Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

US Senate rejects amendment to expand gun-sale checks


  • Please log in to reply
142 replies to this topic

#31 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:42 PM

I wished so every state could be like Alaska, but in reality if the fed gov had it's way every state would be like NY or CA with thier gun laws.


Spoken like someone that doesn't know jack shit about the gun laws of EITHER state. Don't let that get in your way of a good rant about them though.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#32 irideabike

irideabike

Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:46 PM

Drivers licenses, as long as you pass the requirements, are shall issue. Do you want counties that are no issue to not be allowed to be no issue?

The U.S. Senate worked as designed, more or less.

You know, some counties/states require 2/3rds vote for tax increases. It's another check on majority power.


Like how a treaty requires 60 votes to be ratified.

There are no shortcuts. No do-overs. What happened, happened. Trust me. I know. All of this matters.

Madden 13 SB Champ in the CAG gentleman's league.


#33 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 18 April 2013 - 04:44 PM

I'm pretty darn "pro-gun" and I like the federal requirement for private parties to do a background check. Having been to a dozen gun shows or so, there's this mentality that if you can buy a gun, and have it's transfer totally undocumented, that you pulled one over on Uncle Sam. It's a weird group, that I don't fully understand, but I too have never witnessed a purchase at a gun show, that was not subjected to a background check, in the State of Oregon. Now if two dudes wander off to the parking lot, that's a different story. The dudes in the parking lot need to be covered under this.

Where the bill lost me, was in the transfer from family members. I inherited a couple pistols and a rifle from two grandfathers over the past 3 years. As a person who has already had a few background checks for firearm purchases, and is merely taking ownership of my grandfather's pistols, it seems laborious and unnecessary to run a check under those circumstances.

How you word that so that you don't have thousands of people buying guns off of their 8th step-cousin on their mother's uncle's brother's side, I do not know, but I'm highly in favor of standard background checks between two strangers/non-family members.

The addition I would like to see is a database that matches known gun owners with roommates or acquaintances that they live with, who have documented mental illness. There will be tons of folks that slip through the cracks, but the requirement for owners to keep their firearms secure, and accounted for, could be expanded. THAT may have done something to prevent the Newtown shooting, because nothing in the bill would have, despite proponents using Newtown as motivation.

#34 irideabike

irideabike

Posted 18 April 2013 - 04:52 PM

The government can't even figure out how to shut down tax loopholes, tax cheats, and off shore tax shelters and they are going to have a working database that tracks roommates or acquaintances (that typically are not long term) that have mental illness and match that with gun owners? That just sounds incredibly impossible and just weird tracking an entire portion of our populace on a federal level.

There are no shortcuts. No do-overs. What happened, happened. Trust me. I know. All of this matters.

Madden 13 SB Champ in the CAG gentleman's league.


#35 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 18 April 2013 - 04:56 PM

well if you are a tax cheat, use tax loopholes, and tax shelters... you can actually run for president

#36 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 18 April 2013 - 05:40 PM

The government can't even figure out how to shut down tax loopholes, tax cheats, and off shore tax shelters and they are going to have a working database that tracks roommates or acquaintances (that typically are not long term) that have mental illness and match that with gun owners? That just sounds incredibly impossible and just weird tracking an entire portion of our populace on a federal level.


Oh it's wishful thinking for sure, and I don't think it would ever be done, but if it were a division of the ATF or FBI, maybe they have the resources at their disposal at least. A hell of a lot more critical than the IRS.

But I don't think it's wrong to have a list of people with potential access to firearms, and a history of mental illness. It's the execution of it that could be impossible/very challenging.

#37 detectiveconan16

detectiveconan16

    Look at that deal. It's so great!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 18 April 2013 - 08:21 PM

And still in a good deal of states, it's NOT a crime to sell a gun to a person who's high and/or drunk, thank you capped in the knees ATF. The same people who hate those background checks bill sure love the right to do that.

Batsugunner.png


#38 4thHorseman

4thHorseman

    The New God

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 18 April 2013 - 08:52 PM

Funny story the last time I got my drivers license:

An older gentleman was ahead of me in line to renew his license. While doing the eye exam, he continued to read the wrong lines that the DMV lady was asking him to read. She finally gave up when she realized he wasn't reading the correct lines.

He then went to go get his picture taken for his new license. They told him to go stand up against the wall to do so. So he did. With his face about 6 inches facing the wall and his back to the camera. After realizing he couldn't hear them telling him to turn around, someone else getting their license went up to him and said he needed to face the camera.

He walked out with a license as I was finishing up.

Moral of the story: Getting a drivers license is as easy as getting a gun. And that's the problem (for both drivers and gun owners)

#39 CaseyRyback

CaseyRyback

    Your New Nightmare!

  • Super Moderators

Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:01 PM

I wished so every state could be like Alaska, but in reality if the fed gov had it's way every state would be like NY or CA with thier gun laws.



You mean the same Federal Government that pays people to live there?


Also, I don't understand how having to pay for my write to vote by purchasing a government ID is okay and totally in line with the Constitution, but having to get a background check isn't.

Posted Image


#40 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:48 PM

Moral of the story: Getting a drivers license is as easy as getting a gun. And that's the problem (for both drivers and gun owners)

When I got my license they were very busy and the guy didn't even make me do half the things they make you do during the test. He cut it short and gave me a pass. Luckily I know how to drive anyway and no accidents/tickets/anything in 11 years.

#41 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:13 PM

I'm sorry but can someone please explain what this bill would have done? The last time I bought a shotgun at a gun show I still had to have a background check. When I bought a handgun online it had to be shipped to a FFL dealer who had to run a background check on me before releasing the gun to me. I don't get why not try to enforce what's on the books instead trying to pass laws we already have.

I've seen plenty of sales at flea markets and shows, no background check to be seen. Buy it and walk right out.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#42 irideabike

irideabike

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:24 PM

I highly doubt that.

#43 jlewski

jlewski

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:47 PM

This is awesome! Now they wont be able to restrict our rights!

#44 Purple Flames

Purple Flames

    MC Sucka DJ

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 19 April 2013 - 12:05 AM

Go take a look at the CISPA thread I started. There's more to the Constitution than the 2nd Amendment, you know.

#45 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 19 April 2013 - 04:40 AM

You realize that he had to do that in order to bring it back later on, right?


What? You mean such an honorable and noble (D) Senator would play games with the Legislative process in order to get what he wants?

I thought only the dirty Republicans did that kind of stuff. Our more Liberal members of Congress just want a fair and honest up-or-down vote on things, right?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#46 IRHari

IRHari

Posted 19 April 2013 - 11:18 AM

“Meet the 45 Senators Who Blocked Background Checks” declared a Wednesday evening headline by Mother Jones, leaving Senator Number 46 unscathed. “Reid was a special case,” the liberal website says.

“[Reid v]oted ‘no’ as a procedural move to preserve [the] option to reintroduce the bill,” the site explains.

“Reid did vote no on the background check vote to preserve his right as majority leader to bring it up again,” agreed a Senate GOP aide in an email to The Daily Caller Thursday. “Majority leaders do this all the time on bills they want to try to advance again.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz2QuIu1KSJ
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power." -Bill Clinton

#47 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 19 April 2013 - 01:23 PM

What? You mean such an honorable and noble (D) Senator would play games with the Legislative process in order to get what he wants?

I thought only the dirty Republicans did that kind of stuff. Our more Liberal members of Congress just want a fair and honest up-or-down vote on things, right?



EHHHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHHEHEHEH...good one, Bob.

#48 eldergamer

eldergamer

    Gold Star For Robot Boy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 19 April 2013 - 04:44 PM

You mean the same Federal Government that pays people to live there?


Also, I don't understand how having to pay for my write to vote by purchasing a government ID is okay and totally in line with the Constitution, but having to get a background check isn't.


Actually the state government pays you to live there. Permanent Fund Dividend. PFD. I collected almost 20 of em.

I'm not that surprised Begich voted against it. He knows what side of his bread the butter goes on. The guy only really got elected because there were some trumped up charges against Ted Stevens that later got dismissed.

Begich probably actualyl sports gun background checks, but can't ever go on record as saying so or actually voting to have federal law in charge of it.
I liked Begich better as mayor.

MC-2SD-Out.png<


#49 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2013 - 07:44 PM

Here is a question:

How did the obviously deranged Tsarnaev brothers obtain firearms in MA? That is a fairly strict gun state. I would have thought those laws for licenses and background checks would have been effective!

Licensing process
Massachusetts Law requires firearm owners to be licensed through their local Police Department or the Massachusetts State Police if no local licensing authority is available. A license is required by state law for buying firearms and ammunition. An applicant must have passed a State approved firearm safety course before applying for a license.
All applications, interviews, fees, and fingerprinting are done at the local Police Department then sent electronically to the Massachusetts Criminal History Board for the mandatory background checks and processing. All approved applicants will receive their license from the issuing Police Department. All licensing information is stored by the Criminal History Board. Non residents who are planning on carrying in the state must apply for a temporary license to carry (LTC) through the State Police before their travel.



#50 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2013 - 07:51 PM

Here is a question:

How did the obviously deranged Tsarnaev brothers obtain firearms in MA? That is a fairly strict gun state. I would have thought those laws for licenses and background checks would have been effective!


That is a good question. MA is uber strict about guns.

Maybe he just listened to too much Lil Wayne (he did like rap after all):

I'm strapped up, n**** Fuck a gun law
See me walking with a limp, that's my gun walk
I don't do no arguin', I let the gun talk


That CD just came out about two weeks ago btw. Tax evading, drug induced seizure having role model... but that's a topic for another day.

#51 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2013 - 08:03 PM

EHHHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHHEHEHEH...good one, Bob.

You are such a child.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#52 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2013 - 08:32 PM

A fool would blame the Republicans here; you can't be shocked at *any* of their votes, at *any* of their perpetual filibusters, at *any* of their insanity. This is not new, uncharted territory.

I blame Harry Reid, for lacking the spine to go with a full-throated Fuck-you-motherfuckers filibuster reform at the start of this Senate session. If he had done what he stated he would do at first, simple majority rules would actually matter in the Senate. Now we have dumbfucks like those in this thread who are perfectly fine with perpetual filibusters, and regard as totally normal the idea of 60 votes being needed to win.

Also, thank the "liberal media" for failing to hold to task any of the scumfuck Republicans who have abused the filibuster system beyond comprehension.

Getting mad at Republicans is yesterday's news; it's time to get angry with the few politicians who aren't sycophantic numbskull slaves to the plutocrats.
Posted Image

#53 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2013 - 09:11 PM

Even if you had majority rules in the Senate, the legislation would still need to get through the House, where it would fail.

#54 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2013 - 09:14 PM

I love how those with no experience regarding MA gun laws derp about how "uber strict" they are when in most cases, even in MA, all you need to do is take a state-approved NRA safety course, fill out an application, get a background check to make sure you're not a felon/violent criminal, and wait 4-6 weeks to you get your license. Once you get your license, you can empty out a store if you had the money. Only 1 town and Boston require you to take a marksmanship test. The only that's "uber strict" is getting a CCW.

I'm also tired of hearing about how strict NY is with guns too. With the exception of NYC, you can walk into any gunshop with a NY state drivers license and walk out with any number of long guns you can afford.

The ignorance about gun laws in "liberal" states is simply absurd.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#55 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2013 - 09:19 PM

I love how those with no experience regarding MA gun laws derp about how "uber strict" they are when in most cases, even in MA, all you need to do is take a state-approved NRA safety course, fill out an application, get a background check to make sure you're not a felon/violent criminal, and wait 4-6 weeks to you get your license. Once you get your license, you can empty out a store if you had the money. Only 1 town and Boston require you to take a marksmanship test. The only that's "uber strict" is getting a CCW.

I'm also tired of hearing about how strict NY is with guns too. With the exception of NYC, you can walk into any gunshop with a NY state drivers license and walk out with any number of long guns you can afford.

The ignorance about gun laws in "liberal" states is simply absurd.


Holy crap you have no idea what you are talking about.

I live in NY and the wait times for permits are ridiculous (months).

It isn't uberstrict to you because you are so far off base with what you think it should be.

Tell me - what law would you have established in MA that would have prevented those two from obtaining a firearm? (Assuming they passed what you call "easy" background check)

#56 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2013 - 09:21 PM

Background checks won't stop anyone who has a clean record, therefore we shouldn't have them. I think that is pretty close to the opinion of "some people".
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#57 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2013 - 09:29 PM

Background checks won't stop anyone who has a clean record, therefore we shouldn't have them. I think that is pretty close to the opinion of "some people".


.....They do have them. They didn't work. You are pushing for background checks and complaining that they are not required at the federal level. What are you not understanding?

What crime are you even complaining about that background checks would have stopped?

Please share with me these statistics you have that say people are obtaining guns from "no background check" areas or gun shows and then committing crimes. I am begging you, I want to know where you are getting this strong opinion, other than your own flavor of "common sense"

#58 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2013 - 09:30 PM

Holy crap you have no idea what you are talking about.

I live in NY and the wait times for permits are ridiculous (months).

It isn't uberstrict to you because you are so far off base with what you think it should be.

So tell me...are you saying that you need a permit in the vast majority of the counties in NY state to buy a gun? I'm guessing your answer is going to be extremely entertaining.:rofl:

Or maybe you should just be able to buy a grenade launcher in case of a zombie apocalypse.

Tell me - what law would you have established in MA that would have prevented those two from obtaining a firearm. (Assuming they passed a background check)

I'm not playing the magic bullet game with you again. If you're interested in having a debate, then rummage through the other thread to find the answers that I've already given ad nauseum.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#59 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2013 - 09:34 PM


I'm not playing the magic bullet game with you again. If you're interested in having a debate, then rummage through the other thread to find the answers that I've already given ad nauseum.


Just what I thought.

#60 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 20 April 2013 - 09:47 PM

Just what I thought.

LOLZ...I know. You couldn't even ass yourself to go through the first 2 pages of the other thread the first time around, so why bother here, right?:rofl:

You don't even know the fucking gun laws in your own state and you want to get snippy because you just googled them and realized that I know them better than you do? You're too much man.:lol:
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!