[quote]pushharder wrote:
Rand Paul threatens to filibuster again, this time over guns
Read more: Rand Paul threatens to filibuster again, this time over guns | The Daily Caller
[/quote]
At least this one would be justified.
"Republican senator Pat Toomey and Democratic senator Joe Manchin are introducing a gun “compromise” bill today called “The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.”
Here’s a copy of a background briefer being sent around, I believe, by the offices of Manchin and Toomey:"
Has anyone seen this? Thoughts?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gun-bill-called-public-safety-and-second-amendment-rights-protection-act_716204.html
"Republican senator Pat Toomey and Democratic senator Joe Manchin are introducing a gun “compromise” bill today called “The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.”
Here’s a copy of a background briefer being sent around, I believe, by the offices of Manchin and Toomey:"
Has anyone seen this? Thoughts?
[/quote]
Background checks would have done nothing to stop the incident in Conn, or most any of these incidents, because the guns are almost always legally obtained.
The true purpose of this is to change the provision regarding storage of background checks. Currently they are supposed to be destroyed.
Here, they will be kept, effectively creating a gun registry.
The purpose of the registry, in turn, is confiscation, harrassment, and taxation until normal citizens have to disarm.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gun-bill-called-public-safety-and-second-amendment-rights-protection-act_716204.html
"Republican senator Pat Toomey and Democratic senator Joe Manchin are introducing a gun “compromise” bill today called “The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.”
Here’s a copy of a background briefer being sent around, I believe, by the offices of Manchin and Toomey:"
Has anyone seen this? Thoughts?
[/quote]
Checking to make sure that somebody who’s trying to buy a gun has never been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and isn’t an illegal alien, and hasn’t been making threats against an ex-wife’s life: good idea.
Anybody who advocates for not at least trying to make it difficult for the mentally insane to buy arms is a fool and a fanatic.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gun-bill-called-public-safety-and-second-amendment-rights-protection-act_716204.html
"Republican senator Pat Toomey and Democratic senator Joe Manchin are introducing a gun “compromise” bill today called “The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.”
Here’s a copy of a background briefer being sent around, I believe, by the offices of Manchin and Toomey:"
Has anyone seen this? Thoughts?
[/quote]
Checking to make sure that somebody who’s trying to buy a gun has never been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and isn’t an illegal alien, and hasn’t been making threats against an ex-wife’s life: good idea.
Anybody who advocates for not at least trying to make it difficult for the mentally insane to buy arms is a fool and a fanatic.[/quote]
Please read the post directly above your own…
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gun-bill-called-public-safety-and-second-amendment-rights-protection-act_716204.html
"Republican senator Pat Toomey and Democratic senator Joe Manchin are introducing a gun “compromise” bill today called “The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.”
Here’s a copy of a background briefer being sent around, I believe, by the offices of Manchin and Toomey:"
Has anyone seen this? Thoughts?
[/quote]
Background checks would have done nothing to stop the incident in Conn, or most any of these incidents, because the guns are almost always legally obtained.
The true purpose of this is to change the provision regarding storage of background checks. Currently they are supposed to be destroyed.
Here, they will be kept, effectively creating a gun registry.
The purpose of the registry, in turn, is confiscation, harrassment, and taxation until normal citizens have to disarm.[/quote]
Exactly correct.
This is the proverbial “foot in the door” to something bigger and worse. There is no such thing as a stagnant government program, they are always growing.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gun-bill-called-public-safety-and-second-amendment-rights-protection-act_716204.html
"Republican senator Pat Toomey and Democratic senator Joe Manchin are introducing a gun “compromise” bill today called “The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.”
Here’s a copy of a background briefer being sent around, I believe, by the offices of Manchin and Toomey:"
Has anyone seen this? Thoughts?
[/quote]
Checking to make sure that somebody who’s trying to buy a gun has never been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and isn’t an illegal alien, and hasn’t been making threats against an ex-wife’s life: good idea.
Anybody who advocates for not at least trying to make it difficult for the mentally insane to buy arms is a fool and a fanatic.[/quote]
Please read the post directly above your own…[/quote]
Ah, I see.
First, let’s take a look at the claim: anybody who fails a background check is going to simply buy guns illegally anyway.
So, let’s say universal background checks pass. A certain number of people are going to suddenly be turned away from gun shows and etc. Do you know with certainty that every single one of them is then going to go out and buy a weapon illegally? No, you do not.
Then, let’s take a look at the logic:
[i]We shouldn’t try to keep crazy people from buying guns, because they will simply turn to the black market.
We shouldn’t try to keep anybody from buying heroin, because anybody who wants to buy heroin will simply turn to the black market.[/i]
Laws are very imperfect. They’re broken all the time. Many people who break them are never caught. They’re circumvented and laughed-at by criminals every single day.
The question is this: Is it a good idea to try to keep crazy people, criminals, and illegal aliens from buying guns?
And the answer is unequivocally yes.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gun-bill-called-public-safety-and-second-amendment-rights-protection-act_716204.html
"Republican senator Pat Toomey and Democratic senator Joe Manchin are introducing a gun “compromise” bill today called “The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.”
Here’s a copy of a background briefer being sent around, I believe, by the offices of Manchin and Toomey:"
Has anyone seen this? Thoughts?
[/quote]
Checking to make sure that somebody who’s trying to buy a gun has never been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and isn’t an illegal alien, and hasn’t been making threats against an ex-wife’s life: good idea.
Anybody who advocates for not at least trying to make it difficult for the mentally insane to buy arms is a fool and a fanatic.[/quote]
Please read the post directly above your own…[/quote]
Ah, I see.
First, let’s take a look at the claim: anybody who fails a background check is going to simply buy guns illegally anyway.
So, let’s say universal background checks pass. A certain number of people are going to suddenly be turned away from gun shows and etc. Do you know with certainty that every single one of them is then going to go out and buy a weapon illegally? No, you do not.
Then, let’s take a look at the logic:
[i]We shouldn’t try to keep crazy people from buying guns, because they will simply turn to the black market.
We shouldn’t try to keep anybody from buying heroin, because anybody who wants to buy heroin will simply turn to the black market.[/i]
Laws are very imperfect. They’re broken all the time. Many people who break them are never caught. They’re circumvented and laughed-at by criminals every single day.
The question is this: Is it a good idea to try to keep crazy people, criminals, and illegal aliens from buying guns?
And the answer is unequivocally yes.
[/quote]
It shouldn’t be a matter of idealism and emotions, it should be a matter decided by logic. Background checks are fine with me. A gun registry is NOT. I never said or insinuated there was anything wrong with background checks. I was simply pointing out that the laws that are being pushed are largely useless at best, and extremely harmful for a variety of reasons at worst. Implementing laws that wouldn’t have prevented the very crimes they were implemented because of is insanity. It’s an immature emotional knee-jerk reaction.
My wife didn’t care too much for me having weapons in our house, until we started dealing with a stalker. Then she was all for it. Funny how that works.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
The question is this: Is it a good idea to try to keep crazy people, criminals, and illegal aliens from buying guns?
And the answer is unequivocally yes.
[/quote]
No doubt, but the next question is does this accomplish our goal to an effective degree, effective enough where the punishment to those who have never broken the law is justified?
And that answer isn’t as black and white…
We are talking about limiting rights here, things need much more concideration than hysteria after a tragic accident.
It seems like passing a law against murder would stop the act, correct? I don’t know why we don’t try that before moving on.
I will support any gun control measure that takes away the government’s arms in addition to citizens’. If we can’t be the country we were supposed to be, let another country’s flag fly over us.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
The question is this: Is it a good idea to try to keep crazy people, criminals, and illegal aliens from buying guns?
And the answer is unequivocally yes.
[/quote]
No doubt, but the next question is does this accomplish our goal to an effective degree, effective enough where the punishment to those who have never broken the law is justified?
And that answer isn’t as black and white…
We are talking about limiting rights here, things need much more concideration than hysteria after a tragic accident.[/quote]
Agreed that it isn’t as black and white as I implied–but neither is it nearly as black and white as Jewbacca’s post, either.
Re: punishment to those who have never broken the law–I do not believe that this constitutes a substantial punishment for anybody who would not otherwise fail the check.
Re: whether or not this will be effective: I certainly am not deluded enough to believe that massacres will come screeching to a halt as soon as background checks are universal.
However, let’s take an example: since 1998, federal background checks have blocked about a million would-be gun sales. Add state checks in and that number is more like two million.
What percentage of those sales simply became black-market transactions?
Nobody knows. Let’s give the pro-gun argument the overwhelming benefit of the doubt here and assume that that number is nine in ten.
That still means 200,000 guns not sold to nutjobs/illegals/criminals.
And that, in my mind, is a good thing.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
It seems like passing a law against murder would stop the act, correct? I don’t know why we don’t try that before moving on.
I will support any gun control measure that takes away the government’s arms in addition to citizens’. If we can’t be the country we were supposed to be, let another country’s flag fly over us.[/quote]
This doesn’t disarm citizens though. It makes it harder for people who we all agree shouldn’t have weapons to get weapons.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Re: punishment to those who have never broken the law–I do not believe that this constitutes a substantial punishment for anybody who would not otherwise fail the check.
[/quote]
Storage of these records or violation of doctor/patient priv does though.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Re: punishment to those who have never broken the law–I do not believe that this constitutes a substantial punishment for anybody who would not otherwise fail the check.
[/quote]
Storage of these records or violation of doctor/patient priv does though.[/quote]
Storage of sensitive files is also becoming increasingly more difficult. One good hack and boom that info isn’t so confidential anymore. Reminds me of the VA losing tens of thousands of Vets SSNs cause some guy left a laptop in his car…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Re: punishment to those who have never broken the law–I do not believe that this constitutes a substantial punishment for anybody who would not otherwise fail the check.
[/quote]
Storage of these records or violation of doctor/patient priv does though.[/quote]
Storage of the records has the potential to. But only if it’s allowed to, and I don’t think potentialities are as forceful as some people believe.
A Universal Background check is going to happen, imo. My concern is more about the requirements to pass.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gun-bill-called-public-safety-and-second-amendment-rights-protection-act_716204.html
"Republican senator Pat Toomey and Democratic senator Joe Manchin are introducing a gun “compromise” bill today called “The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.”
Here’s a copy of a background briefer being sent around, I believe, by the offices of Manchin and Toomey:"
Has anyone seen this? Thoughts?
[/quote]
Checking to make sure that somebody who’s trying to buy a gun has never been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and isn’t an illegal alien, and hasn’t been making threats against an ex-wife’s life: good idea.
Anybody who advocates for not at least trying to make it difficult for the mentally insane to buy arms is a fool and a fanatic.[/quote]
Well, all of those rule are already in place. I just went through all that when purchasing my weapon. So what’s the point of rehashing something that’s already in place.
All this shit is just a smoke screen to make people feel like they have done something significant. Really, most laws of restriction on things that are legal only cause more hassle for the law abiding and does nothing to stem or curb the abilities of the criminals. By definition criminals break the law, so making more stringent laws on those who already follow the law in hopes it may curb the behavior of the lawless is asinine.
I do favor reasonable controls for procuring firearms. I do not favor reactionary laws that in the end affect only those who intend to follow the law.
There are over 200 million guns in the U.S. You aren’t going to put that genie back in the bottle a few silly laws.
I can say, just the threat of these laws have made society at large more armed than ever. Just go to your local sporting goods store and try to buy ammo. Everybody is out. There has been a run on guns and ammo like you would not believe. Manufacturers cannot keep up with the demand. The shelves are empty and as soon as someone restocks, there is another run.
The threat of gun control has armed this nation to the teeth.
I used to be able to walk into to ‘Bass Proshop’ and just pick any kind of ammo for any kind of gun with no issue. Now, the shelves are empty. So just at the threat, Americans are more armed than ever.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gun-bill-called-public-safety-and-second-amendment-rights-protection-act_716204.html
"Republican senator Pat Toomey and Democratic senator Joe Manchin are introducing a gun “compromise” bill today called “The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.”
Here’s a copy of a background briefer being sent around, I believe, by the offices of Manchin and Toomey:"
Has anyone seen this? Thoughts?
[/quote]
Background checks would have done nothing to stop the incident in Conn, or most any of these incidents, because the guns are almost always legally obtained.
The true purpose of this is to change the provision regarding storage of background checks. Currently they are supposed to be destroyed.
Here, they will be kept, effectively creating a gun registry.
The purpose of the registry, in turn, is confiscation, harrassment, and taxation until normal citizens have to disarm.[/quote]
True dat.