For now, we must stay ever vigilant.
Meanwhile after the loss Obama showed the emotion we expected of a leader after Newton, Boston, Benghazi…but never got. I wonder why?
Given his record, there’s every reason to believe that what’s really bothering him is the fact that red-state Dems denied him an easy chance today to demagogue Republicans as the party of child murder or whatever, which he was hoping to use next year as a way to retake the House. Then, once he had a Democratic Congress again, he could pass some new horrible permutation of ObamaCare or immigration or the minimum wage or some other liberal wishlist item that has nothing to do with gun control. Just like in his first term! That’s what he’s mad about, that a political bludgeon was essentially taken out of his hands before he had a chance to use it to achieve unrelated goals.
Poor widdle President Stompy Foot.
This angry little man is the man we don’t see behind the scenes. He cannot tolerate dissent, cannot tolerant anyone who doesn’t agree with him…in short the definition of a bad leader.
See author page
It drives me
postalnutsbatty when he claims those who stand opposed to him are putting politics ahead of the interests of the children. Meanwhile….he’s not?!?CURT
this had to be said, I’m so glad it came from you,,
because of your high credibility,
they realize they could not follow the LEADER anymore finally,
it took a long time and not all jumped out the bandwagon,
but we have enough,
bye
@Wordsmith:
It’s very simple. Quibble with the efficacy of background checks, but unless you’re a member of the black helicopter crowd, it’s tough to argue that the President’s gun proposals aren’t intended to increase public safety and decrease the likelihood of mass shootings such as the one that took place in CT. No rational person can argue that having a country awash in easily accessible guns has no connection to the staggering rate of gun violence in the US. The public overwhelmingly supports expanding background checks. Background checks are not unconstitutional. The gun lobby would have you think differently on all these points. I have no reason to believe that public safety is something they care about and I defy anyone to prove me wrong, to show me one instance where they support a measure that would increase safety at the expense of sales/profits.
@Wordsmith, #1:
He wasn’t playing politics. He was representing the opinion of a majority of Americans. But the result of today’s vote will be used politically, to great effect. You can depend on that.
The vast majority of gun related homicides are due to criminals with HANDGUNS, and not law abiding citizens. This attempted power grab would do NothiNG to stop mentally ill or criminals from killing people. If gun control worked then why does Chicago and DC have a higher annal death toll from guns than US soldiers dying in Afghanistan?
Babydoc
instead of pushing for their gun control stupid law ,
they should take the example of the time when the first AMERICANS arrive and found a criminal and hang him or shot him for his inhumanity and bestal killing the good law abiding citizens
nothing work today,
it’s time to step back in time of the real justice for killers
and tormentors, and haters who disrupt a good tolerant SOCIETY who love their beautiful AMERICA, so ready to help in times of grievance
like the horrible BOSTON TERRORIST ATTACK
This memo from Obama’s own DOJ seems to dispute every single talking point for more gun control.
http://static.infowars.com/2013/02/i/general/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf
Obama used his defeat.
Obama demonized his opponents (like he always does).
This time it was:
No.
Those Senators, Republican AND Democrat, knew that the legislation before them would do NOTHING to protect one child.
Obama who has failed utterly to provide any evidence that would suggest that this bill would prevent gun violence in any material way.
Obama also demonized the NRA (not for the 1st time).
Straw man.
WHO said this?
No one I can find in print.
Finally more straw men:
Yes, Obama uses props or photo op backdrops of anecdotal victims or interest groups.
He even said to a small backdrop of military folks, ”You guys make a nice photo op.”
But no one I can find in print says victims don’t deserve to be heard.
Certainly no one who claims victims don’t matter.
We cannot decide federal or national policy based only on anecdotal cases that are culled from the headlines to tug the heartstrings.
This legislation, had it been in force before Sandy Hook would have made no difference whatsoever.
What would have made a difference is what Utah does: laws making it legal for teachers who qualify to carry to be armed in the classroom.
What a difference that would have made.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/our-crappy-political-system-killed-gun-checks.html
Tom, I put in something for you to think about on another thread in response to Greg. The bill was not only about background checks, and the media deliberately ignored the elephant in the room… the mandate, and the way it was constructed, to include “mental illness” reporting to the NICS. I suspect that the elected ones, as well as the public, don’t really want to discuss that. Most on both side of the aisle agree that guns should not be in the hands of lunatics. However the definition of a lunatic, especially being left to govt authorities, is one heck of a slippery slope. And for the pols to start a discussion on this doesn’t benefit either of them… regardless of their party. You’ll even see “conservatives” speaking out both sides of their mouths on this issue.
If they wanted background checks, they likely would have gotten it if they disassociated some other part of the bill.
Which 90%?
From Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/28/1197704/-Skew-the-NRA-Poll-Rec-it-up
Yes, Kos encouraged skewing the poll.
His peeps probably ”voted” hundreds of times each.
Read the comments about ”my voteS.”
And, although he’s the one I found first, I bet his was not the only liberal site encouraging skewing the NRA’s poll.
@Nan G:
I concede. Once again, Nan, you’ve sluethed your way to the bottom of the conspiracy without ever getting up from your keyboard.
@MataHarley:
Thanks for that information. I have not been able to find many details about the proposed changes regarding mental illness to the NICS. If you any, please share. It’s my understanding mental illness has always been a part of the database, although perhaps not comprehensively or systematically. I think what you’ve raised is a fair point worthy of serious discussion, but I can’t imagine a little publicized mental health component killed this bill. The NRA killed the bill because they are dead set against background checks period. It’s that simple. In fact, it sounds like several Republicans introduced an alternate bill with a strong mental health component that simply removed the background check part and the NRA was fine with it.
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294499-sens-grassley-and-cruz-present-alternative-gun-bill#ixzz2QmaSUdT5
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
VP Joe Biden’s son…..
Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden said the next step in gun-control is going to be expanding the definition of those deemed mentally unfit to own a gun.
The mental health definition has usually has boiled down to whether a person is adjudicated mentally ill.
Much of the debate on the Hill has been about whether a doctor can violate patient confidentiality in reporting a person to be listed in the gun-check database, and whether that would discourage those afflicted by mental illness from seeking treatment.
Biden called adjudication “a very high standard, basically being involuntarily committed to a mental institution.”
“We’re going to introduce legislation next week that says that if you are believed to be a risk to yourself or to others by your health care professional, that that health care professional would have an obligation to report that fact to a police agency who then would initiate a process to — to make sure that you do not possess a firearm,” said the vice president’s son.
ObamaCare pits doctors AGAINST patients.
The proposed gun law forces doctors to act as agents of the STATE.
And simply saying on a medical form that you OWN a gun might be enough for a doctor to tell a police agency you could be a harm to others…..depends on the doctor.
Nan G
they’re trying to label the PEOPLE who are self made,
unafraid to speak their mind in front of who ever, even with confidence
that they know what they are talking about, people with character,
the military back from war in hell, the one who are gifted with leadership
who are the first to get into action with determination to fix a problem, or a major devastation like we see in BOSTON those stepping out of the crowd, will be label like anyone with a brain to trigger action and expose publicly, the GOVERNMENT failure and willfull wrong doing for revenge,
those active people from another high standard of conduct, will be target as non conformist,
and there are many dangers, I surely don’t trust any analist who think he is worthy enough to
play JUDAS, like the HITLER REGIME BEGAN and was expanded to all atrocity on humanity,
NO NOT IN AMERICA NEVER
I am in the middle of a new book entitiled ‘The Obama Confession, Secret Fear, Secret Fury’ by Andrew Hodges MD. It does a great job of describing our president as a very angry man bent on destroying America because of the way his father treated him. According to the author, Obama (aand Mrs. Obama) display their hate of white America in many instances.
It’s a good read.
bwax
thank you,for the info, it does sound interesting,
and it’s exactly what we see,
bye
@Tom: “The NRA killed the bill because they are dead set against background checks period.” That is quite inaccurate.
One thing that was never really defined well was the whole “expanded background checks” idea. (The same is always done with sweeping phrases like “comprehensive” or “common sense”, etc by the left – who can fight “it’s for the children?”). Since background checks are already conducted by the FBI; just what more was wanted? The mental health issue is what was wanted from what I could see, and this was loose enough that just about anyone would eventually fall into that trap. As an example, one of the anti-gun bills currently in the NJ Legislature allows “mental health professionals” to declare someone at risk for owning a gun. Those “professionals” would include case workers, counselors and other positions held by people who might not even hold a Bachelor’s degree let alone a doctorate in some aspect of mental health. Would that be abused? The libs in NJ want us to believe that it would not, because this bill is for “the greater good” and is “common sense”. I was at the public hearing and even the author of the bill was chastised by others on the committee, because he did not acknowledge that even the Mental Health Professional Association of NJ was AGAINST this bill. And in NJ, we already have a mental health background check included in a gun application.
We have a lot of laws. Too many in some cases. Rather than every elected official heading to their respective posts thinking their job is to make more new laws, it is beyond time that they ought to consider eliminating ridiculous or untenable laws and fixing what we already have by enforcing what we already have.
Let’s discuss background checks. Sadly I work in Kommiefornya, I have firearms of all sizes, lengths and calibers. I had to wait 10 days to pick up a completely stripped AR clone lower. If you go to Vallejo (one of the many CA towns run into the ground by a Libtard city council) the only people you will find UNARMED are the poor slugs that paid too much for their house that is now worth nothing and they can not leave because they work for a living.
Honest people are honest — Crooks are dishonest — Laws don’t bother the dishonest at all.
I’m not too interested in this bill’s failure because there were so many loopholes that it wouldn’t serve the purpose, but would allow the radical right-wing more fodder to say that background checks don’t work, when, in actuality, the bill—as written—would still allow criminals to purchase fire arms.
I guess we’re going to have to wait until we have an incident a month (or per week) like Connecticut before this country takes appropriate action. Or maybe such an incident needs to invade the gated communities of Congresspeople. As I understand, 90% of the public, and 80% of Republicans (including gun owners) agreed with universal background checks; but those Congress people who voted against the interests of the country, and for their own personal interests to get re-elected to their cushy jobs.
Instead of shooting spitballs at everything the Obama favors—like is the favored position of this website—I would like to see these readers offer and debate one workable plan to lessen gun violence in this country, which does not rely on universal background checks or limitations on magazine capacity. But maybe the reason the black helicopter crowd doesn’t feel such a plan is necessary is because they don’t think violence—of all sorts—is a problem in this country. Maybe they think violence is a natural process for weeding out undesirables—at the expense of the innocent.
The typical conservative reaction is, “Let’s enforce existing laws.” I counter with, “What laws?” I listened to someone call into a talk show this morning who used this excuse. His example was the alleged shooter of the young lady in Chicago, recently His reasoning for this situation being an example of non-enforcement of existing laws: “Why wasn’t this killer not in jail instead of out on bail.” Has this caller ever heard of the concept of being innocent until proven guilty?
@Tom:
Before I get to the NRA, I have a question that I asked Greg in another thread that went unanswered. I would like to pose it to anyone that is for stricter gun control.
Why do you want to federalize the gun laws? The feds do nothing about them. They will make it harder to get a gun…for people that obey the law. For those that don’t, they’ll still get a weapon. Joe Biden made it very clear to Jim Baker, “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”
Yeah, most people are for background checks. I’m for background checks, as long as they are done right, and are not subject to administration-to-administration interpretation. This is straight from the Manchin-Toomey amendment.
I would never support that. Call me a black helicopter crowd person all you want. Change the wording on this to voting rights and think about the Secretary being under a republican administration. Would you want your right to vote subject to the interpretation of the Secretary?
I was going to get to the NRA. The NRA has pushed for tougher sentencing and prosecution under existing gun laws. None of this has happened. The left does not want to prosecute laws, they only want tougher laws.
Now for my question:
What is the use of new laws if the existing laws are not enforced? If the existing laws are only observed by law-abiding people and people that break those laws suffer no consequences, who do those laws punish? If the same holds true for any new laws, who will they punish.
@ThomNJ:
The proposed law would have extended background checks to weapons sold on the internet and at gun shows.
does the 2nd Amendment also cover pressure cooker bombs? certainly they too would be considered arms
@Aqua:
I agree conceptually that in a perfect world it would be best for states to regulate firearms. I believe it makes perfect sense that laws for cities and rural areas would be tailored to the local environment, population density, and cultural norms. It makes no sense to me that every gun law in New York City and every gun law in rural Montana would be the same. Where it all falls apart is that guns travel very easily. Therefore, the laxest state laws on the books are the de facto laws for all states. If my state doesn’t sell guns to criminals and yours does, it defeats the the purpose of my state’s laws when our criminals can just drive over the state border, buy guns, and drive back. It’s really no different than why we have Federal Motor Vehicle Standards – because cars travel easily between states, just like guns. There are some basic laws that go to public safety that make sense everywhere, for the good of everyone. If there is a better way that a federal law to achieve that, I’m all ears.
@Tom:
Are you even aware of what is required to purchase a fire arm via the internet? Do you think the dealer just plops it into a USPS envelope and sends it to you? Have you ever been to a gun show? Have you ever purchased a firearm at a gun show? Obviously no one has told you about a piece of modern technology called the cell phone that dealers use to call in their background checks before they release the purchased firearm. Instead, you swallow, hook, line and sinker, the old “gun show loop hole” meme put out by Obama that is 40 year old data and changed by the Brady Bill.
Yesterday, Dianne Feinstein admitted that this legislation would have done NOTHING to prevent Sandy Hook. Do you disagree with her because if you do, it is probably the first time. How do you prevent someone from killing their own mother, stealing her gun and creating harm with it? If you have an answer to that, I would be interested in hearing it.
These “feel good” bills have not one damn thing to do with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. If that were the case, we would be putting Eric Holder, and half the ATF in jail. Criminals are not going to pay attention to your “feel good” laws and will only disadvantage law abiding citizens and give the criminals an advantage over them. Perhaps you would like to explain why Chicago, with its stringent gun laws, is such a swamp?
@retire05:
That may be so, but I think you lose the right to complain about the effectiveness of a watered-down law when you’re unwilling to support a more effectively stringent one. In the case of the Senate, some of the same people who neutered the law in the first place are now the ones using its alleged deficiencies for cover.
NOW they go for IMMIGRATION new law welcoming illegals,
HEY HOLD ON IMMIGRATION UNTIL
THE AMERICANS FIND JOBS< AND ARE THE FIRST PRIORITY TO GET IT
UNTIL ALL HAVE WORK INCLUDING THE FELONS OF NO DANGER FOR SOCIETY.
YOU ARE WORKING UPSIDE DOWN, AGAINST AMERICANS BEST INTEREST,
get in line to help the job market to regain trust they lost in this GOVERNMENT of cliff, and SEQUESTRATION non stop, I you cannot concentrate on jobs,
you are not fit to serve the public get off the position not deserved,
and let's see if you find a job, enough talk and more results only for the AMERICANS
A good day for the Constitution.
I read, and can not say with certainty until I read the failed bill, but deep inside of the bill was confiscation of weapons. If so this is not surprising as all bills have ‘nifty’ little things hidden in them.
Tom and Greg, as to my comment #1:
So president Obama is the white knight who isn’t being politically manipulative while those who opposed are putting politics ahead of the interests of children? One side has the best interest of children at heart and the other side does not?
Yesterday was a good day, listening to the Sound and Fury of the anti-gun crowd. All those who follow President Obama will end up in an unhappy place, and there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
From the movie Conan the Barbarian:
Q: Conan, what is best in life?
A: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
The bad guys and their misguided sheeple are beaten and dejected. Good. Time to drive right through. Let’s say it loudly in every available venue: they lost because they couldn’t present a reasonable argument. If you can about the safety of children and if you care about reducing violence, then there are valid, legal means to accomplish those goals. This isn’t it.
While on a roll, someone sent me the following:
Dianne Feinstein said:
“All vets are mentally ill and government should prevent them from owning firearms”
she really said it on a Thursday in a meeting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. the quote below from the LA Times is priceless.
Kurt Nimmo: “Senator Feinstein insults all U.S. Veterans as she flays about in a vain attempt to save her bill.”
Quote of the Day from the Los Angeles Times:
“Frankly, I don’t know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I’m not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we’re Number One. There’s no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on ‘Macbeth’. The four of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don’t know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words.”
— Columnist Burt Prelutsky, Los Angeles Times
John
good you mention it,
we must remind OBAMA to get of the GUN and think about the BOMBS, or DRONES, oops
there is a question in there he did not mention it because he has the DRONES,
and he wont surrender his WEAPON, he like to play with it.
@Tom:
I totally don’t understand this. I live in Georgia, probably one of the most lax States in terms of gun laws in the country. It’s actually illegal for any municipality to register a firearm. Yet we still have background checks and they are tight. And even at gun shows, you have to pass a background check. That is the so-called “gun show loophole.” If you have a Federal Firearms License, you have to run background checks at gun shows, no matter the State. There are supposed to be some States that do not require a background check if the weapon is sold by a private dealer, even at a gun show. But I don’t know what States those might be. This map shows States that have the “gun show loophole” but it’s wrong.
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html
The number of independent dealers at a gun show is pretty small. Even so, I would support making them subject to background checks. Even if this forced independent non-FFL dealers out of gun shows, I would support it. Instead of congress having to make every single bill into a Comprehensive package, what if someone just wrote a bill stating all sells at gun shows will be required to go through background checks regardless of FFL status? A couple of lines and done. Why does every bill have to be a thousand pages long?
@Wordsmith:
I’m curious, did you read Obama’s actual remarks? I don’t agree that he is directly or indirectly stating that those opposed are putting politics before children. He very directly states that many of those opposed in the senate are putting politics before crossing the gun lobby. And he quite articulately lays out exactly how the gun lobby lied and fear mongered about the bill in question to put pressure on those individuals:
But your critique is a common one, and I can’t respond to it any better than Obama did:
@Tom:
As is her husband, Mark Kelly. But Kelly seems to think the laws are just for the little people, not hotshot astronauts married to a former Congresswoman.
“Doug MacKinlay, the owner of Diamondback Police Supply where Kelly bought the gun (a Sig Sauer 1911 handgun) said Kelly was initially turned down when he walked into the store several weeks ago because his identification was from Texas.
http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USBRE92C02W20130313
Do you not think that Kelly had a responsibility to know the laws of the very state he was living in? Or was he trying to scam the gun dealer, just like he is scamming the Galveston County Appraisal District by claiming a homestead tax exemption on his house in League City, Texas, when he declared that the home he purchased on 7/12/2012 in Tucson was his “primary” residence? Kelly is a liar first and tax cheat secondly.
Why pick dozens of white parents from Sandy Hook when there are hundreds of black parents from his own town of Chicago he could have used for a photo op? Or is it that Obama knows that no matter how stringent the guns laws are, as they are in Chicago, will prevent criminals from committing crimes with guns the criminals get from the black market?
Three people, including a young boy, are dead in Boston due to a bombing. The terrorist used a standard kitchen pressure cooker. Shall we now require every housewife to fill out a federal form if she wants to buy a pressure cooker come canning time? How far are you willing to go to relinquish your Constitutional rights all the name of some false sense of security?
@Tom, yes the NRA… who was instrumental in getting the NICS off the ground… obviously cannot be against background checks. As are most gun owners. But then federal databases of “prohibited people” can be a dangerous thing. And I doubt even most of those of liberal bent would disagree with that.
But allow me to correct, or clarify per se, the statement I made above about the mentally ill and reporting as it relates to this bill. The first part of Reid’s S. 649 – Title I – is all about grants for the NICS system. In other words, Congress is holding federal funds for the States ransom, plus imposing penalties, for not providing what is the required data to the NICS database.
Then what should follow is the question, what is the required data to be?
Pass this bill, and Lindsey Graham’s S.480 bill, the NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013, likely to pass because of it’s bipartisan construct, is creating a federal database on those with “mental illness”… and enforceable by withholding federal funds to the States.
So you might say this is another Congressional two-step. The NICS grant penalties and text seem innocuous, ensconced casually in the background check bill. But when you combine that beefing up of the database with the mental illness legislation coming down the pike, the result is the same as were it laid out in one bill.
You would think they would put those penalties andthe threat of federal ransom in the Lindsey Graham bill, being as it’s related to NICS database content. But no… that would make it too overt to we unsuspecting citizens.
Thus the elephant in the room, unless one also knows how Congress choreographs their dance to mask the end result. Both parties.
Mental illness is the new “gun control” that both sides of the aisle can agree upon. However how that is happening, how those medical records get on a federal database, who makes the decision on what is “mentally ill” and who inputs that data on the NICS is where the greatest danger lies. If they use the NIH classifications, you will have widespread prohibitions of Americans, unable to purchase weapons.
@Tom:
I haven’t read the transcript. But I’ve been listening to his remarks on radio and some mainstream news clips. So aside from not following closely the remarks in their entirety from beginning to end, I think hearing the inflections and tone in his voice and seeing his demeanor and facial expressions is a lot more telling than just reading what his remarks are (what was actually said).
So they are acting out of insincerity; are basing their decision on politics over having their emotional heartstrings tugged by Sandy Hook victims?
Has there been a sudden spike in gun violence that I am unaware of? Mass shootings? Why wasn’t this part of his 2012 presidential campaign if it’s such an important, life-threatening issue?
And isn’t this playing politics? Isn’t this what both sides do, to influence their perspective on a legislative bill?!
As he often does, he resorts to a strawman.
Why doesn’t he welcome Mark Mattioli to stand there as a human prop? (This isn’t the first, second, or even third time that the president has used human props in the background to try to influence emotion during a press conference).
It’s politics. And he is engaged in it every bit as much as the side that opposes him with a differing perspective on reality.
@retire05:
There are two common fallacious arguments buried in there. 1, if a law intended to promote public safety isn’t 100% effective every time, why bother; and 2, agreeing with a popular common sense regulation measure is akin to endorsing all manners of far-reaching bogeymen anti-Constitutional measures. These arguments have been shredded so many times, I won’t even bother.
@MataHarley:
That is definitely food for thought. Have there been alternate proposals as to how we curtail the ability of the mentally ill to purchase guns? Would it be necessary for a person to pass through the criminal justice system first? Am I wrong in recalling reading that psychiatrists can currently get someone onto the NICS?
@Wordsmith:
Fair enough. A visceral reaction to a person is something I can understand. GWB had the same effect upon many on the left. It’s interesting though that when Obama seems most sincerely emotionally honest to some, he seems most politically calculating to others. I don’t know that that was always the case with Bush.
No spike is necessary. Gun violence is already, and has been, at epidemic levels. Sometimes it takes a spark or a moment to coalesce support, or overcome complacency. As to why Obama wasn’t for it previously, it politically does nothing for him. Those who are for gun-control were already going to vote for him, and vice-versa. He’s expending political capital now, and absorbing an avoidable political defeat, with no real political upside. Where those who would say this is all politics now, I would say it was all politics then when he previously avoided the issue as a no-winner.
@Tom:
How many laws do you want on the books? We have federal laws, state laws and municipal laws that go even farther, and yet, not one of those laws have prevented another Columbine, have they?
And how are you going to feel when women, who have been stalked by some deranged man, wants to purchase a hand gun and take concealed carry classes to obtain her concealed carry license, is rejected because her docctor says she was treated for a “mental disorder” which could be anything, uncluding the depression caused by being stalked? Why do you on the left hate women? What about the old man, physically incapable of defending himself, living in a bad neighborhood because that is all he can afford, wants to purchase a gun for self protection but his doctor decides that he is being unreasonable in his fear and labels that a “mental disorder?” Why do you hate old people?
Do you really want the Federal government digging into your medical records?
After Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in OK City using fertilizer, the government decided to limit the amount of fertilizer someone can purchase without filling out a form and submitting it to the feds. What that did was punish every rancher/farmer who buys fertilizer in bulk. But if you want to take the time, and buy in small amounts, within a week you could amass the same amount of fertilizer that McVeigh did with absolutely no problem. Just another “feel good” piece of legislation that will do nothing to prevent another OK City.
Everything you libs want to do is reactive, not pro-active.
@Tom, I’m not sure there *is* an “alternative” to what already exists. There are already laws for those convicted of some crimes that are already prohibited from gun ownership. To place people on a database who have not committed a crime, but may be “ripe” to do so because of perceived mentally instability is an attempt at preemptive criminal behavior. And where does that line get drawn?
Even in Reid’s bill, that perception of omnipotence shows up under the straw purchase expanded section. Those with restraining orders, under certain conditions, are prohibited and will have to be put on “the list”. There is even one that starts out with an “intends to…”
Now how is the firearm seller… dealer or private party… supposed to be in possession of that knowledge?
To effectively achieve a stripping of the RKBA, one only needs to mandate NICS reporting so widespread that few people would be able to purchase. This can include people who take drugs for bipolar disorders, ADD/ADHD, mood control, PTSD etc, (all classified as mental illness via the NIH), and perhaps even repeated drunk driving charges.
You can’t preempt, or predict, criminal behavior without handcuffing most law abiding citizens, and infringing on their rights. You can only go with what is on record. And that’s already law.
And yes, it is worrisome that any medical professional could report a patient to the NICS, even without their knowledge, as being a potential risk despite not having a criminal record. With the passage of Reid’s bill, it would then be mandated to be reported. Where these medical professionals get that power, if they do have it, I do not know. But it should never be codified.
I heard AMERICAN sing together their love for AMERICA at the BOSTON playoff, REDSOCKS
REDSOCK and YANKEE all the fans together in one voice
it was so patriotic and so genuine,
so beautiful,
it made me cry with hem with their hurt,
go AMERICA keep signing those PATRIOTIC SONGS for all to get it once and for all.
BTW, TOm. This is a GAO study from July 2012, on why many states were not passing on medical records to the NICS. The 61 pg PDF is available, but the short story is that some were because of switching from paper to electronic databases, and others have State laws that prohibit this sharing of the medical records.
The Reid bill would usurp State laws, and force the States to load the medical records, or lose federal funds and pay penalties.
Either way, Congress and the feds are determined to have this sensitive medical information at their fingertips, and how that criteria is decided, and by whom, is what I am wary of the most. T’ain’t about the background check, itself, to me. It’s about what’s put on that background check database.
MATAHarley
how dare the FED hold the finances going to the STATES,
are they abusing their control again this is a threat as I understand it,
there was a blogger who mention there must not be a GUN NATIONAL REGISTRY, he
insist of the danger of it.
bye
Bees, there is no federal gun registry, and there will be no federal gun registry since that is unConstitutional. Already enacted legislation states that such a registration will not be created. Less worried about registries than I am federal databases of people they deem “mentally ill”, and by what method they got that classification.
The feds have every right to withhold federal funds from the States. It’s not the State’s revenue, and they have no automatic claim to such. So feds use that often to get states to comply. They did the same with motorcycle helmet laws, denying the states road funds unless they passed a law requiring helmet usage. It’s no different than you telling your kid that you will dock his allowance if he doesn’t do something you want. Your kid isn’t entitled to that allowance, and you make the rules as to how he can receive it.
@Tom:
I believe that President Obama is politically calculating- and good at it. But I also do not doubt that he is sincere in his emotions and his motives- that he truly wants to protect kids and reduce gun violence. I just disagree with him and gun control advocates that their desired actions will achieve desired outcome. I believe that a number of liberal policies achieve the exact opposite to well-intended, desired results. Well-meaning and misguided.
Derangement Syndrome exists on both sides of the political aisle. There were those Bush-haters who doubted his sincerity whenever he visits wounded soldiers or speaks fondly of the troops- after all, he sent them to war to make his rich oil friends richer.
@Tom:
On the contrary, Tom, it is quite easy to argue that public safety is not the primary concern, if a concern at all. All one has to do is refer to the facts: each one of the recent high-profile gun-violence tragedies have one thing in common… an attention to mental health warning signs would have prevented them. Sandy Hook WOULD have been prevented had the ACLU not blocked legislation that would have helped Nancy Lanza do what she was trying to do (and got her killed); put Adam in an institution.
Aside from the fact that when the object of the proposed legislation, the infamous “assault weapon”, the aforementioned object does not even exist, as available to the public, the entire proposal is a hoax. What would a gun or magazine ban do that stiffer and harsher enforcement of existing laws (and an end to forgiving violent criminals based on their subjection to “social injustice”) would not do much better? How would an “assault weapon” ban or background check have protected little Hadiya Pendleton in Chicago? Her killer(s) are not concerned about laws and have less regard for innocent life than the cred they achieve by throwing down on rival gang members regardless of consequences. They fear not repercussions because, more than likely, they have been there, beaten that.
I would also add that it is equally easy that a nation “awash in easily accessable guns” cannot be declared a safety hazard since, while millions of guns have gone into the hands of law-abiding citizens, violent crime has decreased. So, in fact, it could be easily and readily argued that MORE guns (legally in the hands of citizens, per the 2nd Amendment) leads to safety and peace.
If the entire campaign of the left wasn’t based on emotion and misrepresentation, perhaps they could have achieved some of their goals (as useless as they would have been). All they can do now is hope and pray (to their gods) for another horrendous tragedy to exploit.
@Tom: If you purchase a firearm on the internet it has to be shipped to an FFL regardless if the seller is an FFL or a private citizen. The FFL is the one who phones ATF for the authorization number. A private citizen can’t ship a firearm through the mail either. That can only be done by an FFL. That has been the law for at least 10 years (same for internet sales). Anyone not doing so is in violation of the law. I’ve come across a couple of sellers on the net who said they didn’t want to ship to an FFL. That means they were either a criminal, a scammer, or an undercover ATF agent looking to trap someone. Not sure where the confusion lies as to the background checks.
@Greg: Not the majority. You’re lying and you know it. Polls are, and have been, hopelessly corrupted to show what ever the dem/libs want them to show.
Stop speaking as though you are the “majority” and you have the right to roll over other citizen’s views. In case you didn’t know, we do not live in a “majority rules” nation. We have a political process, and that process was what you saw today.
If we ruled by just letting liberal AP take a poll, we’d be a full-blown fascist state before you could say the word “tyranny.”
@Tom: 90% Not by a long shot.
@Tom: That’s the ol “I’m not picking your purse” statement . . . while you watch your purse bet picked. It only is meant to prevent those already indoctrinated from having the spell broken (the indoctrinated being told by Obama’s “endorsement” on who to vote for in 2016. If you pay around 2 billion to buy the oval office, you might as well get as much out of it as you can.
@Nathan Blue, #51:
There’s something almost cult-like about the way right wing media is attempting to inoculate those under its sway from possible ideological contamination by other information sources. They’ve got their adherents believing that everyone else is the victim of excessive Kool-Aid consumption.
@bburris:
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of many of the more enthusiastic gun owners about what is driving attempts at gun regulation. People like to frame this in terms of taking something from them, infringing on their rights, playing politics: have you ever actually contemplated why someone might support measures like universal background checks on a personal level? Where I grew up, guns are not deeply embedded into the way of life. Most people don’t have a history with or affinity for target practice or hunting, or whatever else you do with them. Since I don’t have a gun, in my world guns aren’t a source of protection. Guns, to me, are only a potential source of violence against me and my family. And this is a fairly common sentiment. I know very few people with guns and almost all of them are law enforcement. From a purely selfish standpoint, having millions of people, many of them untrained, or not careful, or simply criminal, run around with guns has no upside for me, just downside. I can conceptually tolerate it because I know they’re not going anywhere, and – more or less – this will continue to be part of the makeup and fabric of America, but I don’t have to like everything about it. If you’re wondering why those parents from Sandy Hook have been so outspoken, maybe they share my experiences and outlook with guns, except for them, that potential downside actually hit home. Do you really thing something so abstract as “you’re impinging on my Second Amendment rights” is going to register with those parents? Do you think the argument that more guns everywhere will make a community like theirs safer will register? How should they receive the fact that gun enthusiasts and the gun lobby cannot compromise on one simple issue, and not only that, they preen and celebrate that fact? Perhaps it was an overreach by the NRA this time. There is a baked in level of tolerance Americans who don’t own guns have for guns and their inherent risk to life and limb, but I can see that curdling very quickly when it registers that their fellow citizens really could care less about their safety concerns. Just something to think about while your popping the champagne.
Corruption reigns…
Blogger Raided by FBI:
http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/fbi-raids-blogger-over-obama-ineligibility-evidence/
Tom, having you speak openly has no potential upside for me either. I don’t see how people who are willfully ignorant, irresponsible and antagonistic should be allowed to express such views as they are meaningless to me, and whole lot of people like myself. So, why should people like you be free to speak in public? Why can’t we just all agree that you need to give up some of your 1st amendment rights…so that the rest of us might sleep better at night?
That’s not how “rights” work and why they are inherently different than your needs, wants, and desires. If we applied the same logic to the first amendment…..you’d be in your apt with tape over your mouth and no computer access.
I personally had no problem with expanded background checks and updated check lists to include better reporting on dangerous mentally ill persons. (ie., the actual problem), as well as better enforcement when people “did” commit a supposed felony by attempting to purchase a firearm and lieing on the form. But, the legislation just never got to the point that it could meet the threshold without bending things too far the other way, or including things that had no bearing on the issue. I would add, the ACLU didn’t like the bill either for the same reasons.
MataHarley
it’s still a dirty trick
is in it, they treat the STATES GOVERNOR as a inferior under their power,
using money as an incentive,
IT’s okay with CHILDREN you want to force into the right action or correct
using the money,
but to GOVERNORS is dirty,
I would send them to hell with their money,
bye
@Greg: I don’t watch any “right-wing” media, so I couldn’t tell ya. I only know the 90% figure is fallacious, and the mime of “we’re the majority by a long-shot” has taken root with too many people . . . just as was hoped.
Wall Street Journal’s Review and Outlook: Gun Control Meltdown: The President’s agenda fails in the Democratic Senate:
Obama:
Las Vegas KNTV news reported that Harry Reid said he voted “No” because the bill did not include mandatory registration The Wall Street Journal notes:
Now, after having won his re-election due to their support, Harry has stabbed these campaign supporters in the back, and oddly stated that he supported the bill and ALL the amendments. (It is not clear in his “all” statement if he was including the Republican amendments or only the Democrat ones.)
The Scolder-In-Chief Is In a Snit, You Guys
Obama said:
He is absolutely right, That is what conservatives need to do to protect our Bill of Rights from power-hungry Democratic Nanny-state politicians like Cumo and Bloomberg.Next on the agenda, remove oath-breaking Republican Senators like Toomey, who collaborated with far-left senators to infringe on our second amendment rights.
This is not over by a long-shot. The bill has only been shelved, and it wouldn’t surprise me for Reid to bring it up in the dead of night or without warning to try to shove it through when Republican’s and the pro-2nd amendment folk are least expecting it. Obama claims that “a minority” stopped the bill from going through. The last I checked, 60 out of a 100 Senators is not a minority, but this is not the first time that Obama has had trouble with even the most minor of concepts of a mathematical nature.
Expanding background checks to catch criminals is a waste of time, money and effort as criminals don’t do background checks on other criminals. Creating an expanded, vague new mental health evaluation component to background checks that allows for widely subjective psychological evaluation by those without adequate training, introduces a chaotic non-standard whereby a person can (without due process or appeal) have their constitutional rights violated. This is in it’s unconstitutionality, not unlike a requiring of an independent intelligence quotient evaluation via faceless bureaucrats before a person would be allowed to vote or to exercise their 1st Amendment right to free speech. This was an underhanded and devious Federal legislative power-grab intended to easily enable the infringement of a constitutional right by the Federal government and Executive department interpretation could have used executive orders and administrative powers to dictate the meaning of mental disability for disqualification.
@Dc:
So it’s going to be like that, eh?
I’m enjoying this tortured metaphor. My discussing why people might feel strongly about gun background checks is somehow the equivalent of walking all over your 1st Amendment rights because apparently not loving guns is un-Constitutional.
Ugh. I hope you don’t think you’re being original. How many times do I have to see this same hysterical, illogical jump to the absurd as a defense against discussing measures that aren’t even remotely un-Constitutional. God forbid people have an honest discussion without the angry cliches being trotted out.
Don’t let that stop your from getting off your chest all the problems you have with my feeling that way.
Your Right-wing talking points are dated. Maybe next time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/15/aclu-toomey-manchin-bill-would-make-national-gun-registry-less-likely/
The GOP has proven themselves once again to be on the wrong side of history and worthless. Say hello to a Dem controlled house in 2014.
Ditto
what a good read, thank you
we have some positive actions,
but HE is stuck on that, now he declare war, it’s only the first round, he said,
get ready CONGRESS, you now need a weapon to fight his war.
like the SEQUESTRER it will be mean,
aus armes citoyens,
marchon, marchon, la la lala, la victoire est arrivee,
THIS ONE you’re John,
oops you’re in trouble,
No, child. He asked me to pick one and stay. This one, is it.
Nice victory…for corporate America;
Gun lobby funded all but three senators who voted against background checks
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/18/gun-lobby-funded-all-but-three-senators-who-voted-against-background-checks/
This was sunk by DNC senators from red states. And they did to “keep” their jobs…not lose them. You’ve got it backwards….2014 may cost the DNC. Not the other way around.
If you believe the NRA and the republicans are the only one’s spending money and playing politics with this issue…or that only RNC members have business and lobby ties…..I dont’ know what to say to you. You’re either an idiot or a complete partisan hack.
The problem was…everybody saw through it. (ie., closing loopholes that don’t exist). Internet retail sales “already” go through a lic firearms dealer near you, where you pick it up and do a background check. And private sales have always been exempt…because there is NO WAY TO TRACK THEM without having the very kind of data base that they “claim” they were not creating. And finally, NONE of this would have prevented the tragedy in Conn.
And despite some of you maybe not giving a shit about what effect or impact any of this has or doesn’t have on 2nd amendment rights of others…or whatever your “opinion” might be about what rights people should or shouldn’t have….IT”S NOT UP TO YOU to decide for everybody else. You are free to do what you want.
My 1st amendment example was “meant” to be absurd. The SCOTUS has upheld that if something is “speech”, then it is held to a much higher standard when considering whether and how to limit it or not…ie., how it is regulated. It’s not that it can’t be regulated. But, that such regulations that seek to restrict or curtail it…be of a higher standard. The 2nd amendment is no different in how it should be approached/treated. And these latest attempts obviously didn’t hit that mark. I’m not saying that I don’t think they ever can. I’m just saying these…didn’t.
You can’t yell fire in a theater because it is not speech. It is a criminal act intended to cause bodily harm….just as we already have laws governing the “use” of a firearm. You can’t legally “shoot” people in a crowded theater either. Nobody is arguing what Adam Lanza did is “legal” or should be. We are asking that any regulation you seek to restrict such rights…or impose on citizens who are otherwise exercising their 2nd amendment rights be done with the same high standard; that it respects the privacy and rights of individual gun owners and law abiding dealers, business, etc. (regardless of whether you agree or disagree) in the same manner. I don’t think these bills made it to that level. And I “certainly” dont think the discourse (ie., demagoguery) even by the POTUS himself did.
In NYC, they had a West Indian parade in Brooklyn. 6 people got shot. Bloomberg was on TV next day trashing gun industry, legal gun owners, shooters, etc…as causing the deaths’ of those people by perpetuating the problem under the guise of the 2nd amendment. In fine print..somewhere in the back of the reporting was the statement that the guy who did this had 3 priors for shooting people and gun violations. He was on parole from his last gun conviction and violent felony. “”” crickets.”””” . You see, we want to be “sure” that we dont’ violate Mr Shooters rights…despite the fact that he’s rather violent or we may all disagree with his lifestyle and choices. So our solution is to remove the guns from otherwise law abiding citizens…enough so…that we might just make it more difficult for Mr 3x loser shooter…who isn’t supposed to have one…to get his hands on a gun.
And btw…I’m not a republican. Never have been. Another miscalculation.
DC, per the roll call vote on S. Amendment 715, the background checks amendment, only five Dems voted against it. The vote was 54-46. Had all five Dems voted yea instead of nay, it would still have failed. It had to get 60 votes.
The Grassley Amendment S.725, dealing with expanding NICS, mental health etc, wasn’t even that close. That was a 52 yea-48 nay vote, again falling short of the 60. On that Amendment, only one GOP voted nae and the rest were Dems. Nine Dems voted with the GOP on a yea.
You can view all the votes/Amendments here. It had many votes, and many varied degrees and stages of fail.
@This one:
Democrats want to claim they are only thinking of the children. Not so.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00314617&cycle=2008
And who was one of Planned Parenthood’s top recipients of dirty money? Why, none other than Gabby Giffords. It seems babies, be they human or seals, are not safe around Giffords and her tax cheat husband.
Thought I’d add Obama’s recent words to North Korea:
Ironic n’est ce pas?
Mata, ….thank GOD. And where were those DNC senators from?
Montana? AK? North Dakota? ie…”fly over states”?
How about the vote on this amendment to protect the 2nd amendment rights of veterans and their families?
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00102
Dc, tisn’t rocket science that the more “blue dog Dem” types are from either fly over or southern States. They not only represent their mixed bag of constituents, but they are a mixed bag themselves. I wouldn’t expect a Democrat representative from urban sprawl States like NY or NJ to vote the same way as a Democrat from a more rural state like AR or MT… especially when it comes to gun measures.
My point was only to address your observation that it was the Dems, themselves, that “sunk” the Manchin-Toomey background check Amendment vote. Since they do not have a supermajority, even putting every Dem in the yea column still wouldn’t guarantee passage, and didn’t. It would take enough defecting Republicans to do so. Those are the ones conservatives should be paying attention to.
Summary, on that particular amendment, three minority party Republicans defected to stand with the Dems – Toomey and Kirk (both co-sponsors of the Amendment), and McCain. All the rest of the GOP Senators voted nae. Five majority party Dems defected to stand with the Republicans.
Feinstein’s attempt for “assault weapon” ban went down in flames big time… only 40 Senators voting yea. Only one, predictable, Republican voted for that… Kirk from IL. But then, many states are busy doing that on their own. I’m tapping my toes, waiting for the lawsuits to be filed, as they should.
I tend to believe that the Heller decision has really driven home the point that Congress can’t do as much as some gun control advocates may like them to do. Registries, classes of common weapons, mandated trigger locks… all unconstitutional. And I suspect that medical records may not pass constitutional muster either.
@Nathan Blue, #59:
Since you’ve apparently rejected polls as a source of information, how do you arrive at this conclusion?
I’m going by the results of a recent Quinnippiac University poll and a recent CBS News poll. A recent CNN/ORC poll found that 86% of the public favor increased background check requirements. A recent ABC News poll asked “Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?” Once again, 86% stated they would support this.
In all of these, the samples were large and the margins of error were low.
The snapshots each provide of public opinion are clear and consistent. Add to that the fact that nobody has mainstream poll results that suggest anything different. To my mind, there’s only one reasonable conclusion: The results of the recent Senate vote run contrary to the will of nearly 90 percent of the American public.
The elected officials who are responsible for this result had better celebrate their victory now. They may not be feeling so celebratory about it in the near future.
@Greg:
Greg, as you might know, the bill was not a simple background check bill.
It was a comprehensive monstrosity including a new concept of background check.
This bill piggybacks on the Biden ideal of inserting doctors into the gov’t side against their own patients.
Remember there are some doctors who think the very idea of wanting a gun is a sure sign of mental illness!
Remember big sis once said all veterans were too mentally ill to be allowed guns.
So, a simple bill about a simple background check is apples-to-oranges different from THIS bill.
The ”90%” has nothing to do with THIS bill.
Nan G
yes the snooping on other to give their names by people
was horrible to think of making it a law,
can you envisage the OBAMA’s own crowd those mark in his book from all corners,
hunting those who don’t belong and are not written in the blue book,
AMERICANS AGAINST AMERICANS, like he has it fixed,
and now aren’t people happy to have their gun to protect them and own family
with this situation going on right now, hunting for a killer,
we have the proof right here,
I hope they leave the people alone and stop scaring and threatening them to haunt them
because they own a gun.
and concentrate on welcoming stable jobs creator with the freedom to do what they know best
that is create jobs,
and OBAMA cannot do it,
he only hire for the GOVERNMENT public jobs paid by the hard working citizens,
not created by anyone except the UNIONS
IT’s clear as crystal now that OBAMA want total control on people and he use the weak
and hurt and wounded in their sorrow to impliment his total control,
the CONGRESS will have to be vigilant so to prevent him from it, and watch those in CONGRESS sold to OBAMA to be unable to support his nefarious agenda,
GREG
you’re sources on polls are bogus,
they lost credibility from the readers
try the FOX POLLS
Best Gun Control Ad:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/copyranter/the-best-gun-control-commercial-ever-produced
Victory?
42 or 25 Senators who Voted Against Gun Reform Receive Money from Gun Lobbies:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/pro-gun-groups-donated-senators
States with stricter gun laws have less violent crime. In 2006, the NRA successfully lobbied Congress to prevent the co0llection of data related to gun sales and crime and to de-fund the ATF. It has been without a Director until last month. They also believe those on the terror watch list should be allowed to have guns.
Law Enforcement More Likely To Be Killed In States With Weak Gun Laws, Study Finds
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/04/08/1835021/law-enforcement-more-likely-to-be-killed-in-states-with-weak-gun-laws-study-finds/
Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/
Guns in homes pose greater risk to families than to intruders, data show
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/purple-wisconsin/184209741.html
Gun Lobby Helps Block Data Collection by Crimefighters
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-13/gun-lobby-helps-block-data-collection-by-crimefighters.html
Americans, even NRA members, want gun reforms
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/opinion/glaze-gun-control
Chart: Before and after the assault weapons ban
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/12/26/16169576-chart-before-and-after-the-assault-weapons-ban?lite
@Tom:
Right now, there are reports that the State of New York is issuing subpoenas for health records in their SAFE Act. Then they will determine who is and who isn’t mentally fit to have a weapon.
I don’t personally know anyone that doesn’t feel for the Sandy Hook parents. What happened was horrific. But a gun was just a tool used in their deaths; their deaths were caused by a lunatic. And I can relate to the Sandy Hook parents. I lost a son six years ago in a car accident. The person he was driving with was speeding on a winding road. It wasn’t the car’s fault, it was the idiot that was speeding that killed my son. Was I mad? Damn right I was mad. If I could have gotten my hands around the little jack asses throat at the time, I would be writing this from prison. But I didn’t seek to ban cars or winding roads. I did make sure the jack ass that was driving got jail time though.
I understand exactly what you are saying about not being around guns, therefore not being able to sympathize with those that feel their 2nd amendment rights might be taken. That’s why States should decide for themselves. Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the country; it didn’t stop Sandy Hook. Connecticut wants to strengthen their gun laws; that is their right as a sovereign State. I don’t agree with it, but it’s their State. If New York, Massachusetts, or any other State wants to have tougher gun laws, more power to them. If my State tries it, I will do everything in my power to prevent it.
@This one:
Oh hell yeah! Chicago is the safest city on the planet. /sarc
@Aqua:
As is all those other stringent gun law cities like Detroit, St. Louis, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, all Democrat run cities.
And then Greggie gives us the Quinnipiac poll thinking that boosts his argument. Ooooops. Quinnipiac polled 1,722 people, from Pennslyvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Ohio, Florida and Virginia. Seven states. Where are the other 50 states represented in that poll? CNN weights its poll heavily toward Democrats, as did the Quinnipiac poll, and all the other polls Greggie listed.
You know, funny you mention that. It’s a somewhat glamorous, if not misleading, title to an amendment. Below is the entire text of SA 720, the “protect veterans and their families” amendment. Odd thing is that similar language is already in the bill as to adjudication. Nor does it single out veterans and their families in particular. So I’m not sure what it was supposed to accomplish in the large scheme of things.
But since the whole exercise was a big fail, it’s all moot. Which is exactly why it should have been brought to a vote.
@MataHarley:
That bill.
Didn’t it get to a cloture vote in the Senate?
I read that Harry Reid tabled a gun bill.
It wasn’t this one, was it?
Nan G, all I know is the Thomas website updates that I provided to Dc below. Here it is again.
According to that, there were two more amendments voted on yesterday… both passed. Harkin’s SA730, according to the summary, is just another spending bill from what I can see. The intent is “To reauthorize and improve programs related to mental health and substance use disorders.” One thing both parties can generally agree on is feel good spending measures. Sailed thru 95 yea – 2 nae.
The other amendment, WY-R Burasso’s SA 717, was also agreed to 67 yea – 30 nae. That amendment is to withhold funds from a particular federal program to state and local governments who release confidential info about gun owners and victims.
So if S.649 has been tabled, it sure wasn’t yesterday. There are five related Senate Bills. No clue which answers your question.
Thanks Mata. My assumption that the Dems sunk the bill was based on the fact that they hold the majority in the senate and it didn’t pass. I didn’t realize it took a 3/5th majority to pass. Thank you for pointing that out and providing the link.
My other comments were directed at responding to “This One’s” comments which implied that only GOP senators vote this way or receive corporate/lobby money, Or that the NRA is the only lobby/money in washington surrounding this issue. Didn’t do a good job of it. Sorry. Really touchy about it lately and tired of being called a republican and put in a box because I feel the way I do on this issue.
I also want to apologize to Tom. I was trying to make a point by being ridiculous to show the difference between a “right” and a need, etc., using the first amendment as an example and it just came out wrong. Probably for the same reason. Tom, I’m sorry. I appreciate your view and thought you expressed it well. There are LOTS of people who grew up in cities never been exposed to guns at all. Used to, there would be boy scouts, or other sporting and hunting trip events where people might be exposed or introduced to firearms in a safe and responsible manner. But, those things have pretty much gone away…mostly demonized and run off if you ask me.
I just believe that the 2nd amendment was put there (ie., “second”) for a good reason and is not to be taken lightly. I also believe that it is “still” just as relevant today as it was then. Times were different then for “everything”, speech included, not just guns. I don’t think the fact that such dangers against suppression are different or less in some instances…negates the 2nd amendment anymore than it does the first. That’s more the point I was trying to make with my sarcastic rant.
Dc, you’re welcome. And if you keep tabs on the link I provided, and again to Nan G above, you can keep up on the progress via Thomas. What I found odd is that I couldn’t get to the text of the Harkin mental health program expansion in my brief search. But then, I didn’t spend much time since I’m multitasking business as well.
@Aqua:
I agree it was a lunatic ultimately responsible. The point of my post wasn’t really anything more than trying to provide a little insight into how the other side thinks, whether logical or not. A little perspective. Perhaps it was a facile, pointless attempt. But here is a perfect example of what pisses people like me off. As someone in the area, someone who couldn’t go to work today because of the developments in Boston, who has lived within spitting distance of every major site in this investigation, and someone who knows a family member of one of the victims, I would gladly smack the snot out of this pissant, Nate Bell, for his callous condescension. I’m sure he’s stupid enough to think the police would love it if people were aiming high powered rifles out their windows in a small area of Watertown right now, as the authorities sweep house to house.
That’s terrible to read. My deepest condolences.
I appreciate your continued civility and empathy with those who you don’t necessarily agree with.
@Dc:
.
You have nothing to apologize for. I’ve been on a hair trigger this week and I tend to blow my top now and again. You are well within your rights to express your feelings. I appreciate your perspective and this is an emotional topic.
@Tom:
“Where I grew up, guns are not deeply embedded into the way of life. Most people don’t have a history with or affinity for target practice or hunting, or whatever else you do with them. Since I don’t have a gun, in my world guns aren’t a source of protection. Guns, to me, are only a potential source of violence against me and my family.” Oh, I see. This explains why your reasoning on the subject is so deeply flawed; you don’t have a background of knowledge on the issue and, therefore, have no foundation on which to understand why some wish to keep their 2nd Amendment rights intact. I would follow up with… how often have you and/or your family been assaulted by law-abiding gun owners?
I argue with so many that claim that they live in mortal fear because of all the guns owned by citizens, yet, as I stated and as you, along with a long list of others, ignore, the overwhelming evidence is to the contrary; obviously, more gun owners has not led to more violence, more CHL holders has not led to wild shoot-outs in public and, in fact, all indications are that these two developments have, quite possibly, led to a reduction in crime and violence. No supporter of gun bans and more extensive infringement is willing to even acknowledge these truths, much less explain their “desire for safety” by undoing what has, apparently, been making us safer and safer.
I have come to conclude that safety is not the primary concern; eliminating private gun ownership is, even if it makes us less safe (Chicago).
I fully sympathize with the Sandy Hook parents (as opposed to employing them as tools for my cause), but I fully realize that there is no way I or anyone else could expect them to accept my point of view. That, however, doesn’t matter, because the senseless deaths of their children has nothing to do with the freedom of thought or the Constitution. Less to do with the 2nd Amendment, since the blockage of a law that would (WOULD) have put Adam Lanza out of commission is the actual cause of death; not the legal ownership of firearms. Another “inconvenient truth” no gun control zealot will address, much less explain.
You nor anyone else has to “tolerate” my guns; however, you HAVE to accept my ownership because it is my RIGHT. As long as I do not break laws with my guns, no one has any right to infringe on my bearing of arms; no one has the right to make my ownership more expensive, more difficult or in any way a shame to me. It is a Constitutional right and, in some cases, a civil duty.
STUDY: States With Loose Gun Laws Have Higher Rates Of Gun Violence
CHART:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/03/1811311/study-states-with-loose-gun-laws-have-higher-rates-of-gun-violence/
This One aka John with Capital J, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. Because if you think that the main issue of background checks is your ace in the hole as strong gun control, you are sorely mistaken.
While it’s difficult to pin a number on how many legal gun owners there are per state (something I’ll bring up in a minute…), The Daily Beast compiled a list of states ranked by the volume of NICS/background checks submitted in the year 2012 back in December. Just in case that goes over your head, that means which states had the most background checks.
Oddly enough, the states your ThinkProgress report as having the highest gun violence states, are also the same states that have the highest amount of background checks.
How’s that working out for you? LOL
And about that report…. if you want to look at gun violence, lumping accidents and suicide into criminal activity using guns is somewhat misleading. Yes, suicide is a “crime”, but it’s also a crime with the victim being the same individual as the perp. And if they didn’t commit suicide with a gun, they’d simply find another way to do so.
So looking at the individual report (you did do that, yes? Or did you just copy/paste your education from the summary?), let’s go over a few numbers, shall we?
Pg 11 – Homicides: National avg, 3.59 per 100K populus. LA is the highest with 9.53 per every 100,000 individuals. That’s .0000953% of all their population. woof…. *major* problem. Louisiana ranks 25th in the amount of NICS background checks performed.
Pg 15 – Homicides against women: National avg, 1.21 per every 100,000 person. Alabama is the highest with 2.39 per every 100,000 individuals. Another *major* problem that just begs for federal intrusion on law abiding citizens, eh? Alabama ranks 11th in the nation for the most background checks.
Pg 17 – Childrens deaths (accidents included): National average, 1.95 per every 100,000 children. Alaska has the highest with 5.85 per 100,000 residents. Stands to reason, yes? The last of the great American wilderness, and more kids handle guns for sporting, animal control, etc. I think you’ll have to agree that the more people that use any given item, the greater the chance any statistic involving that item will be. Alaska is probably one of the highest gun ownership states in the nation. But yet, including accidental deaths, that’s still 5.85 children out of every 100,000. BTW, Alaska ranks as the fifth highest state in running NICS background checks.
Pg 19 – LEO deaths with felonious gun users: National average, .02 out of every 100,000 individuals. Highest state was Louisiana again with the huge number of .53 per every 100,000 people.
Pg 21 – Assaults using guns: National average is 51.13 per every 100,000. Highest state? Tennessee holds the record here with 137.58 per 100,000. But then Tennessee ranks #19th in the amount of NICS reports run, or about 7,638 NICS run per 100,000. Out of the 7,638 avg NICS run, 137.58 of them were involved in an assault using a gun… if acquired legally. That’s less that 2% of all the NICS checks run. Not exactly a wild fire problem.
Pg 23 – Gun crime exports (aka the states with the highest incidents of being the point of origin for a gun used in a crime): National avg, 14.1 per 100,000 residents. Winner of the most? West Virginia, with 46.8 per 100,000. Hope you’re sitting down…West Virginia is the 4th highest state with the most NICS background checks run, averaging 11,670 background checks for every 100,000 people. Let me repeat that. WV runs more NICS background checks than 46 other states, *plus* the District of Columbia. Again, how’s that working out for ya?
Pg 25 – short time to crime statistics. That’s the time elapsed from gun sale to recovery at a crime, and whether it was a “strong indicator” or illegal trafficking. Mind you, that’s not proof of illegal trafficking. Just an “indicator”. National avg is 22.6%. Missouri was the highest with 40.2%, yet they are ranked 13th in the states with the highest background checks.
So let’s get back to that gun ownership per state issue. As I said, the more people that own guns, the more likely anything can happen with a gun involved… whether accidental death or crime. Just as the more cars per capita, the more accidents on the road are likely to occur. Not rocket science.
There is, nor should be, any actual gun ownership records. However the “About” search engine took a stab at 2007 figures, mostly for electoral purposes. Have no idea what they used as a source, but when you look down the list, it’s not far fetched to believe the pecking order is not far off. The urban sprawl states aren’t nearly as likely to have % of gun owners as the rural states. And with more guns as a percentage of your population, you’re also likely to have a higher percentage of events.
But then, these same states also run the highest amounts of background checks. Then look at the states with the lowest ranking on NICS run… which includes the District of Columbia as the least NICS run. All of them are in the “lowest gun violence” in your Think Progress report. So if they have the “strongest” gun control (especially with the subject being NICS/background checks), just why are they running the least amount of NICS checks, and how is it that the most violent states actually implement those checks in larger volume?
Or is it that there are less people in these populous states that even want to own a firearm?
So what’s your point about how this nonsense will be the saving grace of gun violence again? All statistics belie that, using even your own cited studies. What you *should* be paying attention to is the low percentage of incidents to the high percentage of law abiding gun owners… then move your penchant to strip others of Constitutional rights elsewhere.
@bburris:
It’s pointless for me to debate with a person who can’t acknowledge the statistically obvious fact that guns are a real factor in violence in America. Do you really think gun violence has no correlation to the number of guns in circulation, who has them, or how easily they are procured? The stark variance in the rates of gun homicides, accidental fatalities, and suicides – not to mention injuries – in the US vs. other developed countries with more gun regulations, this is something you can’t see? I think an interesting debate can be had with people who are willing to acknowledge the downside, the cost, that goes hand in hand with the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. And I’m willing to listen to the upside. That’s a discussion where there’s at least a chance – perhaps slim – at arriving at a plausible middle-ground. But for people who fetishize guns to the degree they refuse to see them as anything but wonderful tools that only help the good guys and punish the bad, that never contribute to random, senseless pain – what would be the point of debating with a person who thinks like that?
@Tom:
There is a downside to the standard kitchen pressure cooker.
Do you also want to require background checks on any housewife, or her family member, that wants to purchase a pressure cooker?
What about hammers? Axes? And more people are killed with vehicles than guns. Want to restrict driver’s licenses to only those who can pass a background check?
The largest mass murder in the history of our nation was committed with airplanes. Shall we out law planes?
We either live in a free society, taking the bad with the good, or we just start calling ourselves the USSA.
@retire05:
So you want to go in this direction and box yourself into inanity. Fine by me. You’ve outlined your argument well. And what it means is that you believe we have a right to own any object, regardless of potential lethality, because objects don’t kill, people do. By bringing up a host of obviously variably lethal objects and putting them all in the same category as guns, you underline in bold your refutation that an object in and of itself is dangerous and can and should be regulated. So it follows that you must believe private citizens should be allowed own 30mm cannons, anthrax, chemical weapons, nuclear warheads, anything. If you deny this, you’re admitting that your argument is flawed, or that you’re a hypocrite. Interesting choice for you.
@Tom:
“It’s pointless for me to debate with a person who can’t acknowledge the statistically obvious fact that guns are a real factor in violence in America.”
It is, indeed, pointless, as you are not willing to address the FACT that, despite the dire predictions by those who, out of ignorance, predicted wild shoot-outs in the streets should CHL’s become widespread, not only has that not happened, but crime has gone down, and in areas with an abundance of CHL’s, gone WAY down. Also, address this: since Obama took office, there have been over 65 million gun sales, up about 50% from the Bush administration; has gun crime gone up 50%? No, it is down over 10%.
Now, if you happen to live in Chicago (a gun-ban city), you would be wise to fear the gun. This is because only the criminals have them; the authorities have denied them to the law abiding that might wish to protect themselves. Add to that a liberal justice system that sympathizes with the criminals, mostly minorities, and utilizes the “catch and release” program. Thus, gang punks do not fear being caught and they do not respect innocent life. Add to that a depressed economy, ravaged by liberal policies of taxing the economy to its knees while granting entitlements to most. There you have the perfect storm of, not a gun culture, but a violence culture. The same was mostly true in D.C., while the gun ban was in effect; since the lifting of the ban, crime there has fallen.
You can be deathly afraid of guns all around you, real or imagined; that’s your problem. However, examine what these fears are based on, evaluate if they are well-founded, but don’t ignore the facts and expect everyone to surrender their rights based on your prejudices.
The U.S. cannot be compared to other countries and their gun laws; we are a different people. Other nations are used to subjugation. We are (well, some of us) are independent and responsible. But, take note of this: when guns were banned and confiscated in England, violent crime INCREASED…. just not with guns. You blame the gun rather than personal responsibility, whereas the gun is simply the means to an end. As we have seen recently, something as benign as a pressure cooker can be weaponized, to much greater effect. Are you supporting a pressure cooker ban, registration and restrictions? If not, why not?
Punish the criminals, enforce the laws that restrict and punish crime, not legally enjoying a right.
Tom,
The last SCOTUS case on this pretty much made it clear that the 2nd amendment is an “individual” right including the right of self-defense using a weapon. That inherently means you might shoot somebody, wound them, and/or kill them in the process (all subject to judicial review after the fact). I think it was well understood that firearms can be dangerous even at the time it was written. (ie., the second amendment)
@Greg: When the polls stop supporting your agenda, we’ll see how much you defend them.
I’m merely saying that I don’t trust the polls–it’s too easy for those in charge to skew them, and the propaganda factor is too high.
You’re running off thinking your will is the “will” of the majority, the people. That thinking is dangerous.
Prove to me that 90% of the millions of Americans agree with all of the points you contend.
You simply can’t do it.
I’d like to see how you would view the polls if they said 90% of people were against gun control. I’m sure you’ve swallow that and say “the people have spoken.”
Not likely.
@Tom: #3
No, it’s not tough at all. the gun proposal would have no effect on the people that use guns to commit crimes. Restricting the rights of law abiding citizens to have firearms available to stop criminal acts of those that are clearly disobeying laws will not only not increase public safety, it would decrease public safety. As long as the borders are wide open to humans, it is even more wide open to illegal goods, drugs and guns, for example. As long as illegal guns can cross the borders by the thousands, gun crimes will not decrease. Increasing the penalties for persons using guns illegally will decrease the incidence.
He only gets mad when things aren’t going his way. Since everything else is going his way, he doesn’t get mad about the other stuff. (increasing national debt, unemployment, hiring an average of 200 federal employees per day since he was elected the first time, military cuts, the growth of extreme Islamists, etc., etc., etc.
@Tom:
Politicizing a position. Both sides are guilty of that, and it usually happens by idiots. Just like the guy from the New York Times that blamed the bombings on the GOP and the sequester. It doesn’t anything useful to the debate on either side.
My thoughts and prayers remain with the people of Boston. When we are on this forum or any like them, I think conservatives just look at Boston as the center of liberalism. I forget how many friends I had in the Air Force from Boston. Craziest people I ever met. They all wanted to fight at the drop of a dime. Also the most loyal friends you can have.
As I recall, when Gabby Giffords was shot by Loughner (?), the first thing the MSM pounced on was to blame the Tea Party and Sarah Palin for the shooting. They continued to debate that…and talk about how the republicans had just gone too far in debate and politics and that it was pushing their members to violence. When it came out that Loughner was crazy as bat shit and had no such political agenda, nor was he republican, nor a Tea Party member, that didn’t apparently matter to the “fact checkers” and editors, and etc…and “journalists” who continued to push this. Eventually, people got the right information. But, not before it left a scar in people’s minds connecting rightwing/gun violence together. It’s something they’ve been doing for a while. To teach people to fear their neighbors who are openly religious, or have guns, conservative in opinion/views, etc.
I also believe that when this happened in Boston, that some of the people from CNN and MSNBC were on the edge of their seat just hoping this turned out to be some white, Christian, redneck Tea Party rightwinger. They were already preparing the meme/gallows for it. Now, they are prepping the meme that this event had nothing to do with the boys conversion to Islam, ethnicity, or political affiliation. I guess it’s all just a mystery that we’ll have to wait to find out.
At least the president didn’t send out someone to go on all the morning talk shows and insist this was some kind of protest gone wrong or something other than it was…and pretend we dont’ know what it was until it just goes away. (ie, Hassan, Benghazi).
Aw…someone still needs his Benghazi binky! How cute!
However, Dc, in Obama insisting that the federal gov’t (read Holder et al) be in charge of both the prosecution AND the defense on the Boston bomber’s case, he can control exactly what comes out to the public.
This will be worse than the Nidal Hasan case (if it even ever happens).
And Benghazi?
Obama has managed to stonewall on that for over 7 months now.
He will do the same on this for at least 3&3/4 years.
@Greg: #54
and of course, by ‘everyone else’ you mean the Libtards and Dimocrats.
@Tom:#90
This is one of those arguments that can use statistics to prove what you want to prove. Do you think auto accidents are correlated to the number of autos in circulation? Do you think that the more autos there are in circulation makes it easier to acquire one?
I would prefer a statistic that correlates with how many criminals obey gun laws. How does the sentence of a criminal that uses a gun in the commission of a crime compare to the sentence of a person that chokes a person to death? If it is the same, then there is no reason to not use the gun because it would be much quicker and easier. Do you believe that if you had to write an essay that proved that a person can write an essay to prove anything that they wanted to prove that you could write an essay to prove it? That is what you are doing with your selective hypothesis on why gun violence is higher in some places than in others.
@bburris:
Thank you for bringing Chicago up. I know Conservatives bring that situation up as an example of how ‘gun regulation’ doesn’t work, and on this rare point, I agree. Chicago is a perfect illustration of the failure of local gun laws, because guns are so easily transferred across municipal boundaries. While you trumpet Chicago as an example of the failure of local regulation, in reality it’s the prime example of why regulation needs to comprehensive and federal to work. You want to blame criminals and crime as the reasons for gun violence in a place like Chicago, but unfortunately you don’t have facts on your side.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
@Dc:
That’s very true. Of course, people on the Right, people on this very website, were clearly hoping the perpetrator was Muslim. I find either approach awful for the same reason: when a terrible crime is committed, we should hope we catch who actually did it, not who we hope did it. It’s horribly selfish and disrespectful to the victims to hope the perpetrator of a violent crime will fit your political agenda so that you can feel better ranting about it subsequently.
@Tom:
Furthermore, isn’t it interesting that now that the alleged culprit is identified as Muslim, this site, and others on the Right, will engage the crime as real and use it as a launching pad for anti-Muslim rhetoric (that’s already begun), whereas if it had been a white supremacists or anti-government domestic white person, the same people would have jumped on the false flag conspiracy bandwagon? Think about it: the same law enforcement personnel are either honest heroes or dishonest conspirators, and it’s all down to who was in that boat.
Tom, I’m not even sure I’m getting your point. Are you saying that nobody here acknowledged this as a crime until we found out it was a muslim who committed it? Or that if the perps had been white supremacist that we would have somehow decided it was conspiracy by police instead or defended it? I’m not sure where you are seeing that.
@This one: What a bogus study and studies referenced. They base the violence on lax gun laws and the number of guns in the state. No one knows how many guns are in any state! Then look at what they consider gun violence. Not one of these studies would get a passing grade in my 9th grade class. Not one has been peer reviewed.
@Tom: Why do you suppose the people in Chicago have such a high rate of gun violence or a high rate of violence in general? Do you think they commit violence against someone else because of a gun or because they just don’t have any respect for others? And that just doesn’t apply to Chicago. Here are the 2011 homicide statistics for the U.S. What is your analysis of those stats?
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3
@another vet:
Excellent questions. We can’t police human nature. We can’t stop people from wanting to do harm, but we can very much influence their ability to do so. Of course that might entail minor inconveniences for law abiding citizens. which is unacceptable when you’ve just been invited on a hunt that starts in two hours and you’ve never shot a gun before.
@Tom: I don’t think it’s true. Since I found out it was a Muslim, I’ve not had a word to say except that I’m glad they caught the bombers. I’m not surprised at who it was.
@Tom: Tom, another of your fallacious arguments:
They don’t have to steal them because they are available on every street corner. If they closed the borders and limited the illegal entry of hundreds of thousands of weapons, then you would see the theft rate go up. Why steal one when you can buy one much easier. Registering guns is not the answer, not a single one of the guns brought across the border illegally will ever be ‘registered’. Australia made guns illegal, but they didn’t stop the hundreds of thousands entering their country illegally either. Consequently 90+% of the people there still own guns.
@Redteam:
Another? Oh, I forgot about that other time.
@Tom:
Which is the point. You will never eliminate crime, violent or not. In our PC society, people are reluctant to put the blame on human nature or something more complex and would rather point the blame somewhere else. Here is an eye opening study of homicides in the black community. Notice how the conclusion is not to get to the nuts and bolts as to why the homicide rate is so much higher in the black community by applying the various criminological theories as to why people commit crime in the first place regardless of race such as the sociological theories, the General Theory, the Routine Activities Theory, the Social Control Theory, the Classical Theory, or the Differential Association Theory, but rather to reduce access to guns. It’s the easy, lazy person’s way out. Kind of like our deficit problem.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/blackhomicide10.pdf
MY MY WHAT a good GROUP YOU ARE AT FLOPPING ACES,
YOU ARE INCREDIBLY full of KNOWLEDGE AND SUPER INTELLIGENT,
I have to mention it, BECAUSE I REALIZE IT EVERY TIME I”M HERE,
thank you for enlighting me,
@ilovebeeswarzone: AAANDDD you add a lot to it, Beeeeees
Redteam
thank you
@Tom:
Here is the vital ingredient you and other left wing apologists always ignore/overlook… those “wrong hands”. Those are people, criminals, committing crimes. Again, to emphasize the weakness of your argument for MORE gun control, Chicago shows how it fails if the criminals are excused, forgiven and let go. As long as they can see that their courthouse protectors will make every excuse imaginable to keep from holding those “wrong hands” accountable, what do they have to fear? It is their culture, and this is a left-wing culture, that makes it acceptable to use violence in public places merely to make a point, innocent lives be damned. I would appreciate it if you would spell out a law that will affect that attitude. Regulation has no effect on those who ignore regulation.
Now, take Aurora, Illinois, just outside of Chicago. While Chicago had over 500 gun murders in 2012 (thanks to the effective gun ban), Aurora had ZERO. So, what is the difference? Aurora has no gun ban and no murders, Chicago has a gun ban and hundreds of murders. Is it guns or people?
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/02/no-murders-in-aurora-in-2012/
bburris… you nailed it.
But I’ll add one thing… in these HIGH CRIME areas… the HIGHER the CRIME RATE… the HIGHER the % of Liberal voters….. the PARTY of elected reps of these districts PROVES this to be true….. why doesn’t the LEFT, ever talk about THAT FACTOID??
@Hankster58: It is very unusual to find a city with a high crime rate that is run by conservatives (Repubs), almost without exception, it is Libs (Dims)
@Redteam: 121
Example of your statement:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2085615/posts