in the states where they’re stat

ioned.

Not sure how that makes it so much easier that the bill must be blocked.

Neither am I. I could probably figure it out, if I read the amendment carefully and cross-referenced it with existing law and regulations and looked at some statistics, but that's the kind of thing that takes more than a couple of hours. Alas, that's all the members were given.

The larger point was that it wasn't a simple bill to fund enforcement of existing laws. It did a bunch of different things.

That's nothing new when it comes to congress.

 

[tom22406]

What really gets me is those who are saying the expanded background check bill was universal background checks.In fact it is nothing close that still left a huge loophole for private sales.

 

[ichris]

What really gets me is those who are saying the expanded background check bill was universal background checks.In fact it is nothing close that still left a huge loophole for private sales.

What else was in the bill? It seems like there were all sorts of surprises in the language of the legislation.

I'm glad cooler heads prevailed.

 

[[icon]]

Again...What do I win?

Another 25,000 word treatise by Timmay talking around the subject by exposing his feelings on the socioeconomic repercussions of the repression of certain demographics... oh and something about israel.

...

It is absolutely correct that this bill would not likely have prevented any mass shooting tragedies. In fact, if you go back to my very first post in this long long thread, I wrote that none of the gun control measures being considered would have prevented Newtown. Newtown served to focus attention on an issue that was well worth discussing, but nothing being proposed would have stopped it.

That being said, I strongly believe that universal background checks would decrease gun violence in general in this country, and perhaps significantly. I have made this argument several times in this thread, but for those who have missed it, here it is again:

First off, we have no idea how many private purchases and transfers of guns, which currently do not require a background check, are illegal sales (meaning the purchaser is either a convicted felon or mentally ill). Law enforcement suspects that a large percentage of bad guys acquire guns in this fashion, but we don't know (and never will) what that percentage is. Right now, for an illegal sale to happen, only one party needs to break the law: the buyer. The buyer simply does not inform the seller that he, the buyer, is a convicted felon. The seller, under no obligation to make a background check, doesn't know any better. He simply sells his gun for cash and that is the end of the transaction. And this happens all the time at gun shows.

But if we require universal background checks, in order for an illegal sale to happen, TWO parties will need to break the law: both the buyer AND the seller. Even if the buyer lies about who he is; the seller will have to either neglect to run the background check, or be willing to sell his weapon to a felon anyhow. I believe that most gun sellers are honest and do not deliberately want to sell their weapons to felons or crazy people. So they won't. Which means it will be that much more difficult for the bad guys to acquire guns. Impossible? No. But more difficult, yes. And that is the key to effective laws.

So if those opposed to this bill tell you that it failed because it would have been ineffective, they are wrong. It would have been quite effective. This bill failed because the NRA successfully convinced it's supporters, who successfully convinced their Senators, that this bill was the first step in a concerted government effort to seize all private firearms.

This most needs more Israel love, IMO.

 

[timschochet]

Again...What do I win?

Another 25,000 word treatise by Timmay talking around the subject by exposing his feelings on the socioeconomic repercussions of the repression of certain demographics... oh and something about israel.

...

>It is absolutely correct that this bill would not likely have prevented any mass shooting tragedies. In fact, if you go back to my very first post in this long long thread, I wrote that none of the gun control measures being considered would have prevented Newtown. Newtown served to focus attention on an issue that was well worth discussing, but nothing being proposed would have stopped it.

That being said, I strongly believe that universal background checks would decrease gun violence in general in this country, and perhaps significantly. I have made this argument several times in this thread, but for those who have missed it, here it is again:

First off, we have no idea how many private purchases and transfers of guns, which currently do not require a background check, are illegal sales (meaning the purchaser is either a convicted felon or mentally ill). Law enforcement suspects that a large percentage of bad guys acquire guns in this fashion, but we don't know (and never will) what that percentage is. Right now, for an illegal sale to happen, only one party needs to break the law: the buyer. The buyer simply does not inform the seller that he, the buyer, is a convicted felon. The seller, under no obligation to make a background check, doesn't know any better. He simply sells his gun for cash and that is the end of the transaction. And this happens all the time at gun shows.

But if we require universal background checks, in order for an illegal sale to happen, TWO parties will need to break the law: both the buyer AND the seller. Even if the buyer lies about who he is; the seller will have to either neglect to run the background check, or be willing to sell his weapon to a felon anyhow. I believe that most gun sellers are honest and do not deliberately want to sell their weapons to felons or crazy people. So they won't. Which means it will be that much more difficult for the bad guys to acquire guns. Impossible? No. But more difficult, yes. And that is the key to effective laws.

So if those opposed to this bill tell you that it failed because it would have been ineffective, they are wrong. It would have been quite effective. This bill failed because the NRA successfully convinced it's supporters, who successfully convinced their Senators, that this bill was the first step in a concerted government effort to seize all private firearms.

This most needs more Israel love, IMO.

Jew hater.

 

[timschochet]

A lot of people are really pissed off about this. Lots of people swearing to throw out the Senators who voted against this, especially the "cowardly Democrats". There may be political repercussions; we'll see.

In the end though, I doubt it will make much difference, for one main reason: many of those opposed to gun control are willing to vote on this issue- they feel fanatic about it. How many people on the other side, in favor of reasonable gun control, are willing to vote on this issue? Not me. I care about this issue, but there's a whole lot of other issues I care about more. I'm not going to base my vote on this, now or ever.

 

[tom22406]

I did enjoy Feinstein last night trying to shame them into voting for her ridiculous "assault weapons" ban.

Of course it went down 40-60 so that failed as well.

 

[jamny]

A lot of people are really pissed off about this. Lots of people swearing to throw out the Senators who voted against this, especially the "cowardly Democrats". There may be political repercussions; we'll see.

In the end though, I doubt it will make much difference, for one main reason: many of those opposed to gun control are willing to vote on this issue- they feel fanatic about it. How many people on the other side, in favor of reasonable gun control, are willing to vote on this issue? Not me. I care about this issue, but there's a whole lot of other issues I care about more. I'm not going to base my vote on this, now or ever.

yeah, I see a lot of posts on FB pointing out the politicians who voted against it. I'm disappointed that it didn't pass but I'm not going to contact my representative to complain and it won't affect my voting. It really wasn't that big of a deal imo, it would have helped, but it highlights the sad state of affairs that Congress can't even agree to this. So dysfunctional.

 

[Bonzai]

The debate is over now. Reasonable minds concluded we don't need any new gun laws. The ones on the books will suffice when they are enforced. If you want to be constructive start asking local law enforcement officials to prosecute criminals who illegally try to buy guns by lying on the form 4473.

Yep.....WE'RE ALL SET!

From my curious 8-year-old's cold dead hands.

 

[drfeelgood]

A lot of people are really pissed off about this. Lots of people swearing to throw out the Senators who voted against this, especially the "cowardly Democrats". There may be political repercussions; we'll see.

In the end though, I doubt it will make much difference, for one main reason: many of those opposed to gun control are willing to vote on this issue- they feel fanatic about it. How many people on the other side, in favor of reasonable gun control, are willing to vote on this issue? Not me. I care about this issue, but there's a whole lot of other issues I care about more. I'm not going to base my vote on this, now or ever.

You have posted 790 times in this thread, which is much more than anyone. I'd say you care a lot.