Background Checks Defeated in Senate

[Angelsjunky]

Well, the nation of Australia bears this out, at least according to the hilarious clip on the Jon Stewart show tonight.

 

But it is also common sense: lower accessibility of guns = less guns = less shooting of guns.

 

I for one don't understand why Americans are so fixated on guns. I mean, grow up boys.

[Lifetime]

Criminals and most that would do these kind of acts do not obtain their guns through normal channels. Background checks don't make it harder for criminals to get weapons. 

[Angelsjunky]

A counter-argument, Lifetime, is that people who can safely use guns shouldn't have a problem with stricter regulation.

 

But what about kids that use guns to commit suicide? What about the mentally ill that use guns legally obtained? The point being: guns are too easy to come by.

 

I personally don't get the obsession with an object that's raison d'etre is to kill another living being. But even so I'm not saying guns should be illegal, just far more strictly regulated. We're pretty far from the days where the right to bear arms had actual relevance.

[Lifetime]

And as I said, I don't have an argument for enhanced background checks and haven't seen a worthy argument made opposing them. 

 

I strongly disagree that the right to bear arms is irrelevant today. 

[Bruce Nye]

AJ, IMO there is no question why the older posters here seem to agree on these matters.  Little by little, inch by inch we have seen rights taken away from U.S. citizens.  The government enacts more legislation every week restricting what we once accepted for our freedoms.  When you think about the American revolution, it was about escaping the religious restrictions and rule of King George.  That was the basis of the revolution.

 

A Declaration of Independence was written as so was a Constitution.  Now we see many of those inalienable rights taken away.  How many more are tolerable?

 

Do you want to know about another that is one the way?  Social Security.  As a taxpayer, you have been paying into this program and your employer has also.  This amount of money was supposed to be put away and saved for a retirement savings.  How much did the federal government contribute to yours and my Social Security account?  Here's the answer.  Zero, nada, nil.  But now the Obama administration wants to reduce the amount of Social Security payments made.  The government has already dipped into funds not belonging to them and used them for other purposes.  How's that feel?  What is next?  we are seeing it every day.  Now there is a proposed restriction on your IRAs.  Why?  Because the government has poked their nose into our affairs again and decided they know better what we are entitled to.  They can change the rules, which we agreed to years ago. 

[HaloMagic]

Allowing the two parties to all but eliminate any third party voice in complete nonsense.

Worldwide cash being funneled into local elections is complete nonsense.

Money equals speech is complete nonsense.

Assuming that purchasing 51 senators represents "the will of the people" is complete nonsense.

The filibuster system is way down the nonsense list.

You can throw it on the list wherever you want. It's still nonsense.

[Socaliente]

 

We need to ban Cold Weather!!!!!!!!!

[Spirit]

 

We need to ban Cold Weather!!!!!!!!!

 

Science! 

[Glen]

AJ, IMO there is no question why the older posters here seem to agree on these matters.  Little by little, inch by inch we have seen rights taken away from U.S. citizens.  The government enacts more legislation every week restricting what we once accepted for our freedoms.  When you think about the American revolution, it was about escaping the religious restrictions and rule of King George.  That was the basis of the revolution.

 

A Declaration of Independence was written as so was a Constitution.  Now we see many of those inalienable rights taken away.  How many more are tolerable?

 

Do you want to know about another that is one the way?  Social Security.  As a taxpayer, you have been paying into this program and your employer has also.  This amount of money was supposed to be put away and saved for a retirement savings.  How much did the federal government contribute to yours and my Social Security account?  Here's the answer.  Zero, nada, nil.  But now the Obama administration wants to reduce the amount of Social Security payments made.  The government has already dipped into funds not belonging to them and used them for other purposes.  How's that feel?  What is next?  we are seeing it every day.  Now there is a proposed restriction on your IRAs.  Why?  Because the government has poked their nose into our affairs again and decided they know better what we are entitled to.  They can change the rules, which we agreed to years ago. 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/12/is-walden-right-about-obama-and-cuts-to-social-security-and-medicare/

 

 

"So, how much damage can the budget do to seniors?

The Congressional Budget Office has reported that the changes being proposed by the president would only slow the growth of benefit payments by 0.3 percent as compared to the current method for increasing payments due to inflation. There is concern that inflation could go up more quickly on food, drugs and health care – where seniors spend their dollars – but overall the change is not a massive cut.

That is a very important point to keep in mind if the changes are to keep social safety net programs financially stable and available to the rising number of American retirees.

President Obama is obviously taking the risk of angering seniors and much of his liberal base. But his plan is to demonstrate a willingness to make the political sacrifice if it  leads Republicans to take a similar risk."

 

 

I will certainly agree that we're seeing our rights stripped away with things like the Patriot ACT, CISPA and it's variations, and things like the Monsanto Protection Act - corporations before people.  However, social security is facing a crisis of people living longer and more and more people reaching retirement age, and something needs to be done to keep it viable.  It really sucks, though.  I've been paying into it for almost 30 years now and I have to plan for and expect it to not provide much of anything for me when I retire.  

[Lifetime]

SS is also seeing the effects of having money taken from their coffers to fund other government. That never should have happened. 

[Spirit]

 

We need to ban Cold Weather!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Do we outright ban cold weather, or just have a background check for it?

[mtangelsfan]

I think the way to do it is to slowly take away cold weather's right to exist.

 

Step 1, ban extreme cold, like 20 below.  Step 2, have background checks on any cold front moving into the country.

[floplag]

I don't think expanding the background checks will stop these kind of mass murders but I do think they are a good idea and I am not opposed to them being implemented. I don't know of any compelling argument against them. 

How about a compelling argument FOR them?  I am still waiting for even one logical argument that gun control would actually accomplish in any form, but i digress.

Seriously, what does it mean, how far does it go...how far does it get expanded?  gun shows and internet ok, that makes some sense and should be regulated as any other source of purchasing weapons, thats logical.. but limiting sales within a family is a bit dangerous a precedent to me that i for one wasnt comfy with

Not to mention that part of this had nothing to do with background checks at all but included more bans in the process, which is likely why it was voted down, but the media of course doesnt mention that part.

 

[Lifetime]

I think the way to do it is to slowly take away cold weather's right to exist.

 

Step 1, ban extreme cold, like 20 below.  Step 2, have background checks on any cold front moving into the country.

So global warming is good

[Lifetime]

How about a compelling argument FOR them?  I am still waiting for even one logical argument that gun control would actually accomplish in any form, but i digress.

Seriously, what does it mean, how far does it go...how far does it get expanded?  gun shows and internet ok, that makes some sense and should be regulated as any other source of purchasing weapons, thats logical.. but limiting sales within a family is a bit dangerous a precedent to me that i for one wasnt comfy with

Not to mention that part of this had nothing to do with background checks at all but included more bans in the process, which is likely why it was voted down, but the media of course doesnt mention that part.

 

I am strictly commenting on background checks flop. Do you have an argument against them? Why is limiting sales within a family a dangerous precident? 

[Lifetime]

Oh, and I should mention that the manchin-toomey amendment did not have a background check provision for family transactions. 

[floplag]

I am strictly commenting on background checks flop. Do you have an argument against them? Why is limiting sales within a family a dangerous precident? 

Buying or selling a gun is not illegal in this country, are ok with the government telling one family member they cannot do something legal within the family?  do you not see this a something that can be a so-called slippery slope?

as far as the background checks i think the issue is twofold: 

#1 How far they are expanded, what is the goal, what part of the current process doesnt work or needs expanding?  or is the real intent to further limit who can own one?

#2 The issue of the bans that were added to the bill that were largely responsible for its defeat moreso than the background checks in my opinion, but the media has glommed onto the background check issue rather than the rider.

Frankly i think its all nothing more than political election capital that serves no purpose other than garnering votes or creating sound bites in upcoming Novembers.

[Lifetime]

Buying or selling a gun is not illegal in this country, are ok with the government telling one family member they cannot do something legal within the family?  do you not see this a something that can be a so-called slippery slope?

as far as the background checks i think the issue is twofold: 

#1 How far they are expanded, what is the goal, what part of the current process doesnt work or needs expanding?  or is the real intent to further limit who can own one?

#2 The issue of the bans that were added to the bill that were largely responsible for its defeat moreso than the background checks in my opinion, but the media has glommed onto the background check issue rather than the rider.

Frankly i think its all nothing more than political election capital that serves no purpose other than garnering votes or creating sound bites in upcoming Novembers.

 First, requiring background checks on sales to family or friends would not make buying or selling guns illegal. Second, if you had actually read the bill you would know that it specifically exempts family and friends sales with one exception, if the gun(s) are advertised for sale, Craig's List, et al, then a background check would need to take place even if it was eventually sold to a family member or friend/acquaintance. If you read the bill, you also know exactly how far the expansion of background checks would be. 

 

Can you provide a list of the alleged bans that were added to the bill? The assault weapon ban is a separate bill being proposed by Feinstein.

[arch stanton]

This is from the FBI website. It's already illegal to sell guns to these people. I hope you pot users know that you are ineligible to purchase a firearm.

The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).

These categories include any person:

• Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• who is a fugitive from justice;
• who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
• who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
• who is an illegal alien;
• who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;
• who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
• who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
• who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).

 

•  

[arch stanton]

Federal firearms laws prohibit transactions in and possession of certain types of firearms. These include, for example:

• Transfer or possession of a machinegun, 18 USC 922(o);


• Manufacture, importation, sale, or possession of any firearm not detectable by airport security devices, 18 USC 922(p);


• and Possession of a firearm not registered as required by the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 USC 5861(d).

[arch stanton]

The types of firearms that must be registered in the National Firearm Registration and Transfer Record are defined in theNFA and 27 CFR, Part 479. What are some examples?

Some examples of the types of firearms that must be registered are:

• Machine guns;
• The frames or receivers of machine guns;
• Any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting weapons into machine guns;
• Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for converting a weapon into a machine gun;
• Any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person;
• Silencers and any part designed and intended for fabricating a silencer;
• Short-barreled rifles;
• Short-barreled shotguns;
• Destructive devices; and,
• “Any other weapon.”

A few examples of destructive devices are:

• Molotov cocktails;
• Anti-tank guns (over caliber .50);
• Bazookas; and,
• Mortars.

A few examples of “any other weapon” are:

• H&R Handyguns;
• Ithaca Auto-Burglar guns;
• Cane guns; and,
• Gadget-type firearms and “pen” guns which fire a projectile by the action of an explosive.

[arch stanton]

How can an individual legally acquire NFA firearms?

Basically, there are 2 ways that an individual (who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from receiving or possessing firearms) may legally acquire NFAfirearms:

1. By transfer after approval by ATF of a registered weapon from its lawful owner residing in the same State as the transferee.
2. By obtaining prior approval from ATF to make NFA firearms.

[arch stanton]

Q: May a private citizen who owns an NFA firearm which is not registered have the firearm registered?

No. The NFA permits only manufacturers, makers, and importers to register firearms. Mere possessors may not register firearms. An unregistered NFA firearm is a contraband firearm, and it is unlawful to possess the weapon. The possessor should contact the nearest ATF office to arrange for its disposition.

[26 U.S.C. 5861(d)]

Q: What can happen to someone who has an NFA firearm which is not registered to him?

Violators may be fined not more than $250,000, and imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. In addition, any vessel, vehicle or aircraft used to transport, conceal or possess an unregistered NFA firearm is subject to seizure and forfeiture, as is the weapon itself.

[49 U.S.C. 781-788, 26 U.S.C. 5861 and 5872]

 

We really need MORE GUN LAWS!!!

[Lifetime]

Do you have a point here arch? 

[arch stanton]

Yes. Gun laws already exist. Whether the background check is done or not the sale to criminals and crazies is already illegal. Passing one more law just means one more opportunity for pols to sneak riders past a distracted public.If you feel unsafe maybe gun laws isn't the solution you are seeking.