vBCms Comments
Welcome To Hunting Country
General Hunting Forums
Archery & Bowhunting
Shooting Sports
Manufacturers' Corner
Firearms
Classifieds
Not Hunting / General Chit Chat
1.) Swamp Fox - 03/22/2013
A lot of people say they favor an enhanced or "comprehensive" background check system as part of a "common sense" gun control policy.
Virtually none of the people who say that know what the current proposals are. If they did, and thought them through, many of them would be less cavalier with their support.
Let's not drop the ball with our legislators or our friends who might be a little squishy on the Second Amendment. Keep them informed and talk them through the hard-to-understand parts.
Two articles for background, so to speak (but not for inconvenience or intrusiveness):
[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2013/0320/Assault-weapons-ban-shelved.-Background-checks-next-video[/url]
[url]http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Reid-Background-checks-will-be-in-Senate-gun-bill-4375453.php[/url]
Virtually none of the people who say that know what the current proposals are. If they did, and thought them through, many of them would be less cavalier with their support.
Let's not drop the ball with our legislators or our friends who might be a little squishy on the Second Amendment. Keep them informed and talk them through the hard-to-understand parts.
Two articles for background, so to speak (but not for inconvenience or intrusiveness):
[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2013/0320/Assault-weapons-ban-shelved.-Background-checks-next-video[/url]
[url]http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Reid-Background-checks-will-be-in-Senate-gun-bill-4375453.php[/url]
2.) DParker - 03/22/2013
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;3290]A lot of people say they favor an enhanced or "comprehensive" background check system as part of a "common sense" gun control policy.
Virtually none of the people who say that know what the current proposals are. If they did, and thought them through, many of them would be less cavalier with their support.[/QUOTE]
Which is, quite honestly, true of pretty much every single subject ever put to a public opinion poll...due in no small part to the useless (and often ignorance-based) phrasing of the questions being put to the pollees. In this case I've seen more than one instance of a poll asking, "Do you favor requiring background checks for gun purchases at gun shows", with "Yes" answers being cited as support for "closing" the non-existent "gun show loophole", which is then further mischaracterized as being the very essence of "comprehensive background checks". Viola! Public support for CBCs.
Also, while driving home last night I was listening to the POTUS ("Politics Of The United States") talk channel on Sirius/XM. Some journalist was giving an explanation of the current state of proposed gun-control legislation, including for background checks. She was doing an admirably accurate job of describing details like what an FFL is, what a form 4473 is, how long FFLs are required to retain them and for what purpose, etc. She was obviouslypretty well informed on the subject. And yet, near the end, she still slipped in the "Gunshow Loophole" nonsense without correction.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;3290]Let's not drop the ball with our legislators or our friends who might be a little squishy on the Second Amendment. Keep them informed and talk them through the hard-to-understand parts.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;3290]Two articles for background, so to speak (but not for inconvenience or intrusiveness):
[URL]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2013/0320/Assault-weapons-ban-shelved.-Background-checks-next-video[/URL]
[URL]http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Reid-Background-checks-will-be-in-Senate-gun-bill-4375453.php[/URL][/QUOTE]
Tagged for later viewing/reading.
Virtually none of the people who say that know what the current proposals are. If they did, and thought them through, many of them would be less cavalier with their support.[/QUOTE]
Which is, quite honestly, true of pretty much every single subject ever put to a public opinion poll...due in no small part to the useless (and often ignorance-based) phrasing of the questions being put to the pollees. In this case I've seen more than one instance of a poll asking, "Do you favor requiring background checks for gun purchases at gun shows", with "Yes" answers being cited as support for "closing" the non-existent "gun show loophole", which is then further mischaracterized as being the very essence of "comprehensive background checks". Viola! Public support for CBCs.
Also, while driving home last night I was listening to the POTUS ("Politics Of The United States") talk channel on Sirius/XM. Some journalist was giving an explanation of the current state of proposed gun-control legislation, including for background checks. She was doing an admirably accurate job of describing details like what an FFL is, what a form 4473 is, how long FFLs are required to retain them and for what purpose, etc. She was obviouslypretty well informed on the subject. And yet, near the end, she still slipped in the "Gunshow Loophole" nonsense without correction.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;3290]Let's not drop the ball with our legislators or our friends who might be a little squishy on the Second Amendment. Keep them informed and talk them through the hard-to-understand parts.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;3290]Two articles for background, so to speak (but not for inconvenience or intrusiveness):
[URL]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2013/0320/Assault-weapons-ban-shelved.-Background-checks-next-video[/URL]
[URL]http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Reid-Background-checks-will-be-in-Senate-gun-bill-4375453.php[/URL][/QUOTE]
Tagged for later viewing/reading.
3.) Swamp Fox - 03/22/2013
Correctomundo...I mentioned the need to challenge the concept of a "gun show loophole" a while back, yet the mysterious beast survives. Not that I hear everything out there, but I think I can count on two fingers the times I've seen or heard a refutation in the general-public media, [I][B]ever[/B] [/I].
We might as well get cranked up to explain and defend private sales of personal property while we've got our gear on.
We might as well get cranked up to explain and defend private sales of personal property while we've got our gear on.
4.) Jon - 03/22/2013
[COLOR="#006400"]The whole mess is a constant educational evolution for everyone involved. Media has brainwashed people into calling scary looking guns "assault weapons", furthermore they show video clips of automatic weapons when doing stories on guns. The background checks discussion has been lied about constantly in the media, especially from the libs to try and make their point.
All of these things breed ignorance and further muddle the folks who either don't have the time to do the research or just believe everything they read/hear. "It was on the internet, it has to be true" ohh, here's my french model girlfriend!!![/COLOR]
All of these things breed ignorance and further muddle the folks who either don't have the time to do the research or just believe everything they read/hear. "It was on the internet, it has to be true" ohh, here's my french model girlfriend!!![/COLOR]
5.) DParker - 03/22/2013
Uh...bonjooorno!
6.) Swamp Fox - 03/22/2013
LOL...
That guy's my hero...
:-)
That guy's my hero...
:-)
7.) JimP - 03/22/2013
Could be you Swampy if you really put your mind to it.:grin:
8.) Leighton - 03/22/2013
We have had a comprehensive background check system over here for the last 30 years and that's just to own a shotgun. You are reassessed every 4 years and must apply to the chief of police in your area to renew your licence . Every time an idiot runs riot with a gun - the more rules and regulations are forced on the law abiding gun owners.
9.) DParker - 03/22/2013
[QUOTE=Leighton;3346]We have had a comprehensive background check system over here for the last 30 years and that's just to own a shotgun. You are reassessed every 4 years and must apply to the chief of police in your area to renew your licence . [COLOR=#b22222][B]Every time an idiot runs riot with a gun[/B][/COLOR] - the more rules and regulations are forced on the law abiding gun owners.[/QUOTE]
{sarcasm} Don't all of the strict gun laws make that impossible? {/sarcasm}
{sarcasm} Don't all of the strict gun laws make that impossible? {/sarcasm}
10.) XJCraver - 03/22/2013
I'm not too worried about the BG check garbage passing, if it does so [I]soon[/I]. I realize that the .gov is stomping all over the Commerce Clause already, but these checks are such a blatant violation that SCOTUS will strike it down most eagerly, IMO.
11.) Leighton - 03/26/2013
{sarcasm} Don't all of the strict gun laws make that impossible? {/sarcasm}
Unfortunately it's the unlicensed gun owners who cause most of the problems over here . I don't think anyone is against background checks , over here these are carried out by the police under the guidelines of the Home Office. You would not believe how many different ways the Police Chiefs in different parts of this country interpret those guidelines .
The Police Chief in the area where I live is against anyone owning a gun , he can't ban gun ownership but he can make it very hard to get a licence and if you don't follow his interpretation of the gun law to the letter then you get your licence refused. Over the mountain in the next county the police chief is more relaxed about gun control and getting a licence is a lot easier.
Unfortunately it's the unlicensed gun owners who cause most of the problems over here . I don't think anyone is against background checks , over here these are carried out by the police under the guidelines of the Home Office. You would not believe how many different ways the Police Chiefs in different parts of this country interpret those guidelines .
The Police Chief in the area where I live is against anyone owning a gun , he can't ban gun ownership but he can make it very hard to get a licence and if you don't follow his interpretation of the gun law to the letter then you get your licence refused. Over the mountain in the next county the police chief is more relaxed about gun control and getting a licence is a lot easier.
12.) bluecat - 03/26/2013
Swamp, could you outline the pros and cons of the background check argument? I'm not sure I'm understanding it all. On the surface it appears to be a benign check to keep the crazies and the felons from obtaining a gun. There's obviously a lot more that I need to know. Oh, and I'm from Kansas so type slow and use lots of hand gestures and pictures.
13.) DParker - 03/26/2013
[QUOTE=Leighton;3865]Unfortunately it's the unlicensed gun owners who cause most of the problems over here .[/QUOTE]
Which really underscores the primary flaw in that whole licensing scheme, doesn't it? The law-abiding people, who are not the problem, comply with the licensing requirement. The troublemakers do not. So...what's accomplished?
[QUOTE=Leighton;3865]I don't think anyone is against background checks , over here these are carried out by the police under the guidelines of the Home Office. You would not believe how many different ways the Police Chiefs in different parts of this country interpret those guidelines .
The Police Chief in the area where I live is against anyone owning a gun , he can't ban gun ownership but he can make it very hard to get a licence and if you don't follow his interpretation of the gun law to the letter then you get your licence refused. Over the mountain in the next county the police chief is more relaxed about gun control and getting a licence is a lot easier.[/QUOTE]
Some U.S. states have the same problem when it comes to things like concealed carry licenses. We call those "may-issue" states (as opposed to "shall-issue", which means that a license MUST be granted to any applicant who is not disqualified by statutory crieteria), and it illustrates the inherent lack of equal protection under the law when you leave such decisions to the discretion of individual officials rather than a consistently applied set of rules. You're putting an enormous amount of power of the liberty of others into the hands of a few (often unelected) people. No thanks.
Which really underscores the primary flaw in that whole licensing scheme, doesn't it? The law-abiding people, who are not the problem, comply with the licensing requirement. The troublemakers do not. So...what's accomplished?
[QUOTE=Leighton;3865]I don't think anyone is against background checks , over here these are carried out by the police under the guidelines of the Home Office. You would not believe how many different ways the Police Chiefs in different parts of this country interpret those guidelines .
The Police Chief in the area where I live is against anyone owning a gun , he can't ban gun ownership but he can make it very hard to get a licence and if you don't follow his interpretation of the gun law to the letter then you get your licence refused. Over the mountain in the next county the police chief is more relaxed about gun control and getting a licence is a lot easier.[/QUOTE]
Some U.S. states have the same problem when it comes to things like concealed carry licenses. We call those "may-issue" states (as opposed to "shall-issue", which means that a license MUST be granted to any applicant who is not disqualified by statutory crieteria), and it illustrates the inherent lack of equal protection under the law when you leave such decisions to the discretion of individual officials rather than a consistently applied set of rules. You're putting an enormous amount of power of the liberty of others into the hands of a few (often unelected) people. No thanks.
14.) Swamp Fox - 03/26/2013
Bluecat, I'm actually working on that. I'm a little tight on time today but I'll throw something up here soon. Read those links I put up if you haven't already and you'll probably get an inkling.
A few tidbits, though:
Biden says the government "doesn't have time" to investigate violators of the current background check system, or words to that effect. I'll quote and source later. But the obvious question is: If they can't deal with the present system, how are they gonna handle an expanded one?
Or are they happy just throwing a bunch of stuff (people) up against the wall and see what (who) sticks? If so, all the background system is doing is adding a layer of inconvenience for the law-abiding. So what if you don't pass your background check? And if you lie and pass, as in the case of a straw purchase or mis-statement of fact, nothing is done to ensure the [I]future[/I] integrity of the system.
There are a lot of goofy proposals or ideas floating around for expanded checks, and not all of them are going to make it into bill form to be voted on. However, the ones that do seem to have the best chance are still onerous, dangerous and/or unconstitutional.
I'm no meteorologist, but I'm okay saying that.
More later.
In the meantime, this is good reading:
[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott[/url]
A few tidbits, though:
Biden says the government "doesn't have time" to investigate violators of the current background check system, or words to that effect. I'll quote and source later. But the obvious question is: If they can't deal with the present system, how are they gonna handle an expanded one?
Or are they happy just throwing a bunch of stuff (people) up against the wall and see what (who) sticks? If so, all the background system is doing is adding a layer of inconvenience for the law-abiding. So what if you don't pass your background check? And if you lie and pass, as in the case of a straw purchase or mis-statement of fact, nothing is done to ensure the [I]future[/I] integrity of the system.
There are a lot of goofy proposals or ideas floating around for expanded checks, and not all of them are going to make it into bill form to be voted on. However, the ones that do seem to have the best chance are still onerous, dangerous and/or unconstitutional.
I'm no meteorologist, but I'm okay saying that.
More later.
In the meantime, this is good reading:
[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott[/url]
15.) Swamp Fox - 03/26/2013
[QUOTE=bluecat;3889]Swamp, could you outline the pros and cons of the background check argument? I'm not sure I'm understanding it all. On the surface it appears to be a benign check to keep the crazies and the felons from obtaining a gun. There's obviously a lot more that I need to know. Oh, and I'm from Kansas so type slow and use lots of hand gestures and pictures.[/QUOTE]
Okay, in the interest of time, here goes: I believe there are three background check bills floating around. Maybe there are more, but I'll let someone else find them. I'll also let someone else post any info on proposed amendments or "ideas" that are out there. Some are loonier or more dangerous than others.
Anyhoo, look on [url]www.congress.gov[/url] for info on bills, including progress reports, and summaries when they are available. Shumer's summary of S.374 just went up, I think. Shumer occassionally has to be schooled in what's in his own bills, as was necessary in 2011 on a previous attempt to "fix" the background check system. Fortunately, such schooling has had the effect that thhe current bill is "not as bad" as the previous version.
Carolyn McCarthy's earlier S.137 is up and in committee, and in the House there is HR 21. If there are others that I come across I'll let you know.
In no particular order, and simply noted as pieces of the mess, I'd point out problems with definitions of mental illness, expansions of MI and criminal history definitions, restrictions on private-party transfer of firearms, limitations on ammunition magazines, etc. all of which I could make arguments about if I had a lot of time, which I don't today, LOL.
However, this is an excellent review of the issues and having read it several times, I don't find anything in it to quibble with, so I'll let it stand as echoing my own opinions and position.
[url]http://www.gunowners.org/congress02122013.htm[/url]
Okay, in the interest of time, here goes: I believe there are three background check bills floating around. Maybe there are more, but I'll let someone else find them. I'll also let someone else post any info on proposed amendments or "ideas" that are out there. Some are loonier or more dangerous than others.
Anyhoo, look on [url]www.congress.gov[/url] for info on bills, including progress reports, and summaries when they are available. Shumer's summary of S.374 just went up, I think. Shumer occassionally has to be schooled in what's in his own bills, as was necessary in 2011 on a previous attempt to "fix" the background check system. Fortunately, such schooling has had the effect that thhe current bill is "not as bad" as the previous version.
Carolyn McCarthy's earlier S.137 is up and in committee, and in the House there is HR 21. If there are others that I come across I'll let you know.
In no particular order, and simply noted as pieces of the mess, I'd point out problems with definitions of mental illness, expansions of MI and criminal history definitions, restrictions on private-party transfer of firearms, limitations on ammunition magazines, etc. all of which I could make arguments about if I had a lot of time, which I don't today, LOL.
However, this is an excellent review of the issues and having read it several times, I don't find anything in it to quibble with, so I'll let it stand as echoing my own opinions and position.
[url]http://www.gunowners.org/congress02122013.htm[/url]
16.) DParker - 03/26/2013
Yeah....what he ^ said.
17.) bluecat - 03/26/2013
Thank you!
18.) Swamp Fox - 03/26/2013
Okay, couple of corrections...fingers faster than brain today...It's H.R. 137 not Senate 137 from McCarthy. I thought I saw a summary of it in the past but I don't see it now. You might peek at the old H.R. 1781 which died a while back to see where 137 is coming from, though.
Hopefully, I have copied a proper URL if you want to see how congress.gov can make all your legislative monitoring dreams come true:
[url]http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1781[/url]
[url]http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr137[/url]
And among my several typos, it's "Schumer"...Schumer...
Hopefully, I have copied a proper URL if you want to see how congress.gov can make all your legislative monitoring dreams come true:
[url]http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr1781[/url]
[url]http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr137[/url]
And among my several typos, it's "Schumer"...Schumer...
19.) bluecat - 03/26/2013
Looks like I can add Jim Carey to the "Hollywood Dufus List"
[url]http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/25/watch-dana-loesch-slams-jim-carreys-massive-hypocrisy-on-guns-during-appearance-on-the-glenn-beck-program/[/url]
[url]http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/25/watch-dana-loesch-slams-jim-carreys-massive-hypocrisy-on-guns-during-appearance-on-the-glenn-beck-program/[/url]
20.) DParker - 03/26/2013
[QUOTE=bluecat;3928]Looks like I can add Jim Carey to the "Hollywood Dufus List"
[URL]http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/25/watch-dana-loesch-slams-jim-carreys-massive-hypocrisy-on-guns-during-appearance-on-the-glenn-beck-program/[/URL][/QUOTE]
"Add"? You mean, he wasn't already? I'm betting that he and his now-ex-wife have put more kids' lives in danger with their dumbassed "vaccination causes autism" crusade than have all the AR-15s in the country combined.
[URL]http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/25/watch-dana-loesch-slams-jim-carreys-massive-hypocrisy-on-guns-during-appearance-on-the-glenn-beck-program/[/URL][/QUOTE]
"Add"? You mean, he wasn't already? I'm betting that he and his now-ex-wife have put more kids' lives in danger with their dumbassed "vaccination causes autism" crusade than have all the AR-15s in the country combined.
21.) DParker - 03/26/2013
On the same subject....
eBay user selling autographed Jim Carrey photo to fund gun purchase:
[URL]http://gunssavelives.net/blog/ebay-user-selling-autographed-jim-carrey-picture-to-fund-gun-purchase-to-protect-family/#[/URL]
eBay user selling autographed Jim Carrey photo to fund gun purchase:
[URL]http://gunssavelives.net/blog/ebay-user-selling-autographed-jim-carrey-picture-to-fund-gun-purchase-to-protect-family/#[/URL]
22.) bluecat - 03/26/2013
Now that is funny.
23.) Swamp Fox - 03/26/2013
I believe one of the things Jim Carrey is famous for is talking out of his ass...
One of his major skills, even.
:wink
:bad:
One of his major skills, even.
:wink
:bad:
24.) Jon - 03/26/2013
Hope he chokes on a Labatts Bleu
25.) Floyd - 03/27/2013
His disrespect went further than just Mr. Heston.
26.) bluecat - 03/27/2013
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;3955]I believe one of the things Jim Carrey is famous for is talking out of his ass...
One of his major skills, even.
:wink
:bad:[/QUOTE]
Swamp, you know it's true, he can't lie.
He was quoted as saying that we live in a violent society and that we needed to solve our differences without guns.
So the next time a drug deal goes bad, we need to remember to count to 3.
One of his major skills, even.
:wink
:bad:[/QUOTE]
Swamp, you know it's true, he can't lie.
He was quoted as saying that we live in a violent society and that we needed to solve our differences without guns.
So the next time a drug deal goes bad, we need to remember to count to 3.
27.) DParker - 03/27/2013
[QUOTE=Floyd;3972]His disrespect went further than just Mr. Heston.[/QUOTE]
What's really ironic about Hollywood liberals trashing Charleton Heston is that he was a sincere civil rights activist who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. well before it was cool for white celebrities to be civil rights activists...
[video=youtube;MruG888gH50]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MruG888gH50[/video]
What's really ironic about Hollywood liberals trashing Charleton Heston is that he was a sincere civil rights activist who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. well before it was cool for white celebrities to be civil rights activists...
[video=youtube;MruG888gH50]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MruG888gH50[/video]
28.) DParker - 03/27/2013
I've been watching this young guy's YouTube channel for a little while. He's one of the NRA's new spokesman (a smart move on their part) and, while his commentaries doen't consist of any heavy insight, and I don't always agree with him, he's sharp...and a refreshing change of pace from all of the left-wing groupthink that dominates his age and racial demographic.
[video=youtube;8d5hAvqO-u4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8d5hAvqO-u4[/video]
[video=youtube;8d5hAvqO-u4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8d5hAvqO-u4[/video]
29.) Swamp Fox - 04/05/2013
Tom Coburn (R-Ok) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are trying to come up with an addition to the background check system, affecting private sellers:
"When it comes to Coburn and Schumer's talks, sources familiar with the specifics tell CNN that what Coburn has proposed is something he calls a "portal" for background checks outside gun stores – like gun shows and other private sales.
The way the "portal" would work is that a gun buyer would go to a website, fill out personal information and, if that buyer has no criminal record or history of mental illness, would get a green light to buy a gun. The buyer would print out that approval and bring it to the gun show, or wherever the private sale is conducted.
To set up the portal system, it would cost federal dollars and would mean using a government system to maintain.
Still, sources say Democratic gun control advocates could find a way to support this Coburn idea.
The biggest problem – according to sources on both sides of the issue – is what to do about records from these checks.
Coburn does not want to require the seller in a private transaction to keep a record of the background check. Gun control advocates argue there must be a way to keep a paper record of the private sale – just like licensed gun dealers do – in order to enforce the background check and trace the gun sale if it's used in a crime.
CNN is told that Schumer had proposed the idea of asking a third party – perhaps gun manufacturers – to hold onto the background check records, but Coburn refused.
According to sources on both sides, no one is advocating a central registry of the background check."
Full article:
[url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/03/deal-on-background-checks-still-possible/?hpt=hp_bn3[/url]
"When it comes to Coburn and Schumer's talks, sources familiar with the specifics tell CNN that what Coburn has proposed is something he calls a "portal" for background checks outside gun stores – like gun shows and other private sales.
The way the "portal" would work is that a gun buyer would go to a website, fill out personal information and, if that buyer has no criminal record or history of mental illness, would get a green light to buy a gun. The buyer would print out that approval and bring it to the gun show, or wherever the private sale is conducted.
To set up the portal system, it would cost federal dollars and would mean using a government system to maintain.
Still, sources say Democratic gun control advocates could find a way to support this Coburn idea.
The biggest problem – according to sources on both sides of the issue – is what to do about records from these checks.
Coburn does not want to require the seller in a private transaction to keep a record of the background check. Gun control advocates argue there must be a way to keep a paper record of the private sale – just like licensed gun dealers do – in order to enforce the background check and trace the gun sale if it's used in a crime.
CNN is told that Schumer had proposed the idea of asking a third party – perhaps gun manufacturers – to hold onto the background check records, but Coburn refused.
According to sources on both sides, no one is advocating a central registry of the background check."
Full article:
[url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/03/deal-on-background-checks-still-possible/?hpt=hp_bn3[/url]
30.) DParker - 04/08/2013
Couple this with Obama ferrying the grieving Newtown parents on AF-1 to pimp this bill and now it just appears to be a contest to see who can put on the most disgusting display of swimming in the blood of "20 little babies" in regards to a bill that has absolutely nothing to do with what got them killed.
Add to that the irony of Reid's charges when he wouldn't allow a vote on Feinstein's AWB so he could prevent the embarrassment caused by the fact that he couldn't even get a simply majority in favor of it with his own party in control of the Senate.
[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/reid-says-republicans-seem-afraid-gun-control-debate-203026066--abc-news-politics.html"]http://news.yahoo.com/reid-says-republicans-seem-afraid-gun-control-debate-203026066--abc-news-politics.html[/URL]
Add to that the irony of Reid's charges when he wouldn't allow a vote on Feinstein's AWB so he could prevent the embarrassment caused by the fact that he couldn't even get a simply majority in favor of it with his own party in control of the Senate.
[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/reid-says-republicans-seem-afraid-gun-control-debate-203026066--abc-news-politics.html"]http://news.yahoo.com/
31.) Pa bowhunter - 04/09/2013
III%, is where i stand.:tu:
32.) XJCraver - 04/09/2013
I'm still fairly sure that if something passes the Senate, it's DOA in the House. And it'll probably cost a couple Senators their seats next year.
At least, that's what I'm hoping for... :pray:
At least, that's what I'm hoping for... :pray:
33.) DParker - 04/10/2013
OK, so I've been reading up on this Manchin/Toomey "compromise" on BGCs that's been in the news all day. While real details are still a bit sketchy at this point, and of course the devil is always in the details...if what's eventually hammered out matches the description of the compromise that's been published so far this might be something that I could actually get behind. Here's why...
While, as I said, we still need to know the exact details and the wording of the resulting bill, everything I've read so far indicates that the following high-level summary by the AP accurately captures the essence of the proposal:
[QUOTE]Currently, the background check system covers sales only by licensed gun dealers. The compromise would apply the system to all commercial sales, such as transactions at gun shows and online. The sales would have to be channeled through licensed firearms dealers, who would have to keep records of the transactions.
Private transactions that are not for profit, such as those between relatives, would be exempt from background checks.[/QUOTE]
Though sources closer to the negotiation say that transfers between "friends" and/or "neighbors" would also be exempt (essentially only transactions between strangers are covered). So, basically, the only substantive change from the status quo is that the relatively small % of non-FFL firearms sales that take place at gun shows and via internet mechanisms will now be subject to the same BCG as FFL transactions. Granted, that's something of an infringement, and one that's not going to do much good. But it's a relatively minor infringement that I think is ultimately a net win for our side. Why? Because it allows the anti-gun activists to claim a win. Nay, it practically FORCES them to do that, because the alternative is to claim the measure is not a useful one and does not represent any real concession by our side, which would then force them to admit that their "gun show loophole" rhetoric is the giant lie that it's always been. But more importantly it forces them to acknowledge that we are in fact willing to implement "common sense" legislation This then allows them to do their little victory dance and come out of this whole mess with something to show for it (at least as far as they and the generally ignorant public is concerned), when in fact we're sacrificing almost nothing for it, and takes much of the pressure off the blue state reps to "DO SOMETHING!".
At least, that's my first-blush take on the matter so far.
While, as I said, we still need to know the exact details and the wording of the resulting bill, everything I've read so far indicates that the following high-level summary by the AP accurately captures the essence of the proposal:
[QUOTE]Currently, the background check system covers sales only by licensed gun dealers. The compromise would apply the system to all commercial sales, such as transactions at gun shows and online. The sales would have to be channeled through licensed firearms dealers, who would have to keep records of the transactions.
Private transactions that are not for profit, such as those between relatives, would be exempt from background checks.[/QUOTE]
Though sources closer to the negotiation say that transfers between "friends" and/or "neighbors" would also be exempt (essentially only transactions between strangers are covered). So, basically, the only substantive change from the status quo is that the relatively small % of non-FFL firearms sales that take place at gun shows and via internet mechanisms will now be subject to the same BCG as FFL transactions. Granted, that's something of an infringement, and one that's not going to do much good. But it's a relatively minor infringement that I think is ultimately a net win for our side. Why? Because it allows the anti-gun activists to claim a win. Nay, it practically FORCES them to do that, because the alternative is to claim the measure is not a useful one and does not represent any real concession by our side, which would then force them to admit that their "gun show loophole" rhetoric is the giant lie that it's always been. But more importantly it forces them to acknowledge that we are in fact willing to implement "common sense" legislation This then allows them to do their little victory dance and come out of this whole mess with something to show for it (at least as far as they and the generally ignorant public is concerned), when in fact we're sacrificing almost nothing for it, and takes much of the pressure off the blue state reps to "DO SOMETHING!".
At least, that's my first-blush take on the matter so far.
34.) DParker - 04/10/2013
Some more in-depth info from Manchin's web site (though we'll still need the text of the resulting bill in order to make a final determination on it, this is a good start):
[QUOTE]The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act
Our bill does three major things: 1) expands the existing background check system to cover commercial sales, including sales at gun shows and internet sales; 2) strengthens the existing instant check system by encouraging states to put all their available records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS); 3) establishes a National Commission on Mass Violence to study in-depth all the causes of mass violence in our country.
1. Leveling the playing field for gun sales:
• Under current law, if you buy a gun at a gun show from a licensed dealer, you have to undergo a background check by that dealer. But you can go to a non-dealer table at the gun show, or into the parking lot, and buy a gun without a background check.
o Our bill ensures that anyone buying a gun at a gun show has to undergo a background check by a licensed dealer.
• Under current law, if you buy a gun online interstate (from one state to another), the gun must be shipped to a licensed dealer, you must go to that dealer and get a background check before you purchase the gun. However, for intrastate (in the same state) sales, no background check is required and you can sell the gun to the person without ever meeting face-to-face.
o Our bill requires that the current system for interstate sales be expanded to cover intrastate sales as well—so all purchasers buying guns online must undergo a background check by a licensed dealer.
• As under current law, background checks are performed by licensed dealers, and recordkeeping will not change—dealers will keep the records in bound books, like they do now. The federal government cannot keep records.
• Our bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a registry and creates a new penalty for misusing records to create a registry—a felony punishable by 15 years in prison.
• As under current law, temporary transfers do not require background checks, so, for example, you can loan your hunting rifle to your buddy without any new restrictions or requirements.
• As under current law, transfers between family, friends, and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your coworker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check.
• Our bill also fixes problems in current law that unfairly limit the Second Amendment rights of law abiding gun owners by:
o Allowing interstate handgun sales from licensed dealers. Outdated current law only allows interstate sales of rifles and shotguns. This will bring more sales into the background check system.
o Allowing active military to buy firearms in their home states and the state in which they are stationed. Current law restricts them to purchasing only from their duty station.
o Allowing dealer-to-dealer sales at gun shows taking place in a state in which they are not a resident. Currently these sales are only permitted for dealers from the same state in which the gun show is being held.
o Protecting sellers from lawsuits if the buyer is cleared through the expanded background checks system and the weapon is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now.
o Authorizing the use of a state concealed carry permit that has been issued within the last five years in lieu of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer because background checks are required to receive conceal carry permits.
2. Getting all the names of prohibited purchasers into the background check system
• There are serious problems currently with states not putting records into the NICS system. One tragic example: records on the Virginia Tech shooter that would have put him on the prohibited purchasers list had not been entered into the system.
• Our bill encourages states to provide all their available records to NICS by eliminating unnecessary responsibilities for states and directing future grant money towards creating systems to send records to NICS. The bill will also reduce federal funds to states that do not comply.
• Provides additional Second Amendment protections to our veterans.
• Requires that if a background check at a gun show does not result in a definitive response from NICS within 48 hours, the sale may proceed. After four years, when the NICS improvements are completed, the background check would be required to clear in 24 hours. Current law is three business days.
3. Establishes a National Commission on Mass Violence
• Creates a commission of non-elected experts in their fields who will study the causes of mass violence in the United States, looking at all aspects of the problem, including mental health, guns, school safety and portrayals of violence in the media. This broad approach is absolutely necessary to truly address our culture of violence.
WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT DO
The bill will not, in any way, shape, or form infringe upon anyone’s Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
The bill will not take away anyone’s guns.
The bill will not ban any type of firearm.
The bill will not ban or restrict the use of any kind of bullet or any size clip or magazine.
The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it explicitly prohibits it.[/QUOTE]
There are still some privacy concerns that need to be addressed when it comes to the expansion of information maintained by the NICS (things like HIPPA restrictions, etc), but it's a huge improvement over the legislative turd that Schumer and others were pushing. Overall I'm still in "Cautious Optimism" mode on this and think it has the potential of being a net win for us per my previous rationale for that.
[QUOTE]The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act
Our bill does three major things: 1) expands the existing background check system to cover commercial sales, including sales at gun shows and internet sales; 2) strengthens the existing instant check system by encouraging states to put all their available records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS); 3) establishes a National Commission on Mass Violence to study in-depth all the causes of mass violence in our country.
1. Leveling the playing field for gun sales:
• Under current law, if you buy a gun at a gun show from a licensed dealer, you have to undergo a background check by that dealer. But you can go to a non-dealer table at the gun show, or into the parking lot, and buy a gun without a background check.
o Our bill ensures that anyone buying a gun at a gun show has to undergo a background check by a licensed dealer.
• Under current law, if you buy a gun online interstate (from one state to another), the gun must be shipped to a licensed dealer, you must go to that dealer and get a background check before you purchase the gun. However, for intrastate (in the same state) sales, no background check is required and you can sell the gun to the person without ever meeting face-to-face.
o Our bill requires that the current system for interstate sales be expanded to cover intrastate sales as well—so all purchasers buying guns online must undergo a background check by a licensed dealer.
• As under current law, background checks are performed by licensed dealers, and recordkeeping will not change—dealers will keep the records in bound books, like they do now. The federal government cannot keep records.
• Our bill explicitly bans the federal government from creating a registry and creates a new penalty for misusing records to create a registry—a felony punishable by 15 years in prison.
• As under current law, temporary transfers do not require background checks, so, for example, you can loan your hunting rifle to your buddy without any new restrictions or requirements.
• As under current law, transfers between family, friends, and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your coworker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check.
• Our bill also fixes problems in current law that unfairly limit the Second Amendment rights of law abiding gun owners by:
o Allowing interstate handgun sales from licensed dealers. Outdated current law only allows interstate sales of rifles and shotguns. This will bring more sales into the background check system.
o Allowing active military to buy firearms in their home states and the state in which they are stationed. Current law restricts them to purchasing only from their duty station.
o Allowing dealer-to-dealer sales at gun shows taking place in a state in which they are not a resident. Currently these sales are only permitted for dealers from the same state in which the gun show is being held.
o Protecting sellers from lawsuits if the buyer is cleared through the expanded background checks system and the weapon is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now.
o Authorizing the use of a state concealed carry permit that has been issued within the last five years in lieu of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer because background checks are required to receive conceal carry permits.
2. Getting all the names of prohibited purchasers into the background check system
• There are serious problems currently with states not putting records into the NICS system. One tragic example: records on the Virginia Tech shooter that would have put him on the prohibited purchasers list had not been entered into the system.
• Our bill encourages states to provide all their available records to NICS by eliminating unnecessary responsibilities for states and directing future grant money towards creating systems to send records to NICS. The bill will also reduce federal funds to states that do not comply.
• Provides additional Second Amendment protections to our veterans.
• Requires that if a background check at a gun show does not result in a definitive response from NICS within 48 hours, the sale may proceed. After four years, when the NICS improvements are completed, the background check would be required to clear in 24 hours. Current law is three business days.
3. Establishes a National Commission on Mass Violence
• Creates a commission of non-elected experts in their fields who will study the causes of mass violence in the United States, looking at all aspects of the problem, including mental health, guns, school safety and portrayals of violence in the media. This broad approach is absolutely necessary to truly address our culture of violence.
WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT DO
The bill will not, in any way, shape, or form infringe upon anyone’s Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
The bill will not take away anyone’s guns.
The bill will not ban any type of firearm.
The bill will not ban or restrict the use of any kind of bullet or any size clip or magazine.
The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it explicitly prohibits it.[/QUOTE]
There are still some privacy concerns that need to be addressed when it comes to the expansion of information maintained by the NICS (things like HIPPA restrictions, etc), but it's a huge improvement over the legislative turd that Schumer and others were pushing. Overall I'm still in "Cautious Optimism" mode on this and think it has the potential of being a net win for us per my previous rationale for that.
35.) Dan-o - 04/10/2013
I don't see it as a win, but a black eye, or a minor loss at the fed level. Is it one I can live with for the sake of getting the heat off? I'd never admit it if it was. Any infringement is a loss even if it could be worse.
The loss I'm concerned with are in the blue states. Those Further divide our country into a two party system and increase the likelihood that the libertarian ideals that I believe in will never see the White House or take root in congress. Eh, the whole thing still disgusts me. If we are gonna fight, let's fight and let the supremes decide. This panty waisted political compromise and window dressing just diverts time, money, energy, and focus from issues that our government should actually be dealing with.
The loss I'm concerned with are in the blue states. Those Further divide our country into a two party system and increase the likelihood that the libertarian ideals that I believe in will never see the White House or take root in congress. Eh, the whole thing still disgusts me. If we are gonna fight, let's fight and let the supremes decide. This panty waisted political compromise and window dressing just diverts time, money, energy, and focus from issues that our government should actually be dealing with.
36.) DParker - 04/11/2013
[QUOTE=Dan-o;4941]I don't see it as a win, but a black eye, or a minor loss at the fed level. Is it one I can live with for the sake of getting the heat off? I'd never admit it if it was. Any infringement is a loss even if it could be worse.[/QUOTE]
That's why I used the term "net win"....meaning that I'm taking all results into consideration. That doesn't meant the complete absence of loss, but simply some measure of loss that is more than offset by a greater degree of gain. And in this case I think this amount of net win is about the best we could hope for in the current political climate. I'm not cheering the fact that we will have any kind of additional restrictions put in place. I'm just being a realist and attempting to look for a way to get the least bad result, which is sometime the only viable option you have. The fact is that following Aurora and Newtown Obama and the blue state politicians are in a position that they have to deliver [I]something[/I] to their suppporters, no matter how silly and ineffective it is. If this is all they can get, and it gives them an excuse to declare a win and move on to a different issue then that's to our benefit.
[QUOTE=Dan-o;4941]The loss I'm concerned with are in the blue states. Those Further divide our country into a two party system and increase the likelihood that the libertarian ideals that I believe in will never see the White House or take root in congress.[/QUOTE]
I'm with you there in principle. The problem is that real libertarianism (lower-case "l", not "L" as in the party) is already essentially doomed in the country in terms of assuming the highest seats of power, as it is scorned by those at both ends of the political spectrum...each of which wants to quash individual liberties, only different sets of liberties, and in different ways.
[QUOTE=Dan-o;4941]Eh, the whole thing still disgusts me. If we are gonna fight, let's fight and let the supremes decide.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. For instance, the nonsense that passed in NY is going have its day (or rather, dayS) in court, where I have no doubt that it will eventually get slapped down so hard it will make marks on Cuomo's face for years.
[QUOTE=Dan-o;4941]This panty waisted political compromise and window dressing just diverts time, money, energy, and focus from issues that our government should actually be dealing with.[/QUOTE]
Panty waisted political compromise is what politics is about. It's always been what politics is about, and it will always be what politics is about. Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and deal with the realities.
That's why I used the term "net win"....meaning that I'm taking all results into consideration. That doesn't meant the complete absence of loss, but simply some measure of loss that is more than offset by a greater degree of gain. And in this case I think this amount of net win is about the best we could hope for in the current political climate. I'm not cheering the fact that we will have any kind of additional restrictions put in place. I'm just being a realist and attempting to look for a way to get the least bad result, which is sometime the only viable option you have. The fact is that following Aurora and Newtown Obama and the blue state politicians are in a position that they have to deliver [I]something[/I] to their suppporters, no matter how silly and ineffective it is. If this is all they can get, and it gives them an excuse to declare a win and move on to a different issue then that's to our benefit.
[QUOTE=Dan-o;4941]The loss I'm concerned with are in the blue states. Those Further divide our country into a two party system and increase the likelihood that the libertarian ideals that I believe in will never see the White House or take root in congress.[/QUOTE]
I'm with you there in principle. The problem is that real libertarianism (lower-case "l", not "L" as in the party) is already essentially doomed in the country in terms of assuming the highest seats of power, as it is scorned by those at both ends of the political spectrum...each of which wants to quash individual liberties, only different sets of liberties, and in different ways.
[QUOTE=Dan-o;4941]Eh, the whole thing still disgusts me. If we are gonna fight, let's fight and let the supremes decide.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. For instance, the nonsense that passed in NY is going have its day (or rather, dayS) in court, where I have no doubt that it will eventually get slapped down so hard it will make marks on Cuomo's face for years.
[QUOTE=Dan-o;4941]This panty waisted political compromise and window dressing just diverts time, money, energy, and focus from issues that our government should actually be dealing with.[/QUOTE]
Panty waisted political compromise is what politics is about. It's always been what politics is about, and it will always be what politics is about. Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and deal with the realities.
37.) Go Bucks - 04/11/2013
my biggest fear of any new regulation is the misinterpretation and invalid enforcement by the local government and overzealous LEO's. Once they pounce, it will get very expensive to defend in court what appears to be a potential felony conviction. WHo needs that? Secondly, the rules are so numerous and conflicting as they are, anytime someone carries or transacts a firearm, they better intimately know the landscape or they are at risk. Third, my gut is it will be taken as guilty until proven innocent by any progressive judge and jury. Heavens knows there are too many of those.
Among other things, the other side is looking to create an environment that is so convoluted, even the best intentioned people will prefer to avoid firearms altogether.
Nothing above is a win. Its just not as bad as it could be. In football terms, we lost 10-3 instead of 50-0 and never touching the ball.
Among other things, the other side is looking to create an environment that is so convoluted, even the best intentioned people will prefer to avoid firearms altogether.
Nothing above is a win. Its just not as bad as it could be. In football terms, we lost 10-3 instead of 50-0 and never touching the ball.
38.) DParker - 04/11/2013
[QUOTE=Go Bucks;4943]my biggest fear of any new regulation is the misinterpretation and invalid enforcement by the local government and overzealous LEO's. Once they pounce, it will get very expensive to defend in court plus what appears to be a potential felony conviction. Secondly, the rules are so numerous and conflicting as they are, anytime someone carries or transacts a firearm, they better intimately know the landscape or they are at risk. Third, my gut is it will be taken as guilty until proven innocent by any progressive judge and jury. Heavens knows there are too many of those.
Among other things, the other side is looking to create an environment that is so convoluted, even the best intentioned people will prefer to avoid firearms altogether.
Nothing above is a win. Its just not as bad as it could be. In football terms, we lost 10-3 instead of 50-0 and never touching the ball.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's an apt analogy. In sports the concept of win vs loss is absolute. There are no degrees, regardless of the score, and the desired outcome for each team is always exactly the same: Put one in the "W" column. By how much is irrelevant.
Here, I'm measuring a "win" in terms of what the realistically possible outcomes are given the current situation. Denying the anti-gun forces ANYTHING and jumping in their faces while chanting "Neener, neener, neener!" would be great...but it's just not a realistic expectation.
Among other things, the other side is looking to create an environment that is so convoluted, even the best intentioned people will prefer to avoid firearms altogether.
Nothing above is a win. Its just not as bad as it could be. In football terms, we lost 10-3 instead of 50-0 and never touching the ball.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's an apt analogy. In sports the concept of win vs loss is absolute. There are no degrees, regardless of the score, and the desired outcome for each team is always exactly the same: Put one in the "W" column. By how much is irrelevant.
Here, I'm measuring a "win" in terms of what the realistically possible outcomes are given the current situation. Denying the anti-gun forces ANYTHING and jumping in their faces while chanting "Neener, neener, neener!" would be great...but it's just not a realistic expectation.
39.) Go Bucks - 04/11/2013
[QUOTE=DParker;4944]I don't think that's an apt analogy. In sports the concept of win vs loss is absolute. There are no degrees, regardless of the score, and the desired outcome for each team is always exactly the same: Put one in the "W" column. By how much is irrelevant.
Here, I'm measuring a "win" in terms of what the realistically possible outcomes are given the current situation. Denying the anti-gun forces ANYTHING and jumping in their faces while chanting "Neener, neener, neener!" would be great...but it's just not a realistic expectation.[/QUOTE]
I am not sure the term you may use, but I call it appeasement... not exactly the best way to make law. Unless there is a way to get the mentally unstable on the list, the list doesn't exactly accomplish much. They reference one shooting meaning one point makes a trend.
let me make a prediction then... there will be confiscations, arrests, and possible convictions of typically law abiding citizens, without so much as a traffic ticket on their record. as these new rules are tried and tested, there will be some carnage. once that starts happening, let me know if you think there was a "win." if it does not happen, I relinquish.
Here, I'm measuring a "win" in terms of what the realistically possible outcomes are given the current situation. Denying the anti-gun forces ANYTHING and jumping in their faces while chanting "Neener, neener, neener!" would be great...but it's just not a realistic expectation.[/QUOTE]
I am not sure the term you may use, but I call it appeasement... not exactly the best way to make law. Unless there is a way to get the mentally unstable on the list, the list doesn't exactly accomplish much. They reference one shooting meaning one point makes a trend.
let me make a prediction then... there will be confiscations, arrests, and possible convictions of typically law abiding citizens, without so much as a traffic ticket on their record. as these new rules are tried and tested, there will be some carnage. once that starts happening, let me know if you think there was a "win." if it does not happen, I relinquish.
40.) DParker - 04/11/2013
[QUOTE=Go Bucks;4945]I am not sure the term you may use, but I call it appeasement... not exactly the best way to make law.[/QUOTE]
In theory, no. But in the real world it's pretty much how ALL law is made in a democracy.
[QUOTE=Go Bucks;4945]Unless there is a way to get the mentally unstable on the list, the list doesn't exactly accomplish much.[/QUOTE]
I already said that it doesn't really accomplish much....except for allowing the anti-gun forces to pretend they've accomplished something and take the heat of their Congress critters...which is a good thing for us. That's a great deal of the "win" part. You should also read the parts about relaxing of several current restrictions, which are also to our benefit.
[QUOTE=Go Bucks;4945]They reference one shooting meaning one point makes a trend.[/QUOTE]
You lost me here.
[QUOTE=Go Bucks;4945]let me make a prediction then... there will be confiscations, arrests, and possible convictions of typically law abiding citizens, without so much as a traffic ticket on their record. as these new rules are tried and tested, there will be some carnage. once that starts happening, let me know if you think there was a "win." if it does not happen, I relinquish.[/QUOTE]
Confiscations? I don't think you're talking about the same proposal I'm talking about.
In theory, no. But in the real world it's pretty much how ALL law is made in a democracy.
[QUOTE=Go Bucks;4945]Unless there is a way to get the mentally unstable on the list, the list doesn't exactly accomplish much.[/QUOTE]
I already said that it doesn't really accomplish much....except for allowing the anti-gun forces to pretend they've accomplished something and take the heat of their Congress critters...which is a good thing for us. That's a great deal of the "win" part. You should also read the parts about relaxing of several current restrictions, which are also to our benefit.
[QUOTE=Go Bucks;4945]They reference one shooting meaning one point makes a trend.[/QUOTE]
You lost me here.
[QUOTE=Go Bucks;4945]let me make a prediction then... there will be confiscations, arrests, and possible convictions of typically law abiding citizens, without so much as a traffic ticket on their record. as these new rules are tried and tested, there will be some carnage. once that starts happening, let me know if you think there was a "win." if it does not happen, I relinquish.[/QUOTE]
Confiscations? I don't think you're talking about the same proposal I'm talking about.
41.) Go Bucks - 04/11/2013
"• There are serious problems currently with states not putting records into the NICS system. One tragic example: records on the Virginia Tech shooter that would have put him on the prohibited purchasers list had not been entered into the system."
--- what about the rest, particularly the last events that brought this argument to the forefront. this is appeasement, not addressing the cause.
Confiscations: its not the law as written per se, its the varied and perhaps whacky interpretations of all of these types of laws. a guy gets popped, the LEO's go after the rest of his weapons based on the arrest, right or wrong he has to put up an expensive fight. those fights will go on until case law is established. if we lose the case law, it may not matter much what the written rule of the law may be. if case law is established in California, we all have to live with it as it goes through the appeals process.
this is a classic case of incremental progress and there is no appeasing the antis. any new law is a win and only renews their confidence. they will now ratchet up the attacks.
--- what about the rest, particularly the last events that brought this argument to the forefront. this is appeasement, not addressing the cause.
Confiscations: its not the law as written per se, its the varied and perhaps whacky interpretations of all of these types of laws. a guy gets popped, the LEO's go after the rest of his weapons based on the arrest, right or wrong he has to put up an expensive fight. those fights will go on until case law is established. if we lose the case law, it may not matter much what the written rule of the law may be. if case law is established in California, we all have to live with it as it goes through the appeals process.
this is a classic case of incremental progress and there is no appeasing the antis. any new law is a win and only renews their confidence. they will now ratchet up the attacks.
42.) DParker - 04/11/2013
[QUOTE=Go Bucks;4947]"• There are serious problems currently with states not putting records into the NICS system. One tragic example: records on the Virginia Tech shooter that would have put him on the prohibited purchasers list had not been entered into the system."
--- what about the rest, particularly the last events that brought this argument to the forefront. this is appeasement, not addressing the cause.[/QUOTE]
You're arguing against a point that I've never made. I'm not claiming that the proposal accomplishes anything useful with regard to preventing any type of violent crime. I quite explicitely said that it wouldn't accomplish anything of substance.
[quote]Confiscations: its not the law as written per se, its the varied and perhaps whacky interpretations of all of these types of laws. a guy gets popped, the LEO's go after the rest of his weapons based on the arrest, right or wrong he has to put up an expensive fight.[/quote]
Well then, we'd better wipe all laws off the books. There isn't a single one that couldn't be extremely contorted and abused by some idiotic/power-mad cop/judge. Or...we could try to assess the likely impact of proposed legislation based on a rational examination of what it actually says.
[quote]those fights will go on until case law is established. if we lose the case law, it may not matter much what the written rule of the law may be. if case law is established in California, we all have to live with it as it goes through the appeals process.[/quote]
That's not how federal case law works.
[quote]this is a classic case of incremental progress and there is no appeasing the antis. any new law is a win and only renews their confidence. they will now ratchet up the attacks.[/quote]
Maybe you haven't been following what's been happening in Congress since December. The antis have already shot their wad, throwing everything they had at more new gun control bills than you can shake a stick at. And yet, in spite of more favorable timing than they could have hoped for, following multiple horrific mass shootings, they couldn't even get anything to the floor for a vote because they didn't have enough votes...in a Democrat controlled Senate. And not a prayer of getting anything that wasn't already dead on arrival in the House. This is a consolation prize, at best.
--- what about the rest, particularly the last events that brought this argument to the forefront. this is appeasement, not addressing the cause.[/QUOTE]
You're arguing against a point that I've never made. I'm not claiming that the proposal accomplishes anything useful with regard to preventing any type of violent crime. I quite explicitely said that it wouldn't accomplish anything of substance.
[quote]Confiscations: its not the law as written per se, its the varied and perhaps whacky interpretations of all of these types of laws. a guy gets popped, the LEO's go after the rest of his weapons based on the arrest, right or wrong he has to put up an expensive fight.[/quote]
Well then, we'd better wipe all laws off the books. There isn't a single one that couldn't be extremely contorted and abused by some idiotic/power-mad cop/judge. Or...we could try to assess the likely impact of proposed legislation based on a rational examination of what it actually says.
[quote]those fights will go on until case law is established. if we lose the case law, it may not matter much what the written rule of the law may be. if case law is established in California, we all have to live with it as it goes through the appeals process.[/quote]
That's not how federal case law works.
[quote]this is a classic case of incremental progress and there is no appeasing the antis. any new law is a win and only renews their confidence. they will now ratchet up the attacks.[/quote]
Maybe you haven't been following what's been happening in Congress since December. The antis have already shot their wad, throwing everything they had at more new gun control bills than you can shake a stick at. And yet, in spite of more favorable timing than they could have hoped for, following multiple horrific mass shootings, they couldn't even get anything to the floor for a vote because they didn't have enough votes...in a Democrat controlled Senate. And not a prayer of getting anything that wasn't already dead on arrival in the House. This is a consolation prize, at best.
43.) Go Bucks - 04/11/2013
back to the basics... there is no foundation for a discussion unless there is a common premise.
the premise of your position is something had to be done.
the premise of my position is something did not have to be done. like every big news event, just wait it out and people will get sidetracked and move on. Clinton mastered this art as has this administration, e.g. Benghazi. the heat had already died down and was getting weaker with time.
In the mean time, our elected officials once again proved most of them would be grotesque corporate failures. If there truly is a problem, clearly define the issue to be adjusted, clearly define the necessary outcome, and then work backwards while constantly checking if the procedures achieve the outcome. its simple goal setting.
the premise of your position is something had to be done.
the premise of my position is something did not have to be done. like every big news event, just wait it out and people will get sidetracked and move on. Clinton mastered this art as has this administration, e.g. Benghazi. the heat had already died down and was getting weaker with time.
In the mean time, our elected officials once again proved most of them would be grotesque corporate failures. If there truly is a problem, clearly define the issue to be adjusted, clearly define the necessary outcome, and then work backwards while constantly checking if the procedures achieve the outcome. its simple goal setting.
44.) bluecat - 04/11/2013
[url]http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/highway-patrol-gave-feds-missouri-weapon-permits-data/article_266b644e-a235-11e2-a8e7-0019bb30f31a.html[/url]
45.) bluecat - 04/11/2013
TheBlaze writes:
On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well. The gun owner contacted attorney Jim Tresmond (a specialist in gun laws in New York) and the two visited the local police precinct.
Mr. Tresmond reportedly went into the precinct and informed the officers that his client, waiting in the parking lot, was coming in to voluntarily surrender his weapons as requested. The local police were aware of the letter because they had already been contacted by the State Police. Apparently, if people do not respond to the initial mailing, local law enforcement is authorized to visit the gun owner at their home and demand the surrender of the firearms. In this case, the gun owner followed the request as written. The guns and permits were handed over and a receipt given to the client.
After the guns were turned over, a request for a local hearing was filed and the gun owner is expecting to have his Second Amendment rights restored. But there is more to this story.
[B]In our conversation with lawyer Jim Tresmond, we learned that this client, who has never had a problem with the law — no criminal record and or violent incidents on record — did have a temporary, short term health issue that required medication. But how were his client’s private medical information accessed by the government?[/B] This appears to be a violation of HIPAA and Health Information Privacy policies at HHS.gov. If it is declared a violation, this becomes a civil rights issue.
Some claim that a broad interpretation of this statement from HIPAA might allow the government to have instant access to the medical records and gun ownership records of anyone who is prescribed psychotropic drugs.
On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well. The gun owner contacted attorney Jim Tresmond (a specialist in gun laws in New York) and the two visited the local police precinct.
Mr. Tresmond reportedly went into the precinct and informed the officers that his client, waiting in the parking lot, was coming in to voluntarily surrender his weapons as requested. The local police were aware of the letter because they had already been contacted by the State Police. Apparently, if people do not respond to the initial mailing, local law enforcement is authorized to visit the gun owner at their home and demand the surrender of the firearms. In this case, the gun owner followed the request as written. The guns and permits were handed over and a receipt given to the client.
After the guns were turned over, a request for a local hearing was filed and the gun owner is expecting to have his Second Amendment rights restored. But there is more to this story.
[B]In our conversation with lawyer Jim Tresmond, we learned that this client, who has never had a problem with the law — no criminal record and or violent incidents on record — did have a temporary, short term health issue that required medication. But how were his client’s private medical information accessed by the government?[/B] This appears to be a violation of HIPAA and Health Information Privacy policies at HHS.gov. If it is declared a violation, this becomes a civil rights issue.
Some claim that a broad interpretation of this statement from HIPAA might allow the government to have instant access to the medical records and gun ownership records of anyone who is prescribed psychotropic drugs.
46.) DParker - 04/11/2013
[QUOTE=Go Bucks;4952]back to the basics... there is no foundation for a discussion unless there is a common premise.
the premise of your position is something had to be done.[/quote]
Well, no...that's not even close to what I said...and I don't see how you could read that in any of what I wrote. What I [i]did[/i] say was that the White House and blue state representatives are under intense pressure to "do something", and verbally committed them selves to delivering [i]something[/i] on the issue as a result of all the knee-jerk emotional rhetoric that came out after Newtown. Since they know they're not going to win on the more draconian proposals at the federal level they now just need a way to save face and not have to face their constituancies completely empty-handed. Otherwise they're committed to continuw pressing for something and, if they don't get anything then they can say, "See? We tried to take measures to prevent these things but those evil Republicans stopped us because they hate your children."
A watered-down compromise like the one in question does nothing to address the real issue, but it does give them something they can claim a victory on, thus relieving the most intense pressure to "DO SOMETHING!!!", while doing almost zero damage to us (and we even get a few improvements as a bonus). It also makes for a warm-and-fuzzy celebration of faux bi-partisanship. AND, as a bit of poetic justice, they can't claim that they didn't get anything significant out of it, having peddled the "gun show loophole" clap-trap for so long...thus hoisting themselves on their own petard.
THAT is my premise.
the premise of your position is something had to be done.[/quote]
Well, no...that's not even close to what I said...and I don't see how you could read that in any of what I wrote. What I [i]did[/i] say was that the White House and blue state representatives are under intense pressure to "do something", and verbally committed them selves to delivering [i]something[/i] on the issue as a result of all the knee-jerk emotional rhetoric that came out after Newtown. Since they know they're not going to win on the more draconian proposals at the federal level they now just need a way to save face and not have to face their constituancies completely empty-handed. Otherwise they're committed to continuw pressing for something and, if they don't get anything then they can say, "See? We tried to take measures to prevent these things but those evil Republicans stopped us because they hate your children."
A watered-down compromise like the one in question does nothing to address the real issue, but it does give them something they can claim a victory on, thus relieving the most intense pressure to "DO SOMETHING!!!", while doing almost zero damage to us (and we even get a few improvements as a bonus). It also makes for a warm-and-fuzzy celebration of faux bi-partisanship. AND, as a bit of poetic justice, they can't claim that they didn't get anything significant out of it, having peddled the "gun show loophole" clap-trap for so long...thus hoisting themselves on their own petard.
THAT is my premise.
47.) bluecat - 04/11/2013
No, [B]this[/B] is your premise.
48.) DParker - 04/11/2013
[QUOTE=bluecat;4954]TheBlaze writes:
On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well. The gun owner contacted attorney Jim Tresmond (a specialist in gun laws in New York) and the two visited the local police precinct.
Mr. Tresmond reportedly went into the precinct and informed the officers that his client, waiting in the parking lot, was coming in to voluntarily surrender his weapons as requested. The local police were aware of the letter because they had already been contacted by the State Police. Apparently, if people do not respond to the initial mailing, local law enforcement is authorized to visit the gun owner at their home and demand the surrender of the firearms. In this case, the gun owner followed the request as written. The guns and permits were handed over and a receipt given to the client.
After the guns were turned over, a request for a local hearing was filed and the gun owner is expecting to have his Second Amendment rights restored. But there is more to this story.
[B]In our conversation with lawyer Jim Tresmond, we learned that this client, who has never had a problem with the law — no criminal record and or violent incidents on record — did have a temporary, short term health issue that required medication. But how were his client’s private medical information accessed by the government?[/B] This appears to be a violation of HIPAA and Health Information Privacy policies at HHS.gov. If it is declared a violation, this becomes a civil rights issue.
Some claim that a broad interpretation of this statement from HIPAA might allow the government to have instant access to the medical records and gun ownership records of anyone who is prescribed psychotropic drugs.[/QUOTE]
Hence my original caveat:
[QUOTE]There are still some privacy concerns that need to be addressed when it comes to the expansion of information maintained by the NICS (things like HIPPA restrictions, etc)[/QUOTE]
On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well. The gun owner contacted attorney Jim Tresmond (a specialist in gun laws in New York) and the two visited the local police precinct.
Mr. Tresmond reportedly went into the precinct and informed the officers that his client, waiting in the parking lot, was coming in to voluntarily surrender his weapons as requested. The local police were aware of the letter because they had already been contacted by the State Police. Apparently, if people do not respond to the initial mailing, local law enforcement is authorized to visit the gun owner at their home and demand the surrender of the firearms. In this case, the gun owner followed the request as written. The guns and permits were handed over and a receipt given to the client.
After the guns were turned over, a request for a local hearing was filed and the gun owner is expecting to have his Second Amendment rights restored. But there is more to this story.
[B]In our conversation with lawyer Jim Tresmond, we learned that this client, who has never had a problem with the law — no criminal record and or violent incidents on record — did have a temporary, short term health issue that required medication. But how were his client’s private medical information accessed by the government?[/B] This appears to be a violation of HIPAA and Health Information Privacy policies at HHS.gov. If it is declared a violation, this becomes a civil rights issue.
Some claim that a broad interpretation of this statement from HIPAA might allow the government to have instant access to the medical records and gun ownership records of anyone who is prescribed psychotropic drugs.[/QUOTE]
Hence my original caveat:
[QUOTE]There are still some privacy concerns that need to be addressed when it comes to the expansion of information maintained by the NICS (things like HIPPA restrictions, etc)[/QUOTE]
49.) DParker - 04/11/2013
[QUOTE=bluecat;4958]No, [B]this[/B] is your premise.
[/QUOTE]
I just farted in your general direction, and I'm about to say "Ni!" to you.
[/QUOTE]
I just farted in your general direction, and I'm about to say "Ni!" to you.
50.) Swamp Fox - 04/11/2013
I just skimmed all this, so maybe I'll be back with something more intelligent later...LOL...
But for right now, my concern is with feeding the beast that is never satisfied. No number of laws is too few for the beast, even when the laws will have no effect or are simply aimed at controlling the easy targets--the controllable--i.e., the law-abiding.
Do I have to go through a BGC when I see a friend selling at a gun show? We're not strangers, he's not an FFL dealer, but the gun show locale makes everything different? I post a notice "on the church bulletin board" and ten years from now the antis are giving us all a migraine with " the chuch bulletin board loophole"? I'm sure they love the "friends and family plan" already.
In general, I don't approve of making laws just for the sake of making laws. Not only does it create a mess, but it eventually becomes so burdensome that even the well-intentioned finally give up and say "F it". Many become law-breakers and line-walkers out of sheer frustration. Some laws just create reactions of disrespect for "the law", and the cumulative burden of so many nit-pickers in the legislatures has us well on the way to a contempt and disregard for the government, to say nothing of [I]small[/I] government.
But for right now, my concern is with feeding the beast that is never satisfied. No number of laws is too few for the beast, even when the laws will have no effect or are simply aimed at controlling the easy targets--the controllable--i.e., the law-abiding.
Do I have to go through a BGC when I see a friend selling at a gun show? We're not strangers, he's not an FFL dealer, but the gun show locale makes everything different? I post a notice "on the church bulletin board" and ten years from now the antis are giving us all a migraine with " the chuch bulletin board loophole"? I'm sure they love the "friends and family plan" already.
In general, I don't approve of making laws just for the sake of making laws. Not only does it create a mess, but it eventually becomes so burdensome that even the well-intentioned finally give up and say "F it". Many become law-breakers and line-walkers out of sheer frustration. Some laws just create reactions of disrespect for "the law", and the cumulative burden of so many nit-pickers in the legislatures has us well on the way to a contempt and disregard for the government, to say nothing of [I]small[/I] government.
51.) DParker - 04/11/2013
[QUOTE][B]In our conversation with lawyer Jim Tresmond, we learned that this client, who has never had a problem with the law — no criminal record and or violent incidents on record — did have a temporary, short term health issue that required medication. But how were his client’s private medical information accessed by the government?[/B] This appears to be a violation of HIPAA and Health Information Privacy policies at HHS.gov. If it is declared a violation, this becomes a civil rights issue.[/QUOTE]
Well, this was quick.
[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/oops-york-state-police-admit-big-mistake-gun-142418295.html[/URL]
Here's the truly relevant part:
[quote]Mr. Jacobs also delivered some pointed comments about how the law was written so badly that mistakes like this were bound to happen. He closed with some fairly damning statements and also asked the state to consider scrapping the bill and re-writing it.
"When you write a piece of legislation in a vacuum, without having hearings, without talking to people about how it's going to implemented in the real world -- without jeopardizing people's rights, and putting an individual like this through a nightmarish experience, and infringe on their rights, you have to go back to the drawing board," he said. "And I encourage the legislative leadership here and mostly our governor to take a step back and say 'we didn't get it right' and let's change this."[/quote]
The problem here was not with some law enforcement agency or judge maliciously taking creative license with interpretation of the statute...it was with the rushed (and downright stupid) way in which the statute was cobbled together and sloppily worded. Which is why I said that the devil is in the details and that we need to wait to see the actual text of any proposed legislation before making a final determination on it. What I've offered so far is simply an assessment of the proposal in principal. It still has to be worded correctly and survive the amendment process without being modified in any excessively damaging way.
Well, this was quick.
[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/oops-york-state-police-admit-big-mistake-gun-142418295.html[/URL]
Here's the truly relevant part:
[quote]Mr. Jacobs also delivered some pointed comments about how the law was written so badly that mistakes like this were bound to happen. He closed with some fairly damning statements and also asked the state to consider scrapping the bill and re-writing it.
"When you write a piece of legislation in a vacuum, without having hearings, without talking to people about how it's going to implemented in the real world -- without jeopardizing people's rights, and putting an individual like this through a nightmarish experience, and infringe on their rights, you have to go back to the drawing board," he said. "And I encourage the legislative leadership here and mostly our governor to take a step back and say 'we didn't get it right' and let's change this."[/quote]
The problem here was not with some law enforcement agency or judge maliciously taking creative license with interpretation of the statute...it was with the rushed (and downright stupid) way in which the statute was cobbled together and sloppily worded. Which is why I said that the devil is in the details and that we need to wait to see the actual text of any proposed legislation before making a final determination on it. What I've offered so far is simply an assessment of the proposal in principal. It still has to be worded correctly and survive the amendment process without being modified in any excessively damaging way.
52.) DParker - 04/11/2013
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;4965]I just skimmed all this, so maybe I'll be back with something more intelligent later...LOL...
But for right now, my concern is with feeding the beast that is never satisfied. No number of laws is too few for the beast, even when the laws will have no effect or are simply aimed at controlling the easy targets--the controllable--i.e., the law-abiding.
[B][COLOR=#0000ff]Do I have to go through a BGC when I see a friend selling at a gun show? We're not strangers, he's not an FFL dealer, but the gun show locale makes everything different?[/COLOR][/B] I post a notice "on the church bulletin board" and ten years from now the antis are giving us all a migraine with " the chuch bulletin board loophole"? I'm sure they love the "friends and family plan" already.
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]In general, I don't approve of making laws just for the sake of making laws.[/B][/COLOR] Not only does it create a mess, but it eventually becomes so burdensome that even the well-intentioned finally give up and say "F it". Many become law-breakers and line-walkers out of sheer frustration. Some laws just create reactions of disrespect for "the law", and the cumulative burden of so many nit-pickers in the legislatures has us well on the way to a contempt and disregard for the government, to say nothing of [I]small[/I] government.[/QUOTE]
Re: The part in [COLOR=#ff0000][B]red[/B][/COLOR]. Neither do I, nor is that why I'm looking at the proposal as a potentially favorable one for us. I'm basing my view on it being politically advantageous to our side, for the reasons I've already explained. The value here is not in making the antis happy. I know that won't happen, and couldn't care less about it. This is a battle of public perception. There is not adequate public support for federal AWBs, mag capacity limit or any of the other truly restrictive stuff the gun-control forces really want...as evidenced by the fact that they can't even get enough votes in a Democrat-controlled Senate for them, and as I said...they're DOA in the House. So on those items we can afford to simply stand our ground and "just say no." However, there IS a great deal of support for the idea of what they've termed "Universal Background Checks", as vague and essentially meaningless as that term is. This means that the Dems - and some RINOs - actually have a chance of enacting something that they can tack that label onto. Now, as we all know any such bill is not going to simply be, "All sales at gun shows must be subject to a BGC", and is going to also include whatever else Congress critters can tack on as a result of deal-making. Given that, we can either cut a deal that is ultimately more favorable to us, or we can just stonewall and take the not inconsiderable risk of them getting what they want through the Senate (eg, the Schumer version...which truly sucks) which, even if it dies in the House, ultimate has the effect of painting our side as being "unreasonable" on a popularly supported measure (even if that popular support is based on a naive and ignorant understanding of what it really is). And guess who that costs us political points with? Moderates and other gun-control agnostics who are always the target of efforts to sway public opinion on this issue. And in democratic (small "d") politics that's what matters in the long run.
Re: The part in [COLOR=#0000ff][B]blue[/B][/COLOR]. That's why I said the devil will be in the details of the final wording of the proposed legislation. That might be addressed. If not, then it's a hole that will be likely be challenged in court and struck down as unworkable.
But for right now, my concern is with feeding the beast that is never satisfied. No number of laws is too few for the beast, even when the laws will have no effect or are simply aimed at controlling the easy targets--the controllable--i.e., the law-abiding.
[B][COLOR=#0000ff]Do I have to go through a BGC when I see a friend selling at a gun show? We're not strangers, he's not an FFL dealer, but the gun show locale makes everything different?[/COLOR][/B] I post a notice "on the church bulletin board" and ten years from now the antis are giving us all a migraine with " the chuch bulletin board loophole"? I'm sure they love the "friends and family plan" already.
[COLOR=#ff0000][B]In general, I don't approve of making laws just for the sake of making laws.[/B][/COLOR] Not only does it create a mess, but it eventually becomes so burdensome that even the well-intentioned finally give up and say "F it". Many become law-breakers and line-walkers out of sheer frustration. Some laws just create reactions of disrespect for "the law", and the cumulative burden of so many nit-pickers in the legislatures has us well on the way to a contempt and disregard for the government, to say nothing of [I]small[/I] government.[/QUOTE]
Re: The part in [COLOR=#ff0000][B]red[/B][/COLOR]. Neither do I, nor is that why I'm looking at the proposal as a potentially favorable one for us. I'm basing my view on it being politically advantageous to our side, for the reasons I've already explained. The value here is not in making the antis happy. I know that won't happen, and couldn't care less about it. This is a battle of public perception. There is not adequate public support for federal AWBs, mag capacity limit or any of the other truly restrictive stuff the gun-control forces really want...as evidenced by the fact that they can't even get enough votes in a Democrat-controlled Senate for them, and as I said...they're DOA in the House. So on those items we can afford to simply stand our ground and "just say no." However, there IS a great deal of support for the idea of what they've termed "Universal Background Checks", as vague and essentially meaningless as that term is. This means that the Dems - and some RINOs - actually have a chance of enacting something that they can tack that label onto. Now, as we all know any such bill is not going to simply be, "All sales at gun shows must be subject to a BGC", and is going to also include whatever else Congress critters can tack on as a result of deal-making. Given that, we can either cut a deal that is ultimately more favorable to us, or we can just stonewall and take the not inconsiderable risk of them getting what they want through the Senate (eg, the Schumer version...which truly sucks) which, even if it dies in the House, ultimate has the effect of painting our side as being "unreasonable" on a popularly supported measure (even if that popular support is based on a naive and ignorant understanding of what it really is). And guess who that costs us political points with? Moderates and other gun-control agnostics who are always the target of efforts to sway public opinion on this issue. And in democratic (small "d") politics that's what matters in the long run.
Re: The part in [COLOR=#0000ff][B]blue[/B][/COLOR]. That's why I said the devil will be in the details of the final wording of the proposed legislation. That might be addressed. If not, then it's a hole that will be likely be challenged in court and struck down as unworkable.
53.) Go Bucks - 04/11/2013
pass the Magpul, fully loaded if you please...
54.) DParker - 04/11/2013
I should add a correction here: I've incorrectly referred to the compromise in question as a proposal for a "bill". It is in fact a proposal for an amendment to S. 649 (titled "Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of2013"). That bill, bereft of the proposed amendment (the text of which can be read here: [URL]http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s649/text[/URL]), is a steaming pile of bovine fecal matter primarily because of the horribly implemented provisions on firearms transfers. The proposed amendment addresses that.
55.) DParker - 04/11/2013
[QUOTE=Go Bucks;4972]pass the Magpul, fully loaded if you please...[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but I've only got 10 myself.
Sorry, but I've only got 10 myself.
56.) Go Bucks - 04/11/2013
[QUOTE=DParker;4974]Sorry, but I've only got 10 myself.[/QUOTE]
hoarder
hoarder
57.) DParker - 04/11/2013
[QUOTE=Go Bucks;4975]hoarder[/QUOTE]
I keep waiting for my own episode, but they never call. :(
You should see my stash of primers, powder and .223 brass.
I keep waiting for my own episode, but they never call. :(
You should see my stash of primers, powder and .223 brass.
58.) Swamp Fox - 04/11/2013
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;4965]
But for right now, my concern is with feeding the beast that is never satisfied. No number of laws is too few for the beast, even when the laws will have no effect or are simply aimed at controlling the easy targets--the controllable--i.e., the law-abiding.
QUOTE]
Correction: No number of laws is too [COLOR="#FF0000"]many[/COLOR] for the beast...many...
I'd say sorry for the brain fart, but it was more like a finger fart...
So, sorry 'bout THAT.
:-)
But for right now, my concern is with feeding the beast that is never satisfied. No number of laws is too few for the beast, even when the laws will have no effect or are simply aimed at controlling the easy targets--the controllable--i.e., the law-abiding.
QUOTE]
Correction: No number of laws is too [COLOR="#FF0000"]many[/COLOR] for the beast...many...
I'd say sorry for the brain fart, but it was more like a finger fart...
So, sorry 'bout THAT.
:-)
59.) Pa bowhunter - 04/12/2013
I think i might have to order a bump stock, before they go after that too, i am so mad i could spit nails.:bang::bang::bang::bang:
60.) XJCraver - 04/12/2013
I had several paragraphs typed on Liberties, Compromises, and why we've become so nonchalant about pissing our freedoms away, but deleted it for fear of the Ban Button. Too many four letter words in that conversation, methinks...
I do have one serious question: How do they propose to succeed in having this amendment meet Constitutional scrutiny? Is the FFL fee that will be required going to be another "tax", i.e. ObamaCare, or are FFL's supposed to do them for free? Am I missing something major here, or are we not talking about the Feds placing themselves firmly in the middle of intra-state commerce? All other arguments against this BS aside, this single issue seems to me substantial. No?
I do have one serious question: How do they propose to succeed in having this amendment meet Constitutional scrutiny? Is the FFL fee that will be required going to be another "tax", i.e. ObamaCare, or are FFL's supposed to do them for free? Am I missing something major here, or are we not talking about the Feds placing themselves firmly in the middle of intra-state commerce? All other arguments against this BS aside, this single issue seems to me substantial. No?
61.) DParker - 04/12/2013
Excellent questions, and certainly ones we'll see raised...and quite possibly answered in a way that strikes down that portion of the law - by the federal courts. So much the better. Passage of the bill would still have served the political purposes I described and we end up without the added infringement. Double win.
62.) bluecat - 04/12/2013
[url]http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/12/dad-furious-after-finding-this-crayon-written-paper-in-florida-4th-graders-backpack-i-am-willing-to-give-up-some-of-my-constitutional-rights/[/url]
[URL=http://s990.photobucket.com/user/mx482/media/paper_zps4f84f586.jpg.html]
[/URL]
[URL=http://s990.photobucket.com/user/mx482/media/paper_zps4f84f586.jpg.html]
[/URL]63.) Swamp Fox - 04/12/2013
"Are you smarter than a fourth-grader?"
:wink
:wink
64.) Swamp Fox - 04/15/2013
Some comments on the so-called Machin-Toomey compromise: The whole analysis is worth reading but I will point you to Item 5 on Section 117 and Items 6-8 on Section 122 if you are short on time, as these are the sections of the proposal that are most hotly contested in the debate (note I did not say "most visible in the news").
First, the comment in Item 1 is entirely on point:
"First of all, it’s pretty clear by now that the goal of Obama and Schumer is, in the words of the Brady Campaign, to put “points on the board” so they can maintain their momentum for more gun control demands. Mark Glaze of Mayors Against Illegal Guns said on MSNBC that they would be back with new demands “the day after” background checks are signed into law. So, now that we are on the verge of winning, why, in heaven’s name, would Pat Toomey try to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, hand a “win” to Barack Obama so he can credibly say he “broke the back of the gun lobby,” invigorate fundraising for anti-gun groups in 2014, let red state Democrats who are up in 2014 off the hook, and create a platform for unending gun control demands that will resume the day his bill is signed into law?"
The full commentary is here:
[url]http://gunowners.org/congress04112013.htm[/url]
Next, here are 50 problems with the Coburn/Schumer plan, much of which is still realistically in the mix:
[url]http://gunowners.org/congress04082013.htm[/url]
And finally, some big-picture background on current events from the [I]Washington Post[I], to the extent that the [I]Post[/I] can be relied upon for the big picture in an article on gun rights and gun control:
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gun-rights-group-endorses-manchin-toomey-background-check-bill/2013/04/14/f4ae8ae8-a51e-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_story.html[/url]
First, the comment in Item 1 is entirely on point:
"First of all, it’s pretty clear by now that the goal of Obama and Schumer is, in the words of the Brady Campaign, to put “points on the board” so they can maintain their momentum for more gun control demands. Mark Glaze of Mayors Against Illegal Guns said on MSNBC that they would be back with new demands “the day after” background checks are signed into law. So, now that we are on the verge of winning, why, in heaven’s name, would Pat Toomey try to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, hand a “win” to Barack Obama so he can credibly say he “broke the back of the gun lobby,” invigorate fundraising for anti-gun groups in 2014, let red state Democrats who are up in 2014 off the hook, and create a platform for unending gun control demands that will resume the day his bill is signed into law?"
The full commentary is here:
[url]http://gunowners.org/congress04112013.htm[/url]
Next, here are 50 problems with the Coburn/Schumer plan, much of which is still realistically in the mix:
[url]http://gunowners.org/congress04082013.htm[/url]
And finally, some big-picture background on current events from the [I]Washington Post[I], to the extent that the [I]Post[/I] can be relied upon for the big picture in an article on gun rights and gun control:
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gun-rights-group-endorses-manchin-toomey-background-check-bill/2013/04/14/f4ae8ae8-a51e-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_story.html[/url]
65.) DParker - 04/15/2013
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;5094]Some comments on the so-called Machin-Toomey compromise: The whole analysis is worth reading but I will point you to Item 5 on Section 117 and Items 6-8 on Section 122 if you are short on time, as these are the sections of the proposal that are most hotly contested in the debate (note I did not say "most visible in the news").
First, the comment in Item 1 is entirely on point:
"First of all, it’s pretty clear by now that the goal of Obama and Schumer is, in the words of the Brady Campaign, to put “points on the board” so they can maintain their momentum for more gun control demands. Mark Glaze of Mayors Against Illegal Guns said on MSNBC that they would be back with new demands “the day after” background checks are signed into law. So, now that we are on the verge of winning, why, in heaven’s name, would Pat Toomey try to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, hand a “win” to Barack Obama so he can credibly say he “broke the back of the gun lobby,” invigorate fundraising for anti-gun groups in 2014, let red state Democrats who are up in 2014 off the hook, and create a platform for unending gun control demands that will resume the day his bill is signed into law?"[QUOTE]
Note that this relies entirely on a quote from a MAIG representative about what they plan to do if the bill passes. I don't think anyone (and certainly not me) was suggesting that gun-control advocacy groups like MAIG were going to close up shop once they got what they would perceive to be a "win". What special interest groups plan on doing is irrelevant. They will keep doing what they always have done. What matters is broad public support, and like it or not there is broad public support for some sort of "Universal Background Check". There is NOT broad public support for the other stuff the Bloomberg and the rest of his merry band of nanny-staters want, so they can come right back the next day and make additional demands until they're blue in the face. They (and the Bradys, and the VPC, etc, etc) have been making these demands constantly ever since these groups were formed. It just doesn't matter.
And the assessment that "points on the board" will somehow provide "momentum" for more gun control is self-promoting rhetorical nonsense designed by the Brady idiots to make it appear that coming away with almost nothing to show for their efforts even following a school massacre is really just part of some cunning and shrewd strategy on their part...and not evidence of their ineffectiveness and lack of public support for what they're advocating. Public clamors for something. Public get "something". Pro-2A forces look reasonable and public shifts attention to next hot-button issue. Rinse and repeat. It's the way this stuff always plays out.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;5094]The full commentary is here:
[URL]http://gunowners.org/congress04112013.htm[/URL][/quote]
I'll come back when I have more time to go over things in detail, but right off the bat here are a couple of observations:
- "(2) SECTION 102, Finding 3: "Congress believes the Department of Justice should prosecute violations of background check requirements to the maximum extent of the law.""
I won't go into their commentary on that because it doesn't matter. The entire section is just statements of "finding", not statutory provisions. They have no force of law.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;5094]Next, here are 50 problems with the Coburn/Schumer plan, much of which is still realistically in the mix:
[URL]http://gunowners.org/congress04082013.htm[/URL][/quote]
Well, I already said that the Schumer bill is a steaming pile of crap without some signficant changes.
First, the comment in Item 1 is entirely on point:
"First of all, it’s pretty clear by now that the goal of Obama and Schumer is, in the words of the Brady Campaign, to put “points on the board” so they can maintain their momentum for more gun control demands. Mark Glaze of Mayors Against Illegal Guns said on MSNBC that they would be back with new demands “the day after” background checks are signed into law. So, now that we are on the verge of winning, why, in heaven’s name, would Pat Toomey try to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, hand a “win” to Barack Obama so he can credibly say he “broke the back of the gun lobby,” invigorate fundraising for anti-gun groups in 2014, let red state Democrats who are up in 2014 off the hook, and create a platform for unending gun control demands that will resume the day his bill is signed into law?"[QUOTE]
Note that this relies entirely on a quote from a MAIG representative about what they plan to do if the bill passes. I don't think anyone (and certainly not me) was suggesting that gun-control advocacy groups like MAIG were going to close up shop once they got what they would perceive to be a "win". What special interest groups plan on doing is irrelevant. They will keep doing what they always have done. What matters is broad public support, and like it or not there is broad public support for some sort of "Universal Background Check". There is NOT broad public support for the other stuff the Bloomberg and the rest of his merry band of nanny-staters want, so they can come right back the next day and make additional demands until they're blue in the face. They (and the Bradys, and the VPC, etc, etc) have been making these demands constantly ever since these groups were formed. It just doesn't matter.
And the assessment that "points on the board" will somehow provide "momentum" for more gun control is self-promoting rhetorical nonsense designed by the Brady idiots to make it appear that coming away with almost nothing to show for their efforts even following a school massacre is really just part of some cunning and shrewd strategy on their part...and not evidence of their ineffectiveness and lack of public support for what they're advocating. Public clamors for something. Public get "something". Pro-2A forces look reasonable and public shifts attention to next hot-button issue. Rinse and repeat. It's the way this stuff always plays out.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;5094]The full commentary is here:
[URL]http://gunowners.org/congress04112013.htm[/URL][/quote]
I'll come back when I have more time to go over things in detail, but right off the bat here are a couple of observations:
- "(2) SECTION 102, Finding 3: "Congress believes the Department of Justice should prosecute violations of background check requirements to the maximum extent of the law.""
I won't go into their commentary on that because it doesn't matter. The entire section is just statements of "finding", not statutory provisions. They have no force of law.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;5094]Next, here are 50 problems with the Coburn/Schumer plan, much of which is still realistically in the mix:
[URL]http://gunowners.org/congress04082013.htm[/URL][/quote]
Well, I already said that the Schumer bill is a steaming pile of crap without some signficant changes.
66.) Swamp Fox - 04/15/2013
[QUOTE=DParker;5107]...And the assessment that "points on the board" will somehow provide "momentum" for more gun control is self-promoting rhetorical nonsense designed by the Brady idiots to make it appear that coming away with almost nothing to show for their efforts even following a school massacre is really just part of some cunning and shrewd strategy on their part...and not evidence of their ineffectiveness and lack of public support for what they're advocating.
[/QUOTE]
LOL ...
[/QUOTE]
LOL ...
67.) huya - 04/17/2013
They really talk a lot about back round checks, But daily we here of Identity theft. So how are they going to prove that the person they are doing the back round check on, is exactly who they claim to be. They have proven it is easy to fake both fingerprints and dental records if they need to be. So you could be doing a back round check on John Doe by his ID, Yet it's really the next big mass murderer using a false ID. There is a reason they call them criminals. They don't follow the law in the first place.
68.) DParker - 04/17/2013
Well, it looks like this whole discussion is about to become quite pointless:
[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/beginning-end-expanded-background-checks-note-130234364--abc-news-politics.html[/URL]
Aaaaaaand....nice goin' Arizona:
[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/ariz-bill-passed-makes-cities-sell-turned-guns-125026520.html[/URL]
[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/beginning-end-expanded-background-checks-note-130234364--abc-news-politics.html[/URL]
Aaaaaaand....nice goin' Arizona:
[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/ariz-bill-passed-makes-cities-sell-turned-guns-125026520.html[/URL]
69.) Swamp Fox - 04/17/2013
"...Democrats argued that Republicans complain about the federal government when it requires the state to take action, yet they're quick to force local governments to do what they want.
"We hate it when the federal government mandates it to the state, and we're doing the same thing," said Sen. Lynne Pancrazi, D-Yuma..."
I think we'd make huge progress in this country--or at least staunch the bleeding---if we required a mandatory civics course before you run for office and tested for idiocy...
:re:
"We hate it when the federal government mandates it to the state, and we're doing the same thing," said Sen. Lynne Pancrazi, D-Yuma..."
I think we'd make huge progress in this country--or at least staunch the bleeding---if we required a mandatory civics course before you run for office and tested for idiocy...
:re:
70.) DParker - 04/17/2013
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;5170]"...Democrats argued that Republicans complain about the federal government when it requires the state to take action, yet they're quick to force local governments to do what they want.
"We hate it when the federal government mandates it to the state, and we're doing the same thing," said Sen. Lynne Pancrazi, D-Yuma..."
I think we'd make huge progress in this country--or at least staunch the bleeding---if we required a mandatory civics course before you run for office and tested for idiocy...
:re:[/QUOTE]
Yeah...but then you'd never be able to fill 535 seats in Congress.
"We hate it when the federal government mandates it to the state, and we're doing the same thing," said Sen. Lynne Pancrazi, D-Yuma..."
I think we'd make huge progress in this country--or at least staunch the bleeding---if we required a mandatory civics course before you run for office and tested for idiocy...
:re:[/QUOTE]
Yeah...but then you'd never be able to fill 535 seats in Congress.
71.) DParker - 04/17/2013
[QUOTE=DParker;5173]Yeah...but then you'd never be able to fill 535 seats in Congress.[/QUOTE]
Hmmmmm. I said that like it's a [I]bad[/I] thing, didn't I? My mistake.
Hmmmmm. I said that like it's a [I]bad[/I] thing, didn't I? My mistake.
72.) Swamp Fox - 04/17/2013
Do they have another vacation coming up soon, I hope?
73.) Alex - 04/17/2013
motion ended... did not pass
one down
one down
74.) Swamp Fox - 04/17/2013
Needed 60 votes, got 54...
Now comes the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth...
Now comes the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth...
75.) DParker - 04/17/2013
[QUOTE=Alex;5177]motion ended... did not pass
one down[/QUOTE]
It never stood a chance.
one down[/QUOTE]
It never stood a chance.
76.) DParker - 04/17/2013
And let's not let dumb Republicans off the hook either (for some reason, the northeastern coast seems to be the most prolific breeding ground for them). U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) goes full-bore stupid:
[URL]http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-pete-king-merchants-selling-ball-bearings-beauty-products-should-notify-police[/URL]
[QUOTE]"For instance, merchants, if they're selling any components that can be used for a bomb, everywhere from ball bearings to beauty products, they can all be used to make bombs. They should notify the police."[/QUOTE]
Next up, FBI background checks when buying cookware from Bed, Bath and Beyond, shampoo from the drugstore...and pretty much [I]anything[/I] from Home Depot. Seriously, no civilian needs military-style hair conditioner and large-capacity boxes of roofing nails.
[URL]http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-pete-king-merchants-selling-ball-bearings-beauty-products-should-notify-police[/URL]
[QUOTE]"For instance, merchants, if they're selling any components that can be used for a bomb, everywhere from ball bearings to beauty products, they can all be used to make bombs. They should notify the police."[/QUOTE]
Next up, FBI background checks when buying cookware from Bed, Bath and Beyond, shampoo from the drugstore...and pretty much [I]anything[/I] from Home Depot. Seriously, no civilian needs military-style hair conditioner and large-capacity boxes of roofing nails.
77.) bluecat - 04/17/2013
[QUOTE=DParker;5180]And let's not let dumb Republicans off the hook either (for some reason, the northeastern coast seems to be the most prolific breeding ground for them). U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) goes full-bore stupid:
[URL]http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-pete-king-merchants-selling-ball-bearings-beauty-products-should-notify-police[/URL]
Next up, FBI background checks when buying cookware from Bed, Bath and Beyond, shampoo from the drugstore...[B]and pretty much [I]anything[/I] from Home Depot[/B]. Seriously, no civilian needs military-style hair conditioner and large-capacity boxes of roofing nails.[/QUOTE]
You are making the assumption that one could walk in there and find saleshelp.
[URL]http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-pete-king-merchants-selling-ball-bearings-beauty-products-should-notify-police[/URL]
Next up, FBI background checks when buying cookware from Bed, Bath and Beyond, shampoo from the drugstore...[B]and pretty much [I]anything[/I] from Home Depot[/B]. Seriously, no civilian needs military-style hair conditioner and large-capacity boxes of roofing nails.[/QUOTE]
You are making the assumption that one could walk in there and find saleshelp.
78.) DParker - 04/17/2013
[QUOTE=bluecat;5181]You are making the assumption that one could walk in there and find saleshelp.[/QUOTE]
That's why we need to close the Lowe's and Ace Hardware loopholes!!!
That's why we need to close the Lowe's and Ace Hardware loopholes!!!
79.) bluecat - 04/17/2013
:clap:
80.) DParker - 04/17/2013
By the way, this seems like a good time to point out to our viewing audience (since the news media keep saying it incorrectly themselves) that what was just voted down was NOT the gun-control bill that's currently being debated in the Senate. It was simply one amendment of several that have been proposed for the larger bill in question. Without the Toomey-Manchin "compromise" amendment (which is what was just shot down) the existing language in the Schumer bill that it was supposed to amend is much more draconian, which makes it very unlikely to gain enough Senate votes for passage (and is DOA in the House anyway). Passage of nearly any of the remaining amendments (like Feinstein's AWB, which she originally submitted as a stand-alone bill, but which Reid removed from consideration with the promise that it be considered as an amendment to the Schumer bill instead) would put additional stakes in the bill's heart. Unless there's some major unforseen suprise it looks like the whole shebang is going down in flames.
[B]Update:[/B] Feinstein's AWB amendment was just shot down (pun intended) 60-40. Evil black rifles for everyone!! :ach:
[B]Update:[/B] Feinstein's AWB amendment was just shot down (pun intended) 60-40. Evil black rifles for everyone!! :ach:
81.) DParker - 04/17/2013
Interestingly, Cornyn's amendment on national reciprocity for CHLs came close to passing with 57 "Yea" votes (60 votes needed for an amendment). I've always had mixed emotions on that one (as a federalism issue.)
Blumenthal's "High Capacity (> 10 rds) Magazine" ban amendment up now.
Live coverage of the votes here, BTW: [URL]http://www.c-span.org/Events/Senate-Defeats-Manchin-Toomey-Amendment-to-Gun-Bill/10737439223-1/[/URL]
Blumenthal's "High Capacity (> 10 rds) Magazine" ban amendment up now.
Live coverage of the votes here, BTW: [URL]http://www.c-span.org/Events/Senate-Defeats-Manchin-Toomey-Amendment-to-Gun-Bill/10737439223-1/[/URL]
82.) Swamp Fox - 04/17/2013
NPR just aired a piece where they completely muddied the water with a [I]NY Times[/I] reporter whose name begins with an L...He apparently just published a piece about Armslist...Between the interviewer and the reporter, listeners who aren't up on gun laws are going to be completely confused and left with the impression that it's the Wild West on ArmsList, with anybody buying anything no-questions-asked.
The point that certain transactions are ALREADY illegal and that background checks are the rule and the law in the vast majority or transactions DID NOT get through. The story was so poorly done it took my breath away...Thus, I must apologize for the lack of good detail in my summary of the segment.
If I have nothing better to do later, maybe I'll go looking for the [I]Times[/I] piece...If no one else gets to it first.
You would think that, at this point, we wouldn't still be dealing with "honest reporting/high-credential journalism" giving the impression or hosting people who will give the unchallenged impression that it's a free-for-all at gun shows and on the internet.
Wouldn't you?
:bang::re:
The point that certain transactions are ALREADY illegal and that background checks are the rule and the law in the vast majority or transactions DID NOT get through. The story was so poorly done it took my breath away...Thus, I must apologize for the lack of good detail in my summary of the segment.
If I have nothing better to do later, maybe I'll go looking for the [I]Times[/I] piece...If no one else gets to it first.
You would think that, at this point, we wouldn't still be dealing with "honest reporting/high-credential journalism" giving the impression or hosting people who will give the unchallenged impression that it's a free-for-all at gun shows and on the internet.
Wouldn't you?
:bang::re:
83.) DParker - 04/17/2013
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;5186]You would think that, at this point, we wouldn't still be dealing with "honest reporting/high-credential journalism" giving the impression or hosting people who will give the unchallenged impression that it's a free-for-all at gun shows and on the internet.
Wouldn't you?
:bang::re:[/QUOTE]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh:
Oh, wait...you were serious, huh?
Sorry. I'm becoming extremely jaded in my old age. :wink
Wouldn't you?
:bang::re:[/QUOTE]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh:
Oh, wait...you were serious, huh?
Sorry. I'm becoming extremely jaded in my old age. :wink
84.) DParker - 04/17/2013
Mitch McConnell actually has the following posted on his Facebook page (and they say Republicans don't have a sense of humor):
85.) Swamp Fox - 04/17/2013
Here's the article...
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/seeking-gun-or-selling-one-web-is-a-land-of-few-rules.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0[/url]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/seeking-gun-or-selling-one-web-is-a-land-of-few-rules.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0[/url]
86.) DParker - 04/18/2013
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;5189]Here's the article...
[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/seeking-gun-or-selling-one-web-is-a-land-of-few-rules.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0[/URL][/QUOTE]
Wow...that's a pretty bad misrepresentation of things, even for the NYT. Note all of the subtle ways they use of skirting the truth without just coming right out and lying. They begin by citing ads placed by a felon who was "seeking to by and sell" on Armslist, but not any evidence of him actually completing any transactions...because we know that if he'd actually tried to buy/sell from/to anyone in another state the gun would have to be shipped through FFLs, with the usual NICS check being performed. And gee...if it was that easy for the Times to find prohibited individuals engaging in this illegal behavior, it seems like that would be an absolute gold mine for a BATFE that is charged with enforcing such laws. And if they're not able/interested in doing that, what's the point of enacting even more laws that they can't/won't enforce?
[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/seeking-gun-or-selling-one-web-is-a-land-of-few-rules.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0[/URL][/QUOTE]
Wow...that's a pretty bad misrepresentation of things, even for the NYT. Note all of the subtle ways they use of skirting the truth without just coming right out and lying. They begin by citing ads placed by a felon who was "seeking to by and sell" on Armslist, but not any evidence of him actually completing any transactions...because we know that if he'd actually tried to buy/sell from/to anyone in another state the gun would have to be shipped through FFLs, with the usual NICS check being performed. And gee...if it was that easy for the Times to find prohibited individuals engaging in this illegal behavior, it seems like that would be an absolute gold mine for a BATFE that is charged with enforcing such laws. And if they're not able/interested in doing that, what's the point of enacting even more laws that they can't/won't enforce?
87.) Swamp Fox - 04/18/2013
Exactamundo...
If it's okay to say "bullet points," those would be the two I'd fire off in angry letters to the guilty parties.
If it's okay to say "bullet points," those would be the two I'd fire off in angry letters to the guilty parties.
88.) Pa bowhunter - 04/18/2013
The man child was not happy, he looked like a spoiled little brat in the rose garden.
89.) DParker - 04/18/2013
The idiocy has reached such a heightened level now that I truly don't know whether to laugh or cry....
[URL]http://www.lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=341435&[/URL]
"If we are serious about public safety, we must put these common-sense safeguards in place. While the police have not revealed what specific explosive materials were used in Boston, what we do know is that explosive powder is too easy to anonymously purchase across the country."
In other words:
"We don't even know if this stuff that I want to control was used in a criminal manner here, but I'm going to introduce legislation to control it anyway...just in case. Because BY GAWD....WE NEED TO PASS SOME SORT OF LAW TO DO SOMETHING, NO MATTER HOW POINTLESS IT IS!!!"
You can't make this stuff up. I wonder if Sen. Lautenberg knows how easy it is to drive up to countless city street corners and buy tens of gallons of gasoline without a background check or a waiting period. You don't even have to show ID. And perhaps a high school chemistry student can explain to him how many different readily available substances can be used to make explosives in any kitchen, then we can all get ready to start registering our household cleaners.
[URL]http://www.lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=341435&[/URL]
"If we are serious about public safety, we must put these common-sense safeguards in place. While the police have not revealed what specific explosive materials were used in Boston, what we do know is that explosive powder is too easy to anonymously purchase across the country."
In other words:
"We don't even know if this stuff that I want to control was used in a criminal manner here, but I'm going to introduce legislation to control it anyway...just in case. Because BY GAWD....WE NEED TO PASS SOME SORT OF LAW TO DO SOMETHING, NO MATTER HOW POINTLESS IT IS!!!"
You can't make this stuff up. I wonder if Sen. Lautenberg knows how easy it is to drive up to countless city street corners and buy tens of gallons of gasoline without a background check or a waiting period. You don't even have to show ID. And perhaps a high school chemistry student can explain to him how many different readily available substances can be used to make explosives in any kitchen, then we can all get ready to start registering our household cleaners.
90.) DParker - 04/19/2013
The first intelligent and honest explanation that I've seen in the media regarding what happened in the Senate on Wednesday...
[URL]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578430672176449846.html[/URL]
[URL]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578430672176449846.html[/URL]
91.) Hunter - 04/19/2013
[QUOTE=DParker;5260]The first intelligent and honest explanation that I've seen in the media regarding what happened in the Senate on Wednesday...
[URL]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578430672176449846.html[/URL][/QUOTE]
The mainstream media tries hard to hide the truth in this matter. The fact is, Gun Control Advocates themselves had to openly admit that these "new laws" wouldn't have made a difference in Newtown. It was hard to get past that!
[URL]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578430672176449846.html[/URL][/QUOTE]
The mainstream media tries hard to hide the truth in this matter. The fact is, Gun Control Advocates themselves had to openly admit that these "new laws" wouldn't have made a difference in Newtown. It was hard to get past that!
92.) Hunter - 04/22/2013
USATODAY is now using terminology of "safe-gun laws" instead of "Gun-Control laws." I'm assuming they think this will resonate better with their readers.
[url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/22/nra-lobbying-increase/2104075/[/url]
[url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/22/nra-lobbying-increase/2104075/[/url]
93.) DParker - 04/22/2013
Control the language, control the debate.
94.) bluecat - 04/23/2013
WASHINGTON, D.C.—In the wake of the deadly bombing attacks in Boston, U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) today announced that he will reintroduce legislation he has proposed in a prior Congress to require that sales of explosive powder be subject to a background check. He will also file the legislation as an amendment to the gun violence prevention bill currently on the Senate floor.
[url]http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/17/sen-lautenberg-wants-background-checks-t[/url]
[url]http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/17/sen-lautenberg-wants-background-checks-t[/url]
95.) DParker - 04/23/2013
[QUOTE=bluecat;5333]WASHINGTON, D.C.—In the wake of the deadly bombing attacks in Boston, U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) today announced that he will reintroduce legislation he has proposed in a prior Congress to require that sales of explosive powder be subject to a background check. He will also file the legislation as an amendment to the gun violence prevention bill currently on the Senate floor.
[URL]http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/17/sen-lautenberg-wants-background-checks-t[/URL][/QUOTE]
Keep up, man!: [URL]http://forums.huntingcountry.com/forums/showthread.php?196-Tee-Up-the-Bad-Background-Checks-Next&p=5220&viewfull=1#post5220[/URL] :wink
(Though honestly, the Reason piece is a good read anyway.)
Of course one problem is that there currently is no gun violence prevention bill currently on the Senate floor for him to propose any amendments to. Reid pulled it. Apparently Frank was taking a nap.
BTW...should it bother me that at the bottom of the Advanced Search page is the following?...
[SIZE=3][B]These are the 4 most-searched-for thread tags[/B][/SIZE] [URL="http://forums.huntingcountry.com/forums/tags.php?tag=battle+mountain"][SIZE=5][COLOR=#bf7530]battle mountain[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL] [URL="http://forums.huntingcountry.com/forums/tags.php?tag=hogs"][SIZE=3][COLOR=#bf7530]hogs[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL] [URL="http://forums.huntingcountry.com/forums/tags.php?tag=man+luv"][SIZE=3][COLOR=#bf7530]man luv[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL] [URL="http://forums.huntingcountry.com/forums/tags.php?tag=pigs"][SIZE=1][COLOR=#bf7530]pigs[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL]
[URL]http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/17/sen-lautenberg-wants-background-checks-t[/URL][/QUOTE]
Keep up, man!: [URL]http://forums.huntingcountry.com/forums/showthread.php?196-Tee-Up-the-Bad-Background-Checks-Next&p=5220&viewfull=1#post5220[/URL] :wink
(Though honestly, the Reason piece is a good read anyway.)
Of course one problem is that there currently is no gun violence prevention bill currently on the Senate floor for him to propose any amendments to. Reid pulled it. Apparently Frank was taking a nap.
BTW...should it bother me that at the bottom of the Advanced Search page is the following?...
[SIZE=3][B]These are the 4 most-searched-for thread tags[/B][/SIZE] [URL="http://forums.huntingcountry.com/forums/tags.php?tag=battle+mountain"][SIZE=5][COLOR=#bf7530]battle mountain[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL] [URL="http://forums.huntingcountry.com/forums/tags.php?tag=hogs"][SIZE=3][COLOR=#bf7530]hogs[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL] [URL="http://forums.huntingcountry.com/forums/tags.php?tag=man+luv"][SIZE=3][COLOR=#bf7530]man luv[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL] [URL="http://forums.huntingcountry.com/forums/tags.php?tag=pigs"][SIZE=1][COLOR=#bf7530]pigs[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL]
96.) DParker - 04/23/2013
97.) Hunter - 04/23/2013
[QUOTE=DParker;5343][/QUOTE]
:laugh::ach:
[/QUOTE]:laugh::ach:
98.) Swamp Fox - 04/23/2013
Shameful...
:-)
:-)
99.) DParker - 04/23/2013
You have to admit...the Biden/Walter separated-at-birth thing is pretty uncanny. :wink
100.) bluecat - 04/23/2013
[QUOTE=DParker;5343][/QUOTE]
[URL=http://s990.photobucket.com/user/mx482/media/happycat_zpsf9f906fa.jpg.html]
[/URL]
[/QUOTE][URL=http://s990.photobucket.com/user/mx482/media/happycat_zpsf9f906fa.jpg.html]
[/URL]