How exactly did guns (in the hand of citizens, not law enforcement) help keep us safe? Fuck you cowards who voted against the legislation. Why don't you look at these faces again and try to explain why you can't do the right thing:
Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on background
Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on background
checks through the Senate.
How exactly did guns (in the hand of citizens, not law enforcement) help keep us safe? Fuck you cowards who voted against the legislation. Why don't you look at these faces again and try to explain why you can't do the right thing:
How exactly did guns (in the hand of citizens, not law enforcement) help keep us safe? Fuck you cowards who voted against the legislation. Why don't you look at these faces again and try to explain why you can't do the right thing:
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
How would ANY gun legislation helped the Sandy Hook victims?
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
The blame for this ultimately lies with the Democracts.
The core problem is the pseudo-filibuster. Yes,the Republicans have exploited it to an unprecedented degree. And, yes, that is yet another to wish that all congressional Republicans would do the right thing by killing themselves.
But the real problem is that not enough Democrats were willing to vote to put an end to the extra-constitutional madness that is the pseudo-filibuster. (Even the "speaking filibuster" is an extra-consitututional farce, but at least it almost never actually blocks legislation.)
And, yes, that is true regardless of which party holds the majority. All this "well, what about when the other party holds the majority" crap is just that -- crap.
The Founders created the Senate as an anti-majoritarian balance against the House: Each State gets equal representation, regardless of its population.
But the Founders also specified the rare occasions on which action by the Senate should require a supermajority.
The Founders wanted to give some power to the minority. But they never had in mind giving power to a senatorial sub-minority.
All the Senators -- Democratic and Republican -- who refused to vote for the reform which would have ended the pseudo-filibuster should be sent home. To die there in ignominy.
The core problem is the pseudo-filibuster. Yes,the Republicans have exploited it to an unprecedented degree. And, yes, that is yet another to wish that all congressional Republicans would do the right thing by killing themselves.
But the real problem is that not enough Democrats were willing to vote to put an end to the extra-constitutional madness that is the pseudo-filibuster. (Even the "speaking filibuster" is an extra-consitututional farce, but at least it almost never actually blocks legislation.)
And, yes, that is true regardless of which party holds the majority. All this "well, what about when the other party holds the majority" crap is just that -- crap.
The Founders created the Senate as an anti-majoritarian balance against the House: Each State gets equal representation, regardless of its population.
But the Founders also specified the rare occasions on which action by the Senate should require a supermajority.
The Founders wanted to give some power to the minority. But they never had in mind giving power to a senatorial sub-minority.
All the Senators -- Democratic and Republican -- who refused to vote for the reform which would have ended the pseudo-filibuster should be sent home. To die there in ignominy.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
There is no conflict in fly-over country about the proposition that guns shouldn't be in the hands of felons and crazies. But these two constituencies have a maddening habit of ignoring things like gun registration requirements, just as they ignore laws against...I don't know...KILLING PEOPLE.
While I haven't paid close attention to the details of the legislation under consideration now, I strongly suspect that it will burden a lot of people who would never in a million years murder anyone, and create a lot of cost and paperwork in the bargain, while doing nothing to make us any safer from known felons and crazies.
If this law were even arguably efficacious - likely to keep guns out of the hands of felons and crazies - it would sail through congress like true Mexican food through a Gringo's digestive system. The fact that it hasn't is sufficiently informative to make the case that it is nothing more than worthless political posturing.
Thank the Founders for a system that makes it difficult to pass a law.
While I haven't paid close attention to the details of the legislation under consideration now, I strongly suspect that it will burden a lot of people who would never in a million years murder anyone, and create a lot of cost and paperwork in the bargain, while doing nothing to make us any safer from known felons and crazies.
If this law were even arguably efficacious - likely to keep guns out of the hands of felons and crazies - it would sail through congress like true Mexican food through a Gringo's digestive system. The fact that it hasn't is sufficiently informative to make the case that it is nothing more than worthless political posturing.
Thank the Founders for a system that makes it difficult to pass a law.
-
Econoline
- Posts: 9607
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
As Andrew has already pointed out, not only was the filibuster NOT invented by the Founders, the system they actually DID invent never envisioned and is ill-equipped to cope with the filibuster and the way it is (over-)used today.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
My problem with it what constitutes "crazy"? I am an alcoholic and I see a shrink. My shink happens to be a friend of mine (since high school) and my visits are not in any health systems file so no problem there. But I did go to inpatient rehab for 28 days at a state funded facility (don't know if it's run by the state). Will that show up on my background check and will I be denied purchasing a rifle? forget a handgun here in NY/LI although I am trying to get a range permit
I have hunted while not in recovery, but never drank before or while actively hunting. When the days hunt ended (at sundown as that's the law in Maine) guns were unloaded (outside, no loaded guns in the camp house), brought inside, stored and then locked up. Same with the ammo but in a different place in the camp house. Then we could drink.
I have hunted while not in recovery, but never drank before or while actively hunting. When the days hunt ended (at sundown as that's the law in Maine) guns were unloaded (outside, no loaded guns in the camp house), brought inside, stored and then locked up. Same with the ammo but in a different place in the camp house. Then we could drink.
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
You are absolutely correct O&W. The problem with keeping guns out of the hands of felons and crazies is that it is almost impossible to identify those who would be threats. It would end up penalzing millions of people who would fall into the dragnet by happenstance.
-
Grim Reaper
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:21 pm
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
So, since the bill didn't pass, it must not have been effective. Couldn't have been because of any other reason.dgs49 wrote:If this law were even arguably efficacious - likely to keep guns out of the hands of felons and crazies - it would sail through congress like true Mexican food through a Gringo's digestive system. The fact that it hasn't is sufficiently informative to make the case that it is nothing more than worthless political posturing.
Something is difficult, so let's not bother trying.dgs49 wrote: The problem with keeping guns out of the hands of felons and crazies is that it is almost impossible to identify those who would be threats.
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
Same old shite... 'If it's not going to be 100% effective there's no no point even trying'.
Bottom line: Some people's precious guns are just more important to them than the lives of children.
Bottom line: Some people's precious guns are just more important to them than the lives of children.
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
-
Sue U
- Posts: 8895
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
I've said it before and I think it's time: Repeal the Second Amendment. There is no plausible justification for a "right" to own guns. Gun ownership should be a privilege, and a highly regulated one at that.
GAH!
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
I agree Sue. It should be a privilege rather than a right to own a gun. Trouble is, there are too many chest-thumping types in the way to realistically achieve this.
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
I am absolutely opposed to the idea of repealing The Second Amendment...
But I am also absolutely appalled and disgusted by the level of political cowardice that defeated this modest effort to reduce the level of lethality on our nation's streets...
Every single member of the Senate who voted against this bill, Republican or Democrat, should hang his or her head in shame...
I hate to say it, but I'm almost coming around to Andrew's view on the filibuster...
There's something seriously wrong when a bill consistently supported in the polls by 85-90% of the American people, (including 80% plus of Republicans, and gun owners, and even rank and file members of the NRA) can't pass the Senate, even when a majority of Senators vote for it...
That is quite stark; it evinces an extraordinary level of governmental dysfunctionality; it's not even ideological or partisan...it is thwarting to the purpose of representative governance, without regard to ideology...
It only takes a majority vote and a ruling from The Chair (which presumably would be Biden) to seriously reform or abolish the filibuster rule...
But the chances of getting even the 50 votes needed for this are almost non-existent, because even the Democrats (starting with The Odious Harry Reid) don't want to touch it because they're afraid of the day they will be in the minority, and they want it to be there for them to use...
I've come to the point I'm with Andrew on that...
The proper response to that attitude is BFD...
If the Democrats are in the minority in the Senate, they're in the minority....suck it up, that's the way our system is supposed to work...
Our political system is set up (and properly so) with a lot of "checks and balances"...
But this 60 vote threshold in the Senate was never intended to be one of them....
The time has come to either abolish or seriously limit the filibuster, not as a partisan or ideological act, but as a move to restore basic functionality to our political system.
But I am also absolutely appalled and disgusted by the level of political cowardice that defeated this modest effort to reduce the level of lethality on our nation's streets...
Every single member of the Senate who voted against this bill, Republican or Democrat, should hang his or her head in shame...
I hate to say it, but I'm almost coming around to Andrew's view on the filibuster...
There's something seriously wrong when a bill consistently supported in the polls by 85-90% of the American people, (including 80% plus of Republicans, and gun owners, and even rank and file members of the NRA) can't pass the Senate, even when a majority of Senators vote for it...
That is quite stark; it evinces an extraordinary level of governmental dysfunctionality; it's not even ideological or partisan...it is thwarting to the purpose of representative governance, without regard to ideology...
It only takes a majority vote and a ruling from The Chair (which presumably would be Biden) to seriously reform or abolish the filibuster rule...
But the chances of getting even the 50 votes needed for this are almost non-existent, because even the Democrats (starting with The Odious Harry Reid) don't want to touch it because they're afraid of the day they will be in the minority, and they want it to be there for them to use...
I've come to the point I'm with Andrew on that...
The proper response to that attitude is BFD...
If the Democrats are in the minority in the Senate, they're in the minority....suck it up, that's the way our system is supposed to work...
Our political system is set up (and properly so) with a lot of "checks and balances"...
But this 60 vote threshold in the Senate was never intended to be one of them....
The time has come to either abolish or seriously limit the filibuster, not as a partisan or ideological act, but as a move to restore basic functionality to our political system.
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
They debate is not whether or not the bill will be 100% effective, as no law is going to be 100% effective in preventing whatever the law was designed to prevent. The bill was defeated because of it's possibility of restricting people who could legally own guns, from obtaining them.Sean wrote:Same old shite... 'If it's not going to be 100% effective there's no no point even trying'.
Bottom line: Some people's precious guns are just more important to them than the lives of children.
The devil is in the details. As I stated in a previous post, what are they checking for in their "background" check? I can see checking for felons as those people are already in the criminal database. But what constitutes "crazy"? Would I (and it's all aobut me
) show up on a background check? And exactly what/where/who maintains this database? And how does one go about appealing if one is denied a firearm?I am not opposed to background checks per say, but as I said, the devil is in the details.
Maybe I'll go by a .22 rifle this weekend and see. I've always wanted one for plinking around at the lake house. HEre on LI, I believe gun dealers are required to do background checks even for rifle purchases. (I think)
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
Plenty of blame to go around on this. The bill never had a chance to become law, so this is all a lot of posturing. It was a long shot in the Senate and had no chance in the House. Not sure why they didn't figure out a bill that might have a chance before they brought this one forward. This is also a clear example of the intensity of an interest group over taking a wider non-intense majority. While 80 or 90 percent of people, mostly marginally informed about the law, may have supported the bill. However, the vast majority of that group really don't care much about the issue so there is little negative impact on a politician for voting against it. However, if a politician in the wrong state voted for the bill, he or she pretty much signed a resignation notice.
-
Econoline
- Posts: 9607
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
As I understand it, the bill under consideration would have simply expanded the number of people subject to background checks from just those who buy a firearm from a licensed dealer (as it is now) to everybody who buys a gun from anybody (including gun show, internet and private purchases). The seller, whoever they may be, would have to have had a licensed gun dealer run the actual background check for them through the existing FBI NCIS system. As far as I know it would not have expanded the criteria under which firearms transfers could be denied (which as far as "crazy" is concerned includes only "persons Involuntarily committed to a mental institution").oldr_n_wsr wrote:The bill was defeated because of it's possibility of restricting people who could legally own guns, from obtaining them.
The devil is in the details. As I stated in a previous post, what are they checking for in their "background" check?
There was a lot of misinformation outright lying going around on this, and it's too bad you were one of the people who fell for it.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
That line of argument, which has been thumped endlessly by the NRA and was stated repeatedly on the Senate floor, is a complete canard.dgs49 wrote:There is no conflict in fly-over country about the proposition that guns shouldn't be in the hands of felons and crazies. But these two constituencies have a maddening habit of ignoring things like gun registration requirements, just as they ignore laws against...I don't know...KILLING PEOPLE.
Pursuant to the proposed legislation, it would not matter whether felons and crazies ignored background checks. What would matter is whether people selling guns to felons and crazies, without knowing that the buyers are felons or crazies, would ignore the background-check requirement. Those people selling guns who do not want to commit federal crimes -- which we may, I think, safely presume are most of them -- would not ignore the background-check requirement.
It's not complicated. Felon/crazy wants gun:
(1) Under proposed legislation, felon/crazy goes to gun store. Felon/crazy offers to purchase gun from seller. Seller requests photo ID to run background check. Felon/crazy either (a) refuses to provide photo ID or (b) provides photo ID and fails background check. Felon/crazy leaves gun store without gun.
(2) Under existing law, felon/crazy goes to gun store. Felon/crazy offers to purchase gun from seller. Seller requests photo ID to run background check. Felon/crazy either (a) refuses to provide photo ID or (b) provides photo ID and fails background check. Felon/crazy leaves gun store without gun.
(3) Under proposed legislation, felon/crazy goes to gun show. Felon/crazy offers to purchase gun from seller. Seller requests photo ID to run background check. Felon/crazy either (a) refuses to provide photo ID or (b) provides photo ID and fails background check. Felon/crazy leaves gun show without gun.
(4) But under existing law, felon/crazy goes to gun show. Felon/crazy offers to purchase gun from seller. Seller does not run background check. Felon/crazy leaves gun show with gun.
It's really just that simple.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
As I understand it, the proposed legislation would not change the standard for "what constitutes 'crazy?' in any way.oldr_n_wsr wrote:My problem with it what constitutes "crazy"?
The existing standard is:
(United States Code, Title 18, Section 922 (emphases added).)It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person ... has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution ....* * *It shall be unlawful for any person ... who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution ... to ... possess ... or to receive any firearm or ammunition ....
Unless a court has declared you crazy (or retarded developmentally disabled, etc.) -- "a mental defective" -- or you have been committed to the funny farm, you have nothing to worry about.
The proposed legislation would simply require sellers of guns at gun shows, over the internet, or in private transactions to run exactly the same background checks which sellers of guns at gun stores are already required to run.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
It is not surprising that some legislators are cowards or bought. But it is surprising how many have either been bought so cheaply or frightened by such nothings.
2/3 of the country agrees that we should have more effective background checks. The nutcase rump of the NRA disagrees, screams the paranoid slogans that Timothy McVeigh believed about the government and we are unable to regulate our own country.
It's discouraging. But the Republican party is imploding everywhere else as well so perhaps we will see less of them here in the future. How stupid does someone have to be, or how deeply do you have to hate the United States, to vote for those jackasses? Wrong on everything, and poisoning your children's future.
yrs,
rubato
2/3 of the country agrees that we should have more effective background checks. The nutcase rump of the NRA disagrees, screams the paranoid slogans that Timothy McVeigh believed about the government and we are unable to regulate our own country.
It's discouraging. But the Republican party is imploding everywhere else as well so perhaps we will see less of them here in the future. How stupid does someone have to be, or how deeply do you have to hate the United States, to vote for those jackasses? Wrong on everything, and poisoning your children's future.
yrs,
rubato
-
Econoline
- Posts: 9607
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
What is particularly discouraging is that there were so many flat-out lies about what the legislation contained, which were used to defeat it. A wide majority (over 80%) of Americans are in favor of what the bill actually contained, yet there were senators who--despite knowing the falsehood of these statements--just assumed that there were majorities of voters in their home states who would believe the lies even if they, their representatives, told them the truth. 
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
Re: Meanwhile, we can't even get a compromise bill on backgr
True, but typical of the breed.Econoline wrote:What is particularly discouraging is that there were so many flat-out lies about what the legislation contained, which were used to defeat it.... "
yrs,
rubato