Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

[feather]

Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks despite broad public support | The Verge

Fail.

[res0nat0r]

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

Good job us government voting against what 90% of Americans want. Just shows those idiots don't care about anything except their campaign donors.

[feather]

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

I continue to find this place bizzarre and mind boggling.

[res0nat0r]

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

Easy answer: Whoever has the most money makes the rules. Everyone in Washington is bought, so they just care about staying in office and voting in favor of the people who will get them jobs when they revolve out of office and into the private sector as "consultants" and make 400k a year.

[res0nat0r]

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

Another thing: Never underestimate the stupidity of Americans. Tons of white hillbillies in the south think black and mexican folks are outside their houses ready to rape their women and kill them. I want to punch about 5 of my friends in the face because all i see is "erosion of gun rights" shit on facebook all day. Fortunately white rednecks are dying off and losing their voting power, so the usa is slowly becoming more progressive.

Note to self: If Washington wanted to take over your hillbilly town, your semi-automatic guns wouldn't do shit against whatever bombers they want to send to level the city from 50 miles above.

[vinnie97]

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

Before you go on a tirade about the stupidity of Americans...expanded background checks wouldn't have stopped any of the mass killings to which this reactionary bill was targeted to fix. Brady Bill didn't do it, so why would this one? Here are some facts:

The most common reason for ATF not to pursue illegal sales flagged by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is because the individuals are not deemed to be a threat to the public. Expanding these background checks (like these power-tripping politicians tried to do) to include weed growers and those who have had a minor altercation with the law (i.e. a domestic disturbance like a one-off brawl in a bar 20 years ago) alongside violent criminals is definitely a case of 2nd Amendment erosion.

In 2004, prisoners doing time for gun crimes were asked where they sourced their weapons, and only 10% of them claimed to have procured them from a licensed dealer. The remaining 90% could have either 1) stolen it or 2) bought it from a seedy street dealer who doesn't concern himself with federal regulations. Additionally, only 2% of the inmates had purchased from gun shows or flea markets.

Criminologists Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig conducted a study in 2000, which sought to determine what kind of impact the Brady Act had in lowering homicides. Their conclusion (lemme' guess, the NRA bought 'em) was that it had no such effect. In fact, 9 out of 10 gun crimes originate from guns sourced by the 3 following methods: 40% by way of friends or family, 38% by way of the black market (street), and 10% by way of theft.

And it doesn't matter what a bomber at 52 miles above the city is capable of doing, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[res0nat0r]

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

Before you go on a tirade about the stupidity of Americans...expanded background checks wouldn't have stopped any of the mass killings to which this reactionary bill was targeted to fix.

True statement. Doesn't mean that expanding existing provisions that align with common sense should just be ignored. Should we not have passed the clean air act because it wouldn't eliminate 100% of deaths caused by excess pollution? Of course not. Rightwing nutjobs want to make this into an either/or issue. It isn't. Note the right to bear arms shall not be infringed didn't mean you have the right to own whatever gun you want, and that that sentence should be taken at face value forever, not open to interpretation. Hell even Abraham Lincoln way back when said the Constitution is a living document.

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker

The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Is your right being infringed when you want to buy cough medicine and you have to show ID now? Or when you have to register for a license to drive your car? No...

Honestly the new bill if it passed wouldn't have done a whole lot I don't think, but passing laws that the majority of people want and are common sense is a good thing. It really is too late now to do anything about the gun problem in the USA IMO. There are just too many guns here and they aren't going to be taken away. It will probably be some years before any thorough bills are passed to crack down on any new sales substantially. Until then the USA will still be the #1 civilized country with the highest gun murder rate, and still will be the laughing stock of the rest of the world for how goddamn dumb we are in how we let this issue get so bad. Good job Amurrica.

[Huggie Smiles]

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

IF people buying guns are "good guys", have no criminal activity/outstanding warrents etc - a background check makes no difference whatsoever to them. They still get their guns. Its just a piece of paper to fill in, the same as when you apply for a new job. No more no less.

[Highsteppa]

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

[nelinho]

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

Where did I read all but 3 of the dozens (not sure of exact number) of senate members who voted against the changes Have received money from the gun lobby?

That is the issue for me. Legalised and legitimised bribery some would say.

[nelinho]

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

Not exclusive to the US I should add.

[Highsteppa]

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

Part of the problem is career minded politicians - people that put their own career survival before serving their country and doing the right thing.

Part of me wishes that we could see term limits imposed on various levels of government - they have it for the President, why not for congress, the senate and other branches of government?

[floridaorange]

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

The other issue being rural states getting as much say as states like NY and California

[vinnie97]

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

This used to be a Republic (I'd prefer it stay that way and not succumb any further to mob rule), and the House of Representatives makes that a nonissue. Term limits would be good, but so would requiring that any piece of legislation that passes also applies to the aristocrats who are trying to foist it upon the rest.

Anyway, I actually called my Senator to reject this piece of legislation, just as I'll do for the Internet Sales Tax. No lobbying or payoff involved.

[res0nat0r]

This used to be a Republic (I'd prefer it stay that way and not succumb any further to mob rule), and the House of Representatives makes that a nonissue. Term limits would be good, but so would requiring that any piece of legislation that passes also applies to the aristocrats who are trying to foist it upon the rest.

Anyway, I actually called my Senator to reject this piece of legislation, just as I'll do for the Internet Sales Tax. No lobbying or payoff involved.

Actually if you look close on your 1040 you are supposed to be declaring your Internet purchases already.