The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks...[W: 349]

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:

I'm not opposed to voter ID laws, as long as the process to get the ID is made easily available at no cost to everyone...and while we are at it, we should allow people to register to vote at the same time (which funny...but not surprizingly.....most of the supporters of voter ID laws are against....how come?)

Click to expand...

Against what, having be easily available at no cost? Against having them register to vote at the same time? You'd have to show that this is "mostly" true of "supporters." Sounds like you're hedging your bets to me.

I'm sure, as well, that you just accepted it when, quite recently, a solid majority was against gay marriage, too.

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Kal'Stang said:

Yet you fully support making people pay for background checks done on them? More: :lamo

Click to expand...

Sure....included in the "purchase" of an item. Same as when you buy a car.

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Kal'Stang said:

Yet you fully support making people pay for background checks done on them? More: :lamo

Click to expand...

That's a very good point. Seems like if he wants to be consistent, the background checks should be totally free.

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:

There is no legitimate reason to oppose registration. Sorry. We have to register our cars...registering guns is a no brainer.

Click to expand...

There's plenty of reasons, whether you realize it or not every single national confiscation started with registration. You're not getting registration so we may as well bury that dead horse, beating it isn't going to move things forward.

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:

Sure....included in the "purchase" of an item. Same as when you buy a car.

Click to expand...

Buying a car isn't an explicitly-protected fundamental right.

Never mind that you don't have to register a car which never leaves private property.

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

penn1954 said:

Background checks were never required in the Constitution!!!

Click to expand...

It does not ban background checks. It does not even mention them .

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Unitedwestand13 said:

It does not ban background checks. It does not even mention them .

Click to expand...

It doesn't "ban" poll taxes or literacy tests, either, nor "mention" them.

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

LaMidRighter said:

There's plenty of reasons, whether you realize it or not every single national confiscation started with registration. You're not getting registration so we may as well bury that dead horse, beating it isn't going to move things forward.

Click to expand...

As I suspected...its the "They're coming to get my guns!!!!!!" hysteria.

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

I really did not have a problem with expanding existing background checks. As long as they stayed away from private sales and did not require registration. I don't see it other than being a clear message about gun control in general, which I like. Leave my guns alone.

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Cardinal said:

First, do you think that, in and of itself, background checks are good in principle?

Click to expand...

Okay...

First I should point out that I am, in general, a centrist. I lean a little left on certain things, and a bit right on certain things, but overall I tend to oppose extremes of either sort.

Now when it comes to gun and self-defense issues, I am a strong defender of the 2A. I don't think it is a right/left issue so much as a freedom issue, and a self-defense issue, and a balance-of-power issue.

While I question whether mandated background checks are really Constitutional, strictly speaking, I accept the current NICS system as a middle-road compromise position since it is relatively non-burdensome to the honest citizen, and possibly does some tiny minescule amount of good (not a lot really, when you look at how very VERY few prosecutions there have been based on people lying on their form and getting caught at it).

As far as preventing crime, I doubt it has much effect, given the current lack of action on attempted violations, and the ready availability of firearms on the black market.

Therefore I have serious doubts that expanding it would have much positive impact. Criminals and the black market would ignore it as they do all laws, and it is not very enforceable.

Therefore, absent a significant positive impact, I see little reason to support same. As I've said I am not dead-set against some sort of expansion of background checks, as long as it is carefully structured and worded to minimize its impact on the law-abiding... but absent more vigorous and effective use of the EXISTING system to nail criminals, I see little point in it.

So, absent any likelihood of substantive positive impact, I see no reason to support increasing restrictions on a fundamental human right that is also enumerated in the Constitution. If you'd have me support such a thing, then I need to see that there is a strong benefit to be gained, and that impact on the law-abiding will be minimal.

Another reason to cheer its failure is that Harry Reid had already talked about trying to slip Feinstein's monsterous AWB back into it later as an amendment... hence my comment about keeping the camel's nose out of the tent in order to avoid ending up with camel droppings on the rug. :mrgreen:

So there ya have it in a nutshell...

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Unitedwestand13 said:

It does not ban background checks. It does not even mention them .

Click to expand...

Here's the thing, prohibiting criminals from owning weapons is legitimate to a degree under due process, which is a constitutional right. Once one has misused a right they can forfeit it, though proper law would allow them recourse for restoration of those rights. Because there must be a way to enforce prohibitions there is a borderline, the reason a dealer can be legally compelled to run the check is because they are selling inventory and not personal property. The line blurs when I am looking to sell my own property, as I am not a dealer and don't sell "for profit" I am not a licensed firearms business so my legal responsibilities are very short. Under the UBGC I would be compelled to purchase an NICS check, it reduces the value of my sale whether it's having to reduce the asking price to facilitate the check fee or having to pay it out of pocket so economic choices are taken from me.

Now, where this gets tricky is where my rights as a private seller end. I may not sell to anyone who I know is a criminal or if they express any intent to use the firearm in a crime, if I have some reason to believe they are buying it to commit a crime I have no legal right to sell it to them. Of course, I don't personally have a desire to sell any of my guns, I buy what I want the first time BUT others get tired of weapons and they want to sell or trade, I can tell you that were I to sell a firearm it would probably be to someone I know well or at least if it was someone I didn't if they looked nervous or agitated I won't sell to them, that's part of my responsibility as a gun owner.

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:

As I suspected...its the "They're coming to get my guns!!!!!!" hysteria.

Click to expand...

You suspect nothing, you are engaging in your typical partisan attacks and issuance of party talking points. Registrations have led to confiscations in almost every nation that legally required them, that is a fact.

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

LaMidRighter said:

You suspect nothing, you are engaging in your typical partisan attacks and issuance of party talking points. Registrations have led to confiscations in almost every nation that legally required them, that is a fact.

Click to expand...

You've been listening to waaaaaay too much right-wing radio propoganda. Obama isn't coming for your guns.....relax.

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:

You've been listening to waaaaaay too much right-wing radio propoganda. Obama isn't coming for your guns.....relax.

Click to expand...

Ah, so it has to be "right wing propoganda". Dude, this is pathetic, you used a propoganda poll, you speak propoganda, and you don't understand the issue, I do. I've been paying attention to these things since I was a child, and behavioral patterns of both parties are not in the best interest of the people at large.

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Erod said:

That is the Breaking News banner headline on cnn.com.

Fox News' banner reads: "SENATE REJECTS PLAN EXPANDING GUN BACKGROUNDCHECKS IN 54-46 VOTE"

Edit: And now there is a full link to include.

Background check plan defeated in major setback for Senate gun bill | Fox News

Click to expand...

What I find really interesting is the Democrats who voted against the measure. Begich AK, Pryor AR and Baucus of MT are up for re-election in 2014 from red pro gun states and a vote for gun control probably would have meant defeat for these 3. Heitkamp campaigned as a pro gun advocate in ND and won her seat last year.

I have to hand it to Landrieu of LA, Hagan of NC who voted for the measure from pro gun states. I can guarantee these two will hear about their yea votes come November of next year.

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

LaMidRighter said:

Here's the thing, prohibiting criminals from owning weapons is legitimate to a degree under due process, which is a constitutional right. Once one has misused a right they can forfeit it, though proper law would allow them recourse for restoration of those rights. Because there must be a way to enforce prohibitions there is a borderline, the reason a dealer can be legally compelled to run the check is because they are selling inventory and not personal property. The line blurs when I am looking to sell my own property, as I am not a dealer and don't sell "for profit" I am not a licensed firearms business so my legal responsibilities are very short. Under the UBGC I would be compelled to purchase an NICS check, it reduces the value of my sale whether it's having to reduce the asking price to facilitate the check fee or having to pay it out of pocket so economic choices are taken from me.

Now, where this gets tricky is where my rights as a private seller end. I may not sell to anyone who I know is a criminal or if they express any intent to use the firearm in a crime, if I have some reason to believe they are buying it to commit a crime I have no legal right to sell it to them. Of course, I don't personally have a desire to sell any of my guns, I buy what I want the first time BUT others get tired of weapons and they want to sell or trade, I can tell you that were I to sell a firearm it would probably be to someone I know well or at least if it was someone I didn't if they looked nervous or agitated I won't sell to them, that's part of my responsibility as a gun owner.

Click to expand...

Well that all depends on the moral character of the person selling the gun. If they are honest they will likely play by the laws.

But there are some gun sellers who are not so morally sound and may only care about the money, and they may engage in some shady dealing methods.

My concern with this lack of background checks for private dealers and Internet transactions means that a majority of gun sales happen below the radar. If you allow me to use a analogy: a ships radar does no good if it can not detect all ranges of threats.

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

LaMidRighter said:

Now, where this gets tricky is where my rights as a private seller end. I may not sell to anyone who I know is a criminal or if they express any intent to use the firearm in a crime, if I have some reason to believe they are buying it to commit a crime I have no legal right to sell it to them. Of course, I don't personally have a desire to sell any of my guns, I buy what I want the first time BUT others get tired of weapons and they want to sell or trade, I can tell you that were I to sell a firearm it would probably be to someone I know well or at least if it was someone I didn't if they looked nervous or agitated I won't sell to them, that's part of my responsibility as a gun owner.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I would not remotely consider selling a gun to someone I didn't know well, and trust implicitly. To do otherwise is (imo) careless.

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

I am afraid this will have severe push back in the future. This bill actually would have made any sort of registry illegal. I bet the next one dont. The NRA has gone a bridge too far.

disneydude said:

Somewhat true....but with 93% of the country favoring it...I have a strong suspicion that they are more afraid of the NRA than they are of their constituents.

Click to expand...

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:

Sure....included in the "purchase" of an item. Same as when you buy a car.

Click to expand...

Last I knew the federal government did not require a criminal background check to buy a car. And last I knew a criminal background check is required by law at the expense of the owner and wouldn't even be done if it wasn't a law. Do you see a difference?

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

mak2 said:

I am afraid this will have severe push back in the future. This bill actually would have made any sort of registry illegal. I bet the next one dont. The NRA has gone a bridge too far.

Click to expand...

This comment reminds me of a famous quote...."Those that would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither".

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

I dont know why. What security am I keeping by allowing nuts and felons to buy guns. This is a really really dumb thing for the NRA to do. It will cost us in the long run. Google more famous sayings and find something a bit more appropriate.

Kal'Stang said:

This comment reminds me of a famous quote...."Those that would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither".

Click to expand...

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Unitedwestand13 said:

Well that all depends on the moral character of the person selling the gun. If they are honest they will likely play by the laws.

But there are some gun sellers who are not so morally sound and may only care about the money, and they may engage in some shady dealing methods.

My concern with this lack of background checks for private dealers and Internet transactions means that a majority of gun sales happen below the radar. If you allow me to use a analogy: a ships radar does no good if it can not detect all ranges of threats.

Click to expand...

I'll be frank with you, there are FFL dealers that get popped for "missing inventory" all the time. If a person doesn't care who they sell to laws are irrelevant until you can trace back to them. The biggest problem is black market guns, the same guys who get drugs into neighborhoods get guns into them, and they are the ones who are definitely the least moraled. We have an issue in this nation with customs, only about 10% of shipped cargo is able to be checked, it's already nothing to get contraband through NOLA, Oakland, Houston, etc. and then once they are in, it's getting it through land distribution, criminals are very good at this stuff. The guy who is looking to rob a convenience store isn't looking for a 300$ used Taurus, Ruger, or IWI piece, they want a 40$ street special that they can toss cheaply and probably bought from a "psst, C'mere" guy.

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

lizzie said:

Exactly. I would not remotely consider selling a gun to someone I didn't know well, and trust implicitly. To do otherwise is (imo) careless.

Click to expand...

I double check my vehicle to make sure it's locked, even at my house when the gun is in it, I always check to make sure it's secured, and I always know where it's at. That's just in my possession, you can imagine how strict my rules are to borrow one from me or buy from me, but that is the price of exercising the right, I am not responsible for criminal actions by others BUT I am responsible for the weapons I do own.

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:

Not funny at all....more and more people are seeing the lunacy of the NRA and the wacko far fringe right-wing gun nuts.

Click to expand...

you appear bitter even though there is no evidence this law would have decreased crime

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Goshin said:

Okay...

First I should point out that I am, in general, a centrist. I lean a little left on certain things, and a bit right on certain things, but overall I tend to oppose extremes of either sort.

Now when it comes to gun and self-defense issues, I am a strong defender of the 2A. I don't think it is a right/left issue so much as a freedom issue, and a self-defense issue, and a balance-of-power issue.

While I question whether mandated background checks are really Constitutional, strictly speaking, I accept the current NICS system as a middle-road compromise position since it is relatively non-burdensome to the honest citizen, and possibly does some tiny minescule amount of good (not a lot really, when you look at how very VERY few prosecutions there have been based on people lying on their form and getting caught at it).

As far as preventing crime, I doubt it has much effect, given the current lack of action on attempted violations, and the ready availability of firearms on the black market.

Therefore I have serious doubts that expanding it would have much positive impact. Criminals and the black market would ignore it as they do all laws, and it is not very enforceable.

Therefore, absent a significant positive impact, I see little reason to support same. As I've said I am not dead-set against some sort of expansion of background checks, as long as it is carefully structured and worded to minimize its impact on the law-abiding... but absent more vigorous and effective use of the EXISTING system to nail criminals, I see little point in it.

So, absent any likelihood of substantive positive impact, I see no reason to support increasing restrictions on a fundamental human right that is also enumerated in the Constitution. If you'd have me support such a thing, then I need to see that there is a strong benefit to be gained, and that impact on the law-abiding will be minimal.

Another reason to cheer its failure is that Harry Reid had already talked about trying to slip Feinstein's monsterous AWB back into it later as an amendment... hence my comment about keeping the camel's nose out of the tent in order to avoid ending up with camel droppings on the rug. :mrgreen:

So there ya have it in a nutshell...

Click to expand...

Chirp... chirp... chirp....

Mighty quiet all the sudden.