HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The problem gun reformers...

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 09:30 AM

The problem gun reformers face

The Morning Plum: The problem gun reformers face

Posted by Greg Sargent

Congress is in recess next week. Which means political observers will be closely watching what sort of backlash, if any, Senators face at home in the wake of their No vote on the Toomey-Manchin compromise on expanded background checks — particularly since new signs are emerging that the gun debate isn’t over.

Along these lines, Quinnipiac has released a remarkably detailed set of poll numbers out of Pennsylvania that tell us a good deal about the strengths and weaknesses of the chances for further action. It finds that 70 percent of Pennsylvania voters are either dissatisfied or angry over the Senate’s rejection of the background check compromise. That includes a majority (52 percent) of Republicans.

Pennsylvania is an interesting test case with broader implications. While it does lean blue, it has a deep gun culture, and it is home to the sort of suburban district — represented by Republicans — where gun reformers still hope to pick up unexpected GOP support.

Indeed, one notable finding is that Pat Toomey’s approval rating is now at 53 percent among suburban voters — in a state where the Philadelphia suburbs are key to statewide races. Hopefully other Republicans who represent rapidly suburbanizing states (such as Kelly Ayotte) or suburban House districts will take note. Overall, fifty four percent in Pennsylvania — and 56 percent of suburbanites — view Toomey more favorably because of his stewardship of the bill. And 61 percent of women — a demographic the GOP needs to improve among – view him more favorably.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/26/the-morning-plum-the-problem-gun-reformers-face/


92 replies, 6948 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 92 replies Author Time Post
Reply The problem gun reformers face (Original post)
ProSense Apr 2013 OP
pipoman Apr 2013 #1
ProSense Apr 2013 #2
DanTex Apr 2013 #3
pipoman Apr 2013 #4
DanTex Apr 2013 #5
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #9
DanTex Apr 2013 #17
billh58 Apr 2013 #23
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #41
DanTex Apr 2013 #44
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #49
DanTex Apr 2013 #56
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #60
DanTex Apr 2013 #64
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #73
DanTex Apr 2013 #74
Hoyt Apr 2013 #53
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #55
Hoyt Apr 2013 #68
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #71
DanTex Apr 2013 #72
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #75
DanTex Apr 2013 #76
Hoyt Apr 2013 #80
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #81
Hoyt Apr 2013 #87
pipoman Apr 2013 #54
DanTex Apr 2013 #58
pipoman Apr 2013 #61
DanTex Apr 2013 #65
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #78
DanTex Apr 2013 #79
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #82
DanTex Apr 2013 #83
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #84
DanTex Apr 2013 #85
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #90
pipoman Apr 2013 #88
DanTex Apr 2013 #47
pipoman Apr 2013 #57
DanTex Apr 2013 #59
pipoman Apr 2013 #62
DanTex Apr 2013 #67
Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #6
DanTex Apr 2013 #7
Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #8
DanTex Apr 2013 #13
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #10
DanTex Apr 2013 #12
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #43
DanTex Apr 2013 #45
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #51
DanTex Apr 2013 #52
former9thward Apr 2013 #11
DanTex Apr 2013 #14
premium Apr 2013 #15
DanTex Apr 2013 #16
premium Apr 2013 #18
DanTex Apr 2013 #21
premium Apr 2013 #22
DanTex Apr 2013 #25
hack89 Apr 2013 #39
umt9 Apr 2013 #35
premium Apr 2013 #42
uppityperson Apr 2013 #46
umt9 May 2013 #92
former9thward Apr 2013 #19
DanTex Apr 2013 #20
former9thward Apr 2013 #30
DanTex Apr 2013 #31
former9thward Apr 2013 #32
DanTex Apr 2013 #33
upaloopa Apr 2013 #26
pipoman Apr 2013 #63
upaloopa Apr 2013 #77
pipoman Apr 2013 #89
Progressive dog Apr 2013 #66
librechik Apr 2013 #24
billh58 Apr 2013 #28
Zoeisright Apr 2013 #69
rrneck Apr 2013 #27
DanTex Apr 2013 #29
former9thward Apr 2013 #34
DanTex Apr 2013 #36
former9thward Apr 2013 #37
DanTex Apr 2013 #38
former9thward Apr 2013 #40
pipoman Apr 2013 #91
rrneck Apr 2013 #48
AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #50
billh58 Apr 2013 #70
rustydog Apr 2013 #86

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 09:37 AM

1. The bottom line is that

the federal universal background requirement would have been challenged, it would have lost on constitutional grounds, and the political fallout on Dems from reddish states could likely have cost the senate dems the majority status in 14, only to have the law struck down anyway..It wasn't worth the risk or the political capital..IMHO..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 09:48 AM

2. No, that's not the "bottom line"

"the federal universal background requirement would have been challenged, it would have lost on constitutional grounds, and the political fallout on Dems from reddish states could likely have cost the senate dems the majority status in 14, only to have the law struck down anyway..It wasn't worth the risk or the political capital..IMHO.."

First, the bill was filibustered, meaning it got the majority of votes. Secondly, Senators in red states also voted for it. Thirdly, the problem cited in the article is that some people wouldn't hold their members of Congress accountable for voting against the bill (I should have included that snip). Finally, the bill is popular among the public.

The problem for members of Congress opposed to the bill is that their approval plummet.

Pro-Background Check GOP Senator Achieves Record Approval Rating, Gun Safety Opponent Takes A Bath
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/26/1925701/pro-background-check-gop-senator-achieves-record-approval-rating-gun-safety-opponent-takes-a-bath/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 09:51 AM

3. Another false NRA talking point. They just keep flowing...

Actually, I'm wrong. Not even the NRA is dumb enough to suggest that universal background checks are unconstitutional. This is a talking point from further right than the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 10:09 AM

4. "talking point" "talking point"

blah, blah, talking point...

Maybe look into why private intrastate background checks were exempted in 1994, and every single time a bill has come up since..hint..it has nothing to do with 'talking points'..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 10:18 AM

5. Maybe look into why nobody with a clue about constitutional law has even hinted that

it might be unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:32 PM

9. Dan, are you not aware of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution?

 

When guns are sold without a background check, it is a private person who owns a used gun selling it to another person in their own state. Interstate commerce does not apply. Therefore, Congress, in theory, has no authority to regulate such sales. It could be done on the state level, but not on the federal level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:29 PM

17. Are you not aware of the NFA, which requires intra-state sales between private citizens to be

reported and verified by the Federal Government.

Here's the thing. Today's GOP thinks that everything is unconstitutional, from the Civil Rights act to the Federal Reserve, to Obamacare, to Social Security. And yet, to my knowledge, not even Rand Paul has tried to argue that universal background checks would violate the constitution. That tells you something about how ludicrous this whole argument is.

Again, find me some credible constitutional scholar who agrees with this interpretation of the commerce clause. You may not know this, but the commerce clause has been interpreted very broadly, and there is ample evidence that private sales of guns affect interstate commerce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:44 PM

23. Would you quit scaring

the NRA apologists? They're having a hard enough time dealing with a wave of public opinion turning against them, and now you attack them with common sense and facts.

You are a cruel, uncaring, anti-gunner Democrat. Shame on you...

(if necessary)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:56 PM

41. Dan, intra-state sales between private citizens already gets a background check.

 

In order for me to send a gun that I own across state lines, I have to sent it to an FFL. That's not the case when selling it to someone in my own state.

Can you find me any credible constitutional scholar? I don't keep a rolodex of constitutional scholars on hand, and I don't know of anyone else who does either. Do you?

I'm well aware that the interstate commerce clause is interpreted very broadly. And conservatives tend to be pretty retarded when it comes to the Constitution. But just reading the Constitution, I simply don't see how interstate commerce would apply if a private person sells a gun to another private person. What if we were talking about any other thing, like say a TV? Would you say that Congress has the authority to regulate yard sales?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #41)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:04 PM

44. Intra-state means within the same state.

NFA governs private intrastate sales (within the same state).

If the Federal Government can show that private intrastate sales affect interstate commerce, then they can regulate them. And it is very clear that they do. A lot of guns are trafficked illegally between states, and private sales facilitate this trafficking because they make it easier for criminals to get hold of guns in the first place. There have even been studies that show that states with weaker gun laws provide a greater share of the illegal guns trafficked to other states. It is a very definite interstate concern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #44)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:40 PM

49. What provision of the NFA governs sales within the same state?

 

Dan, my apologies, I got mixed up with "inter" and "intra". But I am unaware of any provision under federal law that governs a private person selling a gun to another private person. And I've read just about every gun law on the federal books, as well on the state level where I live.

If you're aware of where this is under the US Code, I'd wish you'd inform me of it. Here's a link to get you started.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-44

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #49)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:03 PM

56. If you sell an NFA gun to someone within the same state, you need to transfer the registration.

And you need to pay a fee. So that's an example of federal regulation of a private intrastate transfer.

Do you disagree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #56)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:13 PM

60. Dan, I'll ask again.

 

Where is this listed under the United States Code? Here's a complete list of federal gun laws.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-44

I would note that under Virginia state law, "machine guns" (i.e. full auto assault rifles) are highly regulated, but it's done so under state law.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-295

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #60)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:18 PM

64. So are you saying I'm wrong? That's a serious question.

I've never sold an NFA gun, so maybe my understanding is actually wrong. I don't think I'm wrong, but I don't feel like digging through US legal code. This shouldn't be that difficult a question to settle.

Just tell me if you're disputing the fact that NFA guns require a fee and a registration transfer with the Federal Government, even if it is a private, in-state sale.

If you're disputing that, then maybe someone else on this board has transferred an NFA gun in-state and can tell us what the process is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #64)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:34 PM

73. Dan, all I'm asking you to do is prove your claim.

 

If the NFA establishes what you claim it does, then it should be in the US Code. It shouldn't be too hard to find with the link I sent you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #73)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:38 PM

74. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here.

Why don't you just come out and state clearly what you think NFA does with regard to in-state transfers? I'm really not into playing games.

If you honestly think NFA exempts in-state transfers, just say so. But I'm not going to go digging through US code just to satisfy your curiosity. I've discussed NFA with a lot of people, and you are the first person who has ever suggested that it doesn't apply to in-state transfers. Again, you might be right, but I'm pretty sure you are wrong.

So how about you go digging through the legal code to find the part of NFA that exempt in-state transfers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #44)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:58 PM

53. Ain't it tough splainin to folks who can't get their "nomenclature" correct.


I bet Alva is one of those gunnys that raises heck if someone calls a magazine a clip, yet he's just spouting right wing constitutional BS when he can't even get the terms correct.

I bet even Scalia would have a hard time ruling against background checks for what is essentially gun traffiking in a back alley between folks supposedly a resident of the same state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #53)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:03 PM

55. Hoyt, I dont' actually know the difference between a magazine and a clip.

 

As far as I can tell, both words mean the same thing. I'm not a right winger. Republicans believe in 1 of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights. Dems tend to believe in 9 of them. I'm just a progressive who believes in all 10.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #55)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:23 PM

68. Guns are far from "progressive."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #68)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:31 PM

71. You don't think that the right of self-defense is a progressive value?

 

Hoyt, a gun allows a 5'2 100 pound woman to protect herself from a 6'5 250 pound body builder, by doing nothing more than wiggling her index finger. A gun creates an equality of force between two people. Yes, I believe that is a progressive value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #71)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:34 PM

72. The right of self-defense and the right to own a gun are different things.

The right to live in a society that's not riddled with gun violence is more important than the right to own a gun.

On the whole, the safety benefits of guns are far less than the harms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #72)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:38 PM

75. I don't recall seeing a Constitutional Amendment that guarantees you to be free from gun violence.

 

But there is a 2nd amendment.

"On the whole, the safety benefits of guns are far less than the harms."


If that's true, then why do cops carry guns? The Justice Dept. found that there are 1.5 million self-defense uses of guns every year. There are 12,000 firearm homicides. By my count 1.5 million is a whole lot more than 12,000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #75)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:43 PM

76. The constitution also doesn't say anything about self-defense either.

The question we are discussing is whether "gun rights" are a progressive value or not.

Also, the justice department did not find that there are 1.5 million self-defense uses of guns. Here's the study you are referring to. You probably want to read it before just tossing out random statistics.

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JQC-CookLudwig-DefensiveGunUses-1998.pdf

You are trying to equate "defensive gun uses" with "lives saved by guns" which is preposterous. Most so-called "defensive gun uses" are actually arguments that escalate into violence where "the other guy started it". Thing George Zimmerman. By all hard measures of the benefits versus harms of guns, the harms are greater by an order of magnitude. The 30,000 gun deaths per year are actual dead bodies. On the other hand, there is no evidence at all that owning a gun, or carrying a gun, or trying to use to defend from a crime has any statistical safety benefit at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #71)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 05:02 PM

80. Are you a 100 pound woman? Typical gun cultist BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #80)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 05:13 PM

81. Instead of insulting me, why don't you address the point I raised?

 

This is very simple. A gun creates an equality of force between two people. The law even recognizes it. It's called Disparity of Force.

Or are you really telling me, that you'd prefer this woman be dead?



Or perhaps you'd prefer this 12 year old girl was dead?



Maybe you'd prefer this sweet old lady was dead?



Or maybe you wish this cute girl was dead?



Or perhaps you wish this old man bound to a wheelchair was dead?



Or maybe you wish this 15 year old boy was dead?



Allowing the weak to protect themselves from the strong is a progressive value. For the very same reason why protecting the poor from the rich and the powerful is a progressive value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #81)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 07:59 PM

87. I could put a bunch of photos of shot kids, give us a break and stop promoting more guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #44)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:00 PM

54. And the weapons restricted under NFA

are the ONLY weapons restricted by the NFA...not shotguns with barrels over 18", not hand guns, not semi-autos, etc. Only short barreled shotguns, fully automatics, and various other very, very specific weapons which have been determined not to be "in common use for lawful purposes". If you are suggesting all guns should be restricted by NFA, that is another story...they aren't now. So you see the NFA has absolutely not a single thing to do with guns "in common use for lawful purposes".

If the Federal Government can show that private intrastate sales affect interstate commerce, then they can regulate them.

True, but to date they have not done that...and far from a slam dunk defense for a challenge to a federal law restricting private intrastate sales..it may prevail, it may not...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #54)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:10 PM

58. Whether guns are in common use or not has nothing to do with commerce clause or states' rights.

That might be relevant to constitutionality with regard to the second amendment, but that's a different issue. However, since some states have gun registries and/or universal background checks, then it is pretty difficult to argue that either of those are unconstitutional on 2A grounds.

True, but to date they have not done that...and far from a slam dunk defense for a challenge to a federal law restricting private intrastate sales..it may prevail, it may not...

They haven't done that because they haven't tried to, because this has never come up before the courts, because there is no such law in effect. But the evidence is there -- there are studies about this. Illegally trafficked guns show up far away from their original state all the time, and states with tighter gun laws, including UBC and registries, are the source of less illegal guns than states with loose laws.

Like I said, if there were any plausible constitutional question about UBC, then someone in the GOP/NRA would have been making noise about it in the last few months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #58)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:14 PM

61. It has everything to do with NFA registry...

intrastate private sale BG checks are not unconstitutional at the state level.

It hasn't made it out of the Senate Judicary Committee before this year because it is the job of that committee to determine constitutionality of bills. There have been several bills requiring BG checks on private intrastate sales...none have come out of committee until this year, and this year only because of public pressure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #61)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:21 PM

65. The "NFA Registry" is not part of the constitution.

There are two constitutional questions.
1) Can the Federal Government govern private in-state transactions (states' rights/commerce clause).
2) Is it constitutional to require guns to be registered (second amendment).

The answer to question 1 is yes, due to the NFA, and also the obvious fact that private in-state transactions contribute to interstate gun trafficking.
The answer to question 2 is also yes, due to the fact that some states require guns to be registered, and states are bound by the second amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #65)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:48 PM

78. Dan, so basically what you're saying is that because the Fed regulates machines guns one way...

 

...it can regulated guns not covered by title II of the NFA. That's a pretty specious argument, don't you think?

You're saying that private sales can be regulated because they might be involved in gun trafficking. Well, that line of reasoning, someone who attends church might blow up a women's clinic. Does that mean that the gov't can regulate church attendance?

The only state that I'm aware of that requires guns to be registered is New York, and that's a new law that has yet to make it's way through the courts. I think the 4th amendment is pretty clear on this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #78)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:53 PM

79. Constitutionally, yes.

No, it's not specious at all. It's simple consistency. Either the Feds can regulate in-state transfers or they can't. The rate of fire of the weapon doesn't affect the commerce clause or the states' rights question.

Also it's not because private sales might affect gun trafficking. It's because they do affect gun trafficking. Oh, and the first amendment prevents the government from regulating church attendance.

At the very least, Hawaii and Washington DC require guns to be registered also.

Finally, what does the 4th amendment have to do with a gun registry? Are you, like blindly throwing darts at a dartboard? How about the 15th amendment? Or the 3rd amendment? Hey, this is fun!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #79)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 05:24 PM

82. Dan, let's get real here.

 

Are you really telling me that since machine guns, which are not protected by the 2nd amendment under the Miller decision, can be registered, that it also applies to a 9mm pistol, which is protected by the 2nd amendment?

Are you suggesting that all private sales of guns are used in gun trafficking?

Yes, the gov't can't regulate church attendance. Thus, why the words, "Congress shall make no law" is used in the 1st amendment. It's also why the words, "shall not be infringed" are used in the 2nd.

what does the 4th amendment have to do with a gun registry?


Guns are property, are they not? Does a gun registry allow the gov't to know what you own? Let's review the 4th amendment again:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #82)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 05:34 PM

83. You are confusing the commerce clause and the second amendment.

Up until now, you were claiming that a federal gun registry would violate the commerce clause, not the second amendment. As far as the commerce clause, NFA proves that the federal government is within its rights to regulate private in-state transfers.

Now you're changing your story and claiming it violates the second amendment. This is also false, because registering guns does not prevent people from owning them. Also, there are plenty of examples of gun registries at the state and local level, like Hawaii and DC, and since states are bound by 2A also, then obviously these prove that gun registries are not a violation of 2A. So, while NFA is not second amendment precedent for an overall gun registry, such precedent exists in these other laws. Remember, even your buddy Scalia has conceded that there are limits on 2A.

Are you suggesting that all private sales of guns are used in gun trafficking?

I'm saying that private gun sales have a substantial effect on gun trafficking, which is enough to justify regulation at the federal level.

Guns are property, are they not? Does a gun registry allow the gov't to know what you own? Let's review the 4th amendment again:

Yeah, the fourth amendment says you can't be searched without probably cause. That has absolutely nothing to do with a registry. Registries don't involve searches and seizures. Again, since NFA is a registry, if the 4th amendment prevented registries, then NFA would be unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #83)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 06:25 PM

84. No, I didn't!

 

Up until now, you were claiming that a federal gun registry would violate the commerce clause


No I didn't! I said a federal gun registry violates the 4th amendment. I said that Congress making a law regulating private sales would violate the commerce clause.

As far as the commerce clause, NFA proves that the federal government is within its rights to regulate private in-state transfers.


You have yet to prove that the NFA regulates any private in state transfers. Furthermore, you have yet to demonstrate how the NFA would apply to arms not covered by the NFA.

Now you're changing your story and claiming it violates the second amendment. This is also false, because registering guns does not prevent people from owning them.


No, I said it violates the 4th amendment.

since states are bound by 2A also, then obviously these prove that gun registries are not a violation of 2A.


No, it just means the Supreme Court has not ruled on this yet. I'll remind you that D.C. used gun registries to ban the ownership of guns by everyone, and the Heller decision overturned that.

Remember, even your buddy Scalia has conceded that there are limits on 2A.


Scalia is not my buddy, but he made it clear what the limits on the 2nd amendment are. Long standing prohibitions against "unusual or dangerous" weapons can be regulated, like sawed off shot guns and full auto rifles. Long standing prohibitions against allowing guns in gov't buildings and airports is okay. But that was about it. Read the Heller decision!

I'm saying that private gun sales have a substantial effect on gun trafficking, which is enough to justify regulation at the federal level.


What percentage of private gun sales do you think are used in gun trafficking?

Yeah, the fourth amendment says you can't be searched without probably cause. That has absolutely nothing to do with a registry.


Does a registry allow gov't to know what property you own?

Again, since NFA is a registry, if the 4th amendment prevented registries, then NFA would be unconstitutional.


You have yet to demonstrate that the NFA is a registry. And even if it did, why would a registry that applies to the NFA apply to guns not covered by the NFA?

This is all mute, since the federal registration of guns not covered by the NFA is already illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Registry_prohibition

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #84)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 06:27 PM

85. OK, I think this is where I hop off the crazy train.

Look, if you're going to insist that NFA isn't a registry, then there's not much point in trying to have an intelligent discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #85)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 11:03 PM

90. No, all I'm asking is that you prove your claim.

 

Show me some evidence of it. I will be more than willing to accept it if you can demonstrate that it does what you claim it is doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #65)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 08:46 PM

88. The ONLY reason that the NFA

passed Constitutional scrutney is because those weapons registered under NFA are not "in common use for lawful purposes"...that is the ONLY weapons in NFA...So no, to 1. As for 2, at the state level many things are possible, including private sale bg checks..not at the Federal level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #41)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:11 PM

47. About the constitutional scholar thing.

Here's the point. You may have noticed that nobody brought up any constitutional objections to universal background checks, not even the NRA or anyone in the GOP.

And this is not because the NRA is shy about saying crazy stupid things. Nor is it because the GOP is shy about calling things unconstitutional. You have to think that if there were any question at all about the constitutionality of the bill, then there would have been hordes of Republicans on TV talking about how this was a violation of states' rights. Like you had with, say, Obamacare.

But you didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #47)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:09 PM

57. So then why didn't it happen praytell?

There is no huge lobbying budget for neighbors selling a shotgun between them. Why isn't this done? Why wasn't it done in 1994 and why hasn't a single bill made it out of the senate judiciary committee over the last 20 years when bills went to a Democratic Senate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #57)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:11 PM

59. Umm, because there weren't enough votes in the senate.

Because the GOP are a bunch of right-wing nutcases, who think that universal background checks are the first step along a slippery slope to Stalinism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #59)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:15 PM

62. How do we explain the several Democrats who didn't vote for it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #62)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:22 PM

67. They are right-wing Dems like Max Baucus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 10:29 AM

6. Now, let's be specific: NRAtalkingPoint™ No. 20358

The ACLU objected to the expanded b.g. Check as proposed earlier this month. The organization believed that as written, the longer time (when compared with the current law) data was stored in NICS could be misused by government agencies. ACLU opposition does not bode well for the constitutionality of any legislation. The b.g. Proposal was hastily drawn up, and quite possibly written in a manner so as to sneak in a future registry scheme.

So maybe it's ACLUtalkingPoint™ No. 00001.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 10:35 AM

7. In other words, nobody with a clue has any doubts about the constitutionality.

By the way, even establishing a national gun registry is obviously not unconstitutional, seeing as how there already is one. I figured you would know this, being so dedicated to the gun rights cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:27 PM

8. So the ACLU has gone over to the Dark Side?

What registry do you speak of?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:08 PM

13. The ACLU didn't say it was unconstitutional.

I'm still waiting for a single opinion of a constitutional scholar claiming universal background checks are unconstitutional. I mean, there must be some right-wing nutjob with a law degree somewhere that believes some of this stuff, right? It's not purely the realm of uneducated internet trolls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:35 PM

10. Dan, a national gun registry is prohibited by law.

 

It's been in effect for many years now. And yes, a national registry would be unconstitutional, under the 4th amendment. All Americans have a right to be secure in their property unless we're served with a warrant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:06 PM

12. Wow, you guys don't even know about NFA! Fascinating!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #12)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:00 PM

43. Yes, I am aware of it...

 

...but they only regulate "unusual" weapons, as defined in the Miller case. This is why rifle barrels have to be of a certain length. Common every day weapons, like say a 9mm pistol are exempt from the Title II definitions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #43)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:06 PM

45. That wouldn't affect the commerce clause or the Federal Government's jurisdiction.

If the Federal Government, as you say, can't regulate intrastate transactions between private citizens, then it wouldn't matter whether the gun being sold is "usual" or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #45)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:44 PM

51. No, it would.

 

The Miller decision found that "unusual or dangerous" weapons could be regulated by the federal government. As in outright outlawed. The gun in question in the Miller decision was a sawed off shotgun. This was referenced in the Heller decision as well, and found that guns that are in common usage, were regulated differently under the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #51)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:51 PM

52. Miller was a second amendment case. The "unusualness" matters to the second amendment,

but not to the commerce clause or states' rights issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:50 PM

11. Where is this registry?

Something else made up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:09 PM

14. LOL. So not only do you not know what a "Harvard Study" is, you also don't know about the NFA.

Whenever I think I've figured out just how clueless gun fanatics are, someone comes along and finds a new bottom...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:19 PM

15. I thought the NFA was a registry for certain firearms, like machine guns,

 

not a national registry for all firearms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

The National Firearms Act (NFA), 72nd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on June 26, 1934, currently codified as amended as I.R.C. ch. 53, is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms. The Act was passed shortly after the repeal of Prohibition. The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the Federal firearms laws. The Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA") is Title I.


Am I wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:26 PM

16. I didn't say "all firearms". But the NFA is most definitely a national gun registry.

If you own a machine gun and you want to sell it to your buddy down the street, you need to report that sale to the Federal Government. Even though it's an intra-state transaction between two private citizens.

Just pointing out that there are no constitutional problems with national gun registries or background check requirements. There is ample precedent. Sure, politically, a national registry covering all guns, or even all semi-automatic guns, or all handguns, is not feasible at this time, but that has nothing to do with the constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:30 PM

18. Thanks for the reply.

 

I think that's where the confusion came in about a national registry, I think people thought you were saying that there was a national registry for all firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:34 PM

21. Of course, not of all firearms.

The point is that NFA provides constitutional precedent for the Federal Government to regulate intrastate transactions of guns. This is one of the reasons that you don't hear anyone credible trying to argue that universal background checks would be unconstitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:38 PM

22. I tend to agree with you,

 

the Commerce Clause has been broadly interpreted and, IMHO, it would survive a court challenge.
My attitude is, pass it and let the chips fall where they may.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #22)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:44 PM

25. You never know what Scalia and Co are going to do, but

striking down UBC would represent a drastic change to the way that the commerce clause has historically been interpreted, and on top of that SCOTUS would be overturning a law that 90% of Americans agree with.

Obamacare was on shakier ground constitutionally than this, by a long shot, and even there Roberts decided not to interfere. And given that nobody, even on the right, has even brought up this constitutionality issue, I don't even know if it would make it to the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:42 PM

39. Except there is no way to register existing guns using the NFA model

due to 5th amendment issues the law was changed in 1968 such that gun owners cannot register their guns. Manufacturers and importers are required to register the guns. When a person buys a registered gun then that transfer is recorded. So the NFA is not useful precedence if you wish to register existing guns.

From US v. Freed:

Under the present Act only possessors who lawfully 604*604 make, manufacture, or import firearms can and must register them; the transferee does not and cannot register.


Once initially registered, the weapon is transferred and the name of the owner is changed in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13714404009198646374&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:26 PM

35. NFA 1934

 

The "certain firearms" referred to in the act are full automatic weapons (machine guns, submachine guns, and true assault weapons (AK47 & M16 for example) and short barreled (under 16") rifles and shotguns. The registry created is a tax registry to track the $2,000 transfer fee paid each time such a weapon is sold. The law also covers switchblade and spring knives as well as all explosive devices. Despite its long history and very tight administrative controls, the act has never prevented criminals from obtaining such weapons. The infamous Ruby Ridge debacle was started by the, illegal, transfer of a shotgun with a barrel .25" shorter than minimum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to umt9 (Reply #35)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:56 PM

42. Thanks.

 

Good info.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to umt9 (Reply #35)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:09 PM

46. Has it never ever prevented 1 criminal? Poor logic. Since one is able to get an illegal weapon....

does not mean it have never prevented someone else from doing to.

There will never be total protection from crime, no matter what. But to turn that around to say no crime was ever prevented is really poor logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #46)

Thu May 2, 2013, 01:01 PM

92. Re-read my post

 

I never said that the act hasn't prevented a criminal from acquiring such weapons nor that it never prevented a crime. I said that it has never prevented criminals from acquiring (or making) such weapons. Believe it or not criminals don't obey laws and are seldom deterred by them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:31 PM

19. LOL.

Yet another bs post by you. The NFA only applies to a tiny percentage of firearms and firearm owners. It is meant for owners of fully automatic machine guns, 'sawed off' shotguns, grenades and similar devices. 99.9% of gun owners have nothing to do with the NFA and they are not part of any gun registry. Fail at your try to mislead people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:32 PM

20. The percentages don't affect the constitutionality question.

Either the government can regulate intrastate transactions between private citizens, or it can't. Are you even paying attention to this discussion, or just trying to "score some points" to make up for the "Harvard Study" debacle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:11 PM

30. I am still waiting for you to disprove one fact presented in that study.

Just one. I suspect I will be collecting SS benefits before that happens. BTW the NFA survives constitutionally because a federal license is needed for those weapons. No federal license need for normal weapons so it would be unconstitutional but keep up your desperation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #30)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:14 PM

31. Amazing, you're still standing by it! Even after it was shown to you that it is right-wing

propaganda, and not published in a science journal, and that the actual Harvard studies (studies performed by Harvard professors, and published in peer reviewed journals) come to the opposite conclusion. I guess this is the face of desperation.

Anyway, hate to burst your bubble, you're not the first NRA mouthpiece to trot out that little piece of pseudoscience. There are plenty of problems with it, including false pieces of data. I keep this link handy to educate each new generation of gun trolls...

Enjoy!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45085

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #31)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:20 PM

32. Wow a typo!

Which of course invalidates the entire study! And you anti-rights people wonder why you never get anywhere. Because after all you say you have 90% of the people on your side! Just a few crazy gun nuts on the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #32)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:23 PM

33. LOL. Using false data is not a "typo".

Let's review. You cite a non-peer reviewed "study" by non-scientists, using false data, and even after you know the people are right-wing ideologues with no credentials, the "study" is just a propaganda piece that doesn't even attempt to do any statistical testing, and the data that the study is based on is false -- you're still defending it.

Perfection!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:00 PM

26. That dog don't hunt any more.

You should give up on the idea gunners have so much power our political future hinges on having their support.
I have said over and over gunners are their own worse enemy. The push for gun legislation won't go away this time. There is no CT effect. The call for more gun control is a hard dog to keep under the porch.
Sooner or layer there will be another tragic shooting, it is inevitable. Could it have been prevented by the new bill? Maybe not the next one but people will remember who stood against background checks. I only hope it isn't little children that get murdered next time.
Your days in the sun are dwindling. Pretty soon people won't give a dog about what you have to say. I honestly expect some more liberal Supreme Court will overturn the Roberts court's legislating from the bench on gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #26)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:16 PM

63. It only takes one person to challenge and you can bet on that person being out there somewhere..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #63)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:45 PM

77. It also takes money and a court willing to hear it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #77)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 08:47 PM

89. The money will be there through lobbying groups like NRA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:22 PM

66. No it isn't

What political capital? When you support something that a big majority of voters want, you gain political capital.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 01:44 PM

24. thye unsolvable problem actually is : we already have 200 million guns

and they don't disappear just by wishing or legislating against new ownership. We already have far too many guns than any country ought to have, and that's not going to change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #24)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:10 PM

28. Your last few words

"and that's not going to change" invites the question: by when? Will it change tomorrow, or next month, or even next year? Probably not, but how about the next decade, or the one after that?

The NRA and its apologists would have you and me believe that the Second Amendment enumerates the absolute right to the unfettered proliferation and hoarding of as many guns as Americans want, with absolutely no oversight or regulation.

The NRA and its apologists would have you and me believe that only they are qualified to interpret the Constitution, and that their reading is the only one that matters. They can do this because they have purchased the votes of those politicians who are paid to agree with them.

The NRA and its apologists would have you and me believe that more guns are the solution to the gun violence problem in this nation, and that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. They can make these assertions because they have purchased the silence of those politicians who should be representing the majority of their constituents.

The NRA and its apologists want you and me to believe that we can never change the gun culture in this country because it's the "American Way." I, along with many millions of Americans, maintain that they are wrong just as the rest of their right-wing policies are wrong. The true American Way, is the way of right vs. wrong, truth vs. lies, and of fairness vs. bullying.

The NRA and its right-wing supporters CAN be defeated morally, AND politically. Support Gabby and Mark Giffords, the Brady Group, MAIG, and other organizations who are fighting to restore sanity to the out-of-control proliferation of lethal weaponry in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:24 PM

69. Yep.

This stupid hand wringing and "it's never going to change" whining is unAmerican and incredibly ignorant. Change, big change, is possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:04 PM

27. From the article...

Now for the bad news for gun reformers. Fifty nine percent say they could vote for a candidate who disagrees with them on guns. Only 19 percent have contacted a public official on the issue; only 15 percent have given money to an organization involved in it. All of this again suggests — as Republicans have calculated — that this isn’t a motivating issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:11 PM

29. So the GOP is counting on the ignorance of the American people.

From your link:
One key reason: Many people simply don’t know that criminals, severely mentally ill people and other high risk groups — like violent misdemeanants and people under a domestic violence restraining order — can get a gun without undergoing a check.


Looks like they may have overestimated how stupid Americans actually are, though. Kelly Ayotte is getting hammered in the polls. Hopefully the Dems can run enough ads ahead of 2014 to make sure every voter knows that criminals can buy guns without background checks, and that the GOP is to blame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #29)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:26 PM

34. Nothing but falsehoods.

People who have been judged "severely mentally ill" can not get a gun without a law being broken. Criminals (felons) can't get a gun without a law being broken. The background check bill in the Senate would not stop a person who had a restraining order from getting a gun. I don't know your definition of a "violent misdemeanants" but if you mean misdemeanors the Senate bill would not stop them either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #34)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:29 PM

36. Uh huh. "There's no loophole". Where have we heard that talking point before?

Although, since you are apparently comfortable with drawing conclusions from data that you know to be false, pretty much nothing you can say at this point is going to be much of a surprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #36)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:32 PM

37. Why did you post falsehoods?

Attempting to mislead people? It must frustrate you to know that people can reply to your posts and point out BS. I notice you did not respond to any of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #37)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:36 PM

38. I think everyone outside the NRA bubble understands that you are the one posting falsehoods.

In the end, if you honestly don't believe that there are any loopholes in the background check laws, then best of luck to you and your delusions.

Here's a friendly top: once you admit that you don't care whether a study uses false data as long as it comes to the conclusion you want, it's going to be pretty hard to dig yourself out...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #38)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:55 PM

40. a "friendly top"?

I don't want to get that friendly. Of course there are loopholes in the background checks. But none of the examples you cited would be cured by the Senate bill that voted on. Of course you knew that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #38)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 12:29 AM

91. "Loophole"

: a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole


The 1994 law requiring background checks..

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr1025rh/pdf/BILLS-103hr1025rh.pdf

Is not ambiguous about not requiring checks on private, intrastate transfers between 2 people who are not in the business of selling firearms who live in the same state..no ambiguity..

It was not an omission resulting in an avenue for evasion of the law...Private sales are quite intentionally exempted.

It isn't a loophole. There was a reason private sales were exempted. There is a reason other bills have never made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. There is a reason it failed when it came to a vote.

This whole discussion could be over and the issue fixed by now..or in ten years if it started now enabling the system for private sales, then going state to state enacting a requirement. A lot of states would enact if it didn't cost them the expense of building their own system..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #29)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:21 PM

48. Yes.

I'm guessing even most gun owners have only bought a gun at a sporting goods store and are actually ignorant of the issue. That also means that they are ignorant of the ramifications of any legislation intended to solve the issue. The more people know, the less support there will be for universal background checks. Of course, that's assuming people care enough to even consider the thing.

Every time something bad happens with a gun people have two choices: work to make the guns go away or go and get a gun to defend themselves from the same thing happening to them. Most people, being human, will opt for self preservation if somebody can't guarantee they will do it for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:43 PM

50. Maybe their problem is the outright contempt that they have for millions of Democrats and

 

Independents that own firearms.

Can they ever push for reform without calling firearm owners "gun nuts" or something equally stupid and fact-free? Can they ever push for reform without calling all expressed opposing views as "NRA talking points"? Can they ever push for reform without overreaching?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #50)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:30 PM

70. Speaking of NRA propaganda

here is a prime example. The "millions of Democrats and Independents" that you speak of are NOT represented by the NRA, nor you Gungeoneers, and they know who the "gun nuts" really are as well as the rest of us. Many millions of them agree with cleaning up the insane laws which allow the unfettered proliferation of guns in this country.

The NRA-promoted fallacy that ALL gun owners march in lockstep is just one of the many lies being promoted by the apologists and "cold dead hands" gun huggers. True "gun nuts" are in the very vocal minority of American gun owners, and are fast becoming the laughing stock of mainstream Americans from BOTH political Parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 07:11 PM

86. The problem they face: Goobers

who can't think for themselves

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread