To Thread - Forum Home

The Mudcat Café TM
https://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=150435
48 messages

BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated

17 Apr 13 - 05:59 PM (#3505022)
Subject: BS: expanded bg checks on guns defeated
From: GUEST,olddude

As a gun owner, sportsman, I had no problem with the bill. It made sense to close the gun show loophole .... now it is defeated by a few republican senators ... 90% of the population agreed with the new law, it was not like New York's new laws. This one made sense and could have actually made a difference

so sad


17 Apr 13 - 06:34 PM (#3505033)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Greg F.

Oh, ye nation of ASSHOLES!!!

As a firearm owner(concealed carry & long guns) & hunter hunter myself, It's worse than sad, Dan, its damned disgusting & infuriating.

The lunatics are in charge of the goddamned asylum.


17 Apr 13 - 07:14 PM (#3505046)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: gnu

A truly sad day. Meanwhile, back on the farm in Canada, the government says to me they want $60 PER YER so I can continue to own my gun? TF? Is Harper's nose so so far up the ass of the repulbican party of the US that this crap is set upon me to influence in some way this shit going on down south?


17 Apr 13 - 07:24 PM (#3505049)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: McGrath of Harlow

Pretty shameful.

Still, I see a sizeable majority in your Senate voted for the extended checks, it's just that sizeable majorities aren't good enough under your strange system.


17 Apr 13 - 07:36 PM (#3505055)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: kendall

We send these birds to congress to take care of our interests; they collect $172000.00 a year for that, then they take money from the special interests to do what THEY want, and on top of that, they collect a healthy pension from us!

Thieving gutless bastards.


17 Apr 13 - 07:44 PM (#3505057)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Bobert

Normal... Less than 48 hours after the Newtown parents left town the corrupt clowns pulled the plug on sanity...

The 90% just got screwed by the 10%...

B~


17 Apr 13 - 07:54 PM (#3505063)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: catspaw49

Shameful. Gutless wonders who fear a lobbyist more than the American people. I think more will be coming down the road. I'm pretty strong believing this won't be the end. As Obama said, nobody won today. I agree. The NRA didn't gain anything but a warm fuzzy feeling and everyone else lost.

It ain't over.


Spaw


17 Apr 13 - 08:12 PM (#3505066)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: GUEST,olddude

There were no gun toting redneck sportsmen from my area of the mountain that had any problem with that bill.   Sportsmen do support laws that make sense and it is the sportsmen who lost. Now they will try other laws like in NY that do nothing to protect anyone other than make it harder on the sportsman. This law would have gone a long way to help take the criminals out of the equation but sadly no guts by some yellow bellied senators.


18 Apr 13 - 02:39 AM (#3505147)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Richard Bridge

The American right is not merely sick, not merely sociopathic, but actively hostile to a civilised society.

The bill did not go nearly far enough.

A system like road tax for cars would be a good idea. Universal licensing would be a good idea. Full psychological testing would be a good idea. Restriction to single-shot rifles would be a good idea. What "sportsman" needs a pistol or an automatic weapon? The deer cannot shoot back!


18 Apr 13 - 02:42 AM (#3505148)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Richard Bridge

PS - the New York measure is sensible as a starting point, would have been better with the 15 omitted measures retained, and still did not go far enough. There is no legitimate purpose for the weapons being defended.


18 Apr 13 - 06:53 PM (#3505520)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Bee-dubya-ell

For Andy Borowitz' take on the matter - CLICK HERE


19 Apr 13 - 06:28 AM (#3505681)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: JohnInKansas

Everyone has opinions on the subject, but there actually were some reasons for objecting to the bill as it was apparently brought to the vote. The "debates" and reporting on the bill were far too thoroughly propagandised to make it easy to tell what the bill actually would have done, and it's unlikely that more than a very few of the votes were based on rational factors rather than politics.

It appears that the Senate bill would have included gun shows and probably (not really confirmed) private sales between individuals in the requirement for "background checks," as previously mandated for sales by licensed dealers. Although I'm less active than previously, it seems that most of the legitimate gun users, whether in the NRA or elsewhere, were generally in favor of "more uniform" application - with reservations for some - if the system could be made to work.

A "registry" for individuals was created for the purpose of verifying criminal (and other) records for people who might reasonably be unsuited to have guns - and of a few other things included in the restrictions. A difficulty is that many of what might of the most applicable indicators of potential misuse, such as patient/doctor, lawyer/client, and priest/confessor informations are unreportable.

Unfortunately (??) participation of most places that could have provided information to the registry was made voluntary, and the last reliable report was that fewer than half of the agencies expected to provide the necessary information have reported more than isolated bits of information, and since the cost of providing the information was borne by the reporting agency - the cost of participation along with local "political opinions" - resulted in several states and "police departments" in those and other states providing NO INPUT to the registry. The end result is that the registry itself has a very poor record for returning valid information on a given applicant for a purchase.

A "statistic" frequently claimed that "proves" that the registry works is that "millions of applications have been rejected." A difficulty with that claim, as a proof of effectiveness, is that the same law that created the registry made it a FEDERAL FELONY for certain classes of people prohibited from purchases even to file an application. By the time the number of rejections passed the million mark, there had been fewer than about a dozen applications rejected for which prosecutions were filed for this felony violation, about half of which were later dropped as based on erroneous information.

There is also no verifiable information to indicate how many of the "millions rejected" submitted corrected applications, or appealed, and were later found to qualify for their purchases, or should have been approved but just gave up, so those "statistics" don't really tell anything about the success or failure of the system. They show only that it's been a burden on the public. The prevailing opinion among those who've actually tried to look at confirmable results is that it hasn't really worked very well, although the verifiable information is exceedingly sparse.

While it is remotely possible that a few of the "swing votes" were based on the valid objections, it's clear that the majority of votes, on both sides, had no basis except the overriding obsession with getting reelected by pandering to the uninformed. The end result might not have been different had those voting actually relied on the best available information and consideration of what might work, but it's clear the vote had no basis there.

That's what's really sad.

John


19 Apr 13 - 07:42 AM (#3505704)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: GUEST,SPB at work

It all proves that USA is a country of 200 million people that love their guns more than their children.

And they still believe they have a right to state their opinion on a world-wide platform.


19 Apr 13 - 08:53 AM (#3505726)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Bee-dubya-ell

It all proves that USA is a country of 200 million people that love their guns more than their children.

In fact, of those 200 million* 180 million are in favor of expanding background checks. The problem is that enough legislators are in thrall to that remaining 20 million and their NRA mouthpiece to block the wishes of the majority. American politics is not about majority rule. It's about money, influence, and obstruction.


* The actual US population is over 300 million, but since about a third of those are children, the 200 million figure works in this context.


19 Apr 13 - 10:05 AM (#3505758)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: catspaw49

More of this type of support would be extremely helpful......

Augie 4 resigns lifetime NRA membership!

I may go buy a Bud!

Based on a long history and the second amendment, guns are not going away. We do need to pass some sane laws to regulate the types and ownership and this will inconvenience and anger some, and some who are friends of mine. But it won't happen overnight and may never happen at all but we need to have the discussion as citizens and not from the NRA which now only reflects but corporate America.

But know this........The discussion is ours and is deeply rooted in our history as are the other 9 rights and our Constitution. We live in a world society, however this fight is ours. Unless you live here, have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.


Spaw


19 Apr 13 - 10:43 AM (#3505768)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Stu

" Unless you live here, have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up."

I can understand why you'd say this, but at the risk of bringing down a whole heap of Spaw opprobrium on my fragile noggin I respectfully disagree. For a start, like it or not the US takes the stance of the leading light for liberty and justice in the world as you say. This means those of us living outside the US have a vested interest in what it's doing and how it conducts it's affairs both internally and externally. So when we notice the fact US politicians make decisions like they did in this vote, we pay keen interest and like it or not are entitled to an opinion, which we can and should voice.

Secondly, I have good friends in the US and I care about their wellbeing very much and that means I take even more of an interest. Your history and ours are intertwined and cannot be separated so easily. Isolationism is a luxury the US can't afford any more.


19 Apr 13 - 11:01 AM (#3505774)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: catspaw49

Respectfully stated and agreed.   Nothing you can do to affect the situation but neutrally stated which is what I would expect of you Stu.


Spaw


20 Apr 13 - 02:49 AM (#3506063)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: MGM·Lion

'Based on a long history and the second amendment, guns are not going away' - Spaw
.,,.
This pessimistic get-out always gets asserted when this topic arises on yet another thread. But it is a terrible council of despair. THEY HAVE GOT TO GO AWAY, can't you see? And even if you think it is none of our biz, I, on another thread, & Stu just above [& acceptably to you, Spaw] have replied to that defence-mechanistic hidey-hole of yours.

Get some of your great academic minds to research on means of making them go away by repealing certain laws and voting down certain mythical 'inalienable rights', why don't you? If there was a disease killing a small but regular number of your citizens, you would have a corps of scientific and medical expert researchers dedicated to finding means of eliminating it, wouldn't you? So have you got one of legal &/or sociological expert researchers similarly dedicated to doing something about these dysfunctional 'gun laws' of yours? And, if not, why not?

~M~


20 Apr 13 - 03:04 AM (#3506068)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Richard Bridge

Good heavens (twice in one post). First I largely agree with MtheGM AGAIN - and second I spot a simple linguistic error in his post. "CounSEL" of despair, please!


20 Apr 13 - 03:17 AM (#3506073)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: MGM·Lion

'counsel' indeed. Thank you Richard. What can I have been thinking of ~~ blushblushblush


20 Apr 13 - 03:40 AM (#3506077)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: MGM·Lion

... and don't take our 'agreement' too hard. As I have said before, it is surely quite understandable to agree on matters of morality, which is what I take this to be, even if not on matters political?

~M~


20 Apr 13 - 08:36 AM (#3506146)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Richard Bridge

I - er - OH DAMN!


20 Apr 13 - 09:25 AM (#3506157)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Elmore

My local radio station urges listeners to attend an upcoming gun show and exercise their God-given second amendment rights. God gave us the second amendment? Seems like a stretch.


20 Apr 13 - 10:29 AM (#3506181)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Richard Bridge

Elmore - you mean by shooting all the gun-toting fascists there?

MtheGM - although I do find many of my points of opposition to the conservatives and their limp-dem bum-boys to be matters of morality also.


20 Apr 13 - 11:19 AM (#3506201)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: MGM·Lion

Sure, Richard. I wasn't postulating morals & politics as entirely discrete, mutually-exclusive, categories; many questions certainly subsume both. But this present one it seems to me is preponderantly a moral question: sufficiently so that we can happily agree about it, can't we?, without any compromise of such differences in political stance that may exist between us.

~M~

NB please, purely in interests of accuracy, my name is Myer, with only one 'e', and not as you rendered it in a recent post.


20 Apr 13 - 01:55 PM (#3506250)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Stringsinger

I agree with most of you that the Congress and the Senate are gutless wonders on this issue and kissed up to the NRA.

The canard about the government taking guns away is a big lie.

The gun show managers must be popping their champagne corks.

Next, we'll see a poster of Jesus sporting an AK-47.

Our government is now officially certifiably insane.

The Tea Party keeps talking about taking back our country. It's time for decent law-abiding Americans to do the same by exposing the graft and money grubbing by the gun lobby.

It won't come from our represented leaders any more. They've sold out. It's a grass roots bottom up campaign that has to happen otherwise the status quo of mass killings in America goes on.


20 Apr 13 - 02:38 PM (#3506257)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Lighter

Consistency demands that the gutless wonders who voted no work like beavers to eliminate the background checks that already exist, making everybody - according to their twisted logic - that much freer and safer.


20 Apr 13 - 03:05 PM (#3506262)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: John MacKenzie

Is it true that 'Mods' can have longer thread titles?


20 Apr 13 - 05:45 PM (#3506323)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Richard Bridge

Sorry, Myer. My memory was at fault on the spelling.


20 Apr 13 - 10:11 PM (#3506393)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: bobad

"all but three 'no' senators received pro-gun cash"

The US has a severely fucked up legislative system when senators can be bought off and stop legislation that has the support of 90% of the population. The US is rapidly becoming undemocratic.

The Guardian


20 Apr 13 - 10:17 PM (#3506396)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: GUEST,olddude

Hey Richard before you shoot off your mouth, use gun toting rednecks shoot back only a hell of a lot more accurate then most.

if you don't own weapons or live in NY you don't know what the fuck you are talking about period

I support the federal proposal because it only extended the BG checks that we have now to the gun show. The NY law said no hunter needs more than 7 rounds, well guess what, for 30 years the law states 5 rounds for hunting ... it made no sense at all.


20 Apr 13 - 10:23 PM (#3506397)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: GUEST,olddude

Elmore - you mean by shooting all the gun-toting fascists there?

Who is the fucking fascist? ... have a look in the mirror
I know of no gun owner that would say that ,...


20 Apr 13 - 10:24 PM (#3506398)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: gnu

My post didn't post!

Re Bud... Used to be TV ads where the top Busch with the flag proudly displayed would say how they suppoerted the NRA... used ta give a nickel from every Bud sold to the NRA... proud to support the NRA.

Bravo Bud #4!


20 Apr 13 - 10:35 PM (#3506401)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: GUEST,olddude

American's can and will solve the criminal possession of guns. Don't need any help from people who don't live here and if you don't why do you care. You have no reason to worry cause you ain't walking around here in the states.


20 Apr 13 - 10:57 PM (#3506406)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: GUEST,olddude

you would think the governor of NY would know the laws he already has before getting with his cronies behind closed doors without debate and passing new laws that even the local sheriff said he would not enforce because of its inconsistency.
yet at a federal level a law that would make a real difference is squashed.


21 Apr 13 - 02:33 AM (#3506437)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Richard Bridge

Don't be stupid, olddude (if you are the real olddude).

1. Everyone should oppose dangerous idiocy - for example Saudi Arabian ban on women drivers - whether in Saudi Arabia or not.
2. I've had to go to the USA on business before, I might need to do so again - and I'd prefer not to be shot by some peabrain who thinks it's a constitutional or divine right.
3. Who knows, I might even want to go there on holiday, if I ever became underweight and needed fattening up in the fat capital of the world. If so I'd prefer not to be shot by some peabrain who thinks it's a constitutional or divine right.
4. The US interferes all around the world to impose its own views of propriety. Goose: gander.


21 Apr 13 - 05:19 AM (#3506473)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Stu

"Don't need any help from people who don't live here and if you don't why do you care. You have no reason to worry cause you ain't walking around here in the states.

Can I refer you to my post for an answer to that question:

Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Stu - PM
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 10:43 AM

Also, as I will be walking around there later in the year (hopefully) then is that enough reason?

Unfortunately olddude, you might not like everyone taking an interest in the US's internal affairs but then you are probably underestimating the influence your country has out here in the rest of the world, and your governments have actively sought to be the sole remaining superpower. You can't laud yourself as the light of liberty and justice in the world and not expect everyone to a) take an interest of b) have an opinion.

Aside from that, as I said in my earlier post you don't have to live somewhere to love it or care about it and it's people, and that goes for the states as much as anywhere. It's why we feel and share your pain over Boston. Sorry.


21 Apr 13 - 05:29 AM (#3506479)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: MGM·Lion

If you really are an Old Dude, then you are old enough to remember Suez. I maintain to this day that Eden was right to go in, & Ike & you bloody USers had no business coming sticking your long noses in to make him come out again.

Pots·&·Kettles to you, O Danny Boy!

~Michael~


21 Apr 13 - 06:53 AM (#3506503)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: kendall

I agree that we have a serious problem with guns. I also know what has to be done about it, and that is the real problem; getting 455 assholes to agree on ANYTHING!

You Brits, just remember why we have that 2nd amendment in the first place.


21 Apr 13 - 07:56 AM (#3506530)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: SPB-Cooperator

25,000 deaths over the 8 years of the American WAR of Independence, of which 8,000 in battle. Compare this with what is now more than 10,000 gun deaths each year in PEACETIME. I think the figures show quite clearly what the 2nd amendment is for. Are you really saying that 10,000 deaths per year is a price worth to prevent 3,000 deaths?


21 Apr 13 - 08:06 AM (#3506537)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: MGM·Lion

"You Brits, just remember why we have that 2nd amendment in the first place."
.,,.,.
So how long do you propose to go on lugging around the enormous weight of this huge 237 year old chip on your shoulders, then?

~M~


21 Apr 13 - 09:47 AM (#3506578)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: olddude

It is not right for me to go off on you Richard. I am sorry but don't make statements like that ok. It is not right


21 Apr 13 - 10:44 AM (#3506589)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: MGM·Lion

...and, Richard, as I have said before, I do not generally address you as "Bridge", and fail to see why you seem so incapable of extending a like courtesy to me.

~M~


22 Apr 13 - 06:52 AM (#3506979)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

""Senator McConnell agreed that yesterday's vote "sent a powerful message," adding, "If the American people think that just because they voted us into office and pay our salaries, benefits, and pensions, we are somehow obliged to listen to them, they are sorely mistaken." ""

Now, I understand that this whole piece was a finely judged and nicely understated satyrical passage, but it is worth pointing out that this final paragraph is an accurate and true rendering of the attitude of Republican Senators and Congressmen toward the people they pretend to represent.

A sad comment on the state of so-called US Democracy.

Don T.


22 Apr 13 - 06:58 AM (#3506987)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: freda underhill

The Daily Show interview with Australian Prime Minister re gun control in Oz


22 Apr 13 - 06:59 AM (#3506988)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: freda underhill

Sorry, that page has been moved. I'll try again!


22 Apr 13 - 07:06 AM (#3506989)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: freda underhill

here it is! have a laugh.. and a cry..


22 Apr 13 - 08:51 AM (#3507014)
Subject: RE: BS: expanded background checks on guns defeated
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

Philip van Klutz, leader of the Virginia Citizen's Defence League, made it perfectly clear that his attitude owes absolutely nothing to logic, reason, or intelligence.

I am surprised that he has, with so little brain, managed to survive to his current age and state of dementia.

I only hope that he has never managed to breed.

Don T.