Politics Trump’s support for background check bill shows gun politics ‘shifting rapidly’

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
SlyPokerDog

SlyPokerDog

Woof!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
126,712
Likes
147,300
Points
115
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Monday that President Trump’s newfound support for his gun-background-check legislation shows that the politics surrounding gun violence are “shifting rapidly” in the wake of yet another deadly mass shooting last week.

...

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement earlier Monday that Trump supports a bill co-authored by Murphy and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) that would bolster the federal background check system, though she emphasized that “discussions are ongoing and revisions are being considered” to the measure.

...

The bipartisan measure is narrowly focused on background checks; it would require states and federal agencies to produce plans to report offenses that would bar people from passing a check needed to purchase a firearm.

It also reiterates that federal agencies must report all violations to the National Instant Criminal Background Check system and creates new financial incentives for states to report information.

Cornyn and Murphy unveiled the measure last November in response to a mass shooting in Texas, but it was never passed into law. It is the rare gun legislation supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA).

http://thehill.com/homenews/374544-...-background-check-bill-shows-gun-politics-are
 
RR7 said:
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
Click to expand...

Why is gun control policy in the United States so lax? One common response is to point to the Constitution. Certainly, many opponents of gun control argue that virtually any regulation of firearms that goes beyond the weak federal status quo violates the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of the "right to bear arms." But the Constitution is not the primary reason why the United States permits civilians to arm themselves like soldiers.

The Supreme Court, after all, has only interpreted the Constitution as protecting an individual right to bear arms since 2008. And the court's decision in D.C. vs. Heller left a much wider scope for gun control than is commonly recognized. In his majority opinion, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that "the right secured by the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited" and that the 2nd Amendment does not prevent the state from banning "dangerous and unusual weapons."

On its face, a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons would be constitutional even under Heller.

Admittedly, what constitutes a "dangerous and unusual" weapon is not precisely defined by Scalia's opinion. It's possible that the current Supreme Court would read it narrowly and strike down a state or federal ban on semiautomatic weapons. But even if this turned out to be the case, this is a contingency, not some permanent feature of American constitutionalism compelled by the text of the 2nd Amendment. Any Supreme Court with a Democratic median vote would uphold such a ban.
Click to expand...

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-lemieux-parkland-second-amendment-20180219-story.html
 
SlyPokerDog said:
:MARIS61:
Click to expand...

Some years ago, I modified a Ruger .22 auto so that it would fire when you pulled the trigger and when you let it return.
That bump stock looks like crude and stupid idea. The thing I did really let you gets some round out fast. With a 110 round drum
magazine, it really had some serious fire power. It was very easy to do and undo with only one part modified.

I'd trade the bump stock for something important in a heart beat.
 
>It's a boomer appeals to emotion by contradicting his principles episode again

goddamn it
 
Tougher background checks doesnt bother me. But it still doesnt keep guns out of criminal hands. It's just a half step toward nothing.

But if it gets liberals to shut the fuck up, well done trumpster!
 
Fake news.
Talk means nothing.
Fucking do something.
 
The lower receiver is still in tact. It's a moot point. He can keep that lower receiver and if a ban were to take place, anyone can buy the parts to replace what he did. The lower receiver is the only part that matters. It's a nice gesture, but to truly destroy it, he'd have to melt it down.
 
So much fake news.

This makes no changes to the background check procedure or criteria.

It simply orders agencies to stop shielding criminals and mentally ill people from being on it, which would have prevented the Charlston and Texas church shootings and the Orlando and Parkland shootings, the "Sandy Hook shooting" if there was one, the Ft. Hood shooting...

Conservatives have been asking for this for years but libs opposed it on all fronts.
 
I mean, gun laws are probably pretty strict if I was stopped from purchasing one (and threatened to have the cops called for the "disturbance" when I tried to press my case) :dunno:
 
Why a ban on semi-automatic weapons is an empty political con.

 
MARIS61 said:
So much fake news.

This makes no changes to the background check procedure or criteria.

It simply orders agencies to stop shielding criminals and mentally ill people from being on it, which would have prevented the Charlston and Texas church shootings and the Orlando and Parkland shootings, the "Sandy Hook shooting" if there was one, the Ft. Hood shooting...

Conservatives have been asking for this for years but libs opposed it on all fronts.
Click to expand...
But HIPPA bro!
 
SlyPokerDog said:
If that was a shotgun that would be a felony.

Click to expand...


I saw this on the news. What a fucking idiot. He could have sold that gun legally and then sent the money to a charity or fundraiser or something. How typical that some assclown from NEW YORK would do something like this.

"Make sure it's never used in a crime"? Why....were YOU planning on using it in a crime, toolbag? If it never leaves your possession, and you are a stable, law-abiding person, then what are you so terrified about?

Idiots like these are the reasons why the Chuck Schumers, Nancy Pelosis, and Michael Bloombergs of the world fuck things up for knowledgeable, intelligent gun owners. They vote these entitled, bubble-mindset morons in to office. The type of people who legislate laws based on needs and requirements instead of wants and desires. Wants that fuel the Desires that this country was built upon.

There are 320+ million guns in this country, owned by roughly 180 million people. And yet, according to the FBI, firearms account for less than 1% of the total number of deaths in this country per year.

If guns were the problem.....you'd know it.

If absolutely baffles me that people think that AR-15s/AK-47s, Republicans, the NRA, or Trump are the problems here. The problems are that we are more overpopulated than ever, and we as a society are more stressed out and on edge than ever before about grossly overblown and exaggerated issues. Everyone hates everyone, and everyone gets worked up over stupid, trivial bullshit like politics or social issues.

This kind of shit didn't happen when my father was a kid. Or when his grandfather was a young man. Back then, you could not only take a rifle to school in a rack in the window of your pickup truck, but you could order one from a magazine and have it delivered to your fucking door without so much as a peep from the delivery man. There were no background checks, there were no regulations or "waiting periods".

So what does that tell you?

Jesus Christ....OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES. GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM HERE. Blaming guns for these mass shootings is like trying to fight a million acre wildfire with a watering can. It's pointless, and a waste of time. This isn't the NRA's problem, the gun industry's problem, Trump's problem, or a Republican problem. This is a SOCIETY problem. And you can thank that fucking media for getting everyone on edge and hyped up over stupid shit, and you can thank Hollywood for glamorizing violence as a means to an end.

But oh....."President Tiny Hands" makes a sarcastic remark on Twitter, and the Pussy Hat Brigade gets up in a tissy about it. Because "Resist".

Fuck you. Get your priorities right, America.
 
Jade Falcon said:
I saw this on the news. What a fucking idiot. He could have sold that gun legally and then sent the money to a charity or fundraiser or something. How typical that some assclown from NEW YORK would do something like this.

"Make sure it's never used in a crime"? Why....were YOU planning on using it in a crime, toolbag? If it never leaves your possession, and you are a stable, law-abiding person, then what are you so terrified about?

Idiots like these are the reasons why the Chuck Schumers, Nancy Pelosis, and Michael Bloombergs of the world fuck things up for knowledgeable, intelligent gun owners. They vote these entitled, bubble-mindset morons in to office. The type of people who legislate laws based on needs and requirements instead of wants and desires. Wants that fuel the Desires that this country was built upon.

There are 320+ million guns in this country, owned by roughly 180 million people. And yet, according to the FBI, firearms account for less than 1% of the total number of deaths in this country per year.

If guns were the problem.....you'd know it.

If absolutely baffles me that people think that AR-15s/AK-47s, Republicans, the NRA, or Trump are the problems here. The problems are that we are more overpopulated than ever, and we as a society are more stressed out and on edge than ever before about grossly overblown and exaggerated issues. Everyone hates everyone, and everyone gets worked up over stupid, trivial bullshit like politics or social issues.

This kind of shit didn't happen when my father was a kid. Or when his grandfather was a young man. Back then, you could not only take a rifle to school in a rack in the window of your pickup truck, but you could order one from a magazine and have it delivered to your fucking door without so much as a peep from the delivery man. There were no background checks, there were no regulations or "waiting periods".

So what does that tell you?

Jesus Christ....OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES. GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM HERE. Blaming guns for these mass shootings is like trying to fight a million acre wildfire with a watering can. It's pointless, and a waste of time. This isn't the NRA's problem, the gun industry's problem, Trump's problem, or a Republican problem. This is a SOCIETY problem. And you can thank that fucking media for getting everyone on edge and hyped up over stupid shit, and you can thank Hollywood for glamorizing violence as a means to an end.

But oh....."President Tiny Hands" makes a sarcastic remark on Twitter, and the Pussy Hat Brigade gets up in a tissy about it. Because "Resist".

Fuck you. Get your priorities right, America.
Click to expand...
I want to cuddle with this patriot.
 
Scott just played the liberal cucks. Not only did his video go viral, giving him limitless advertisement money in the future, but he didnt even destroy the part that was pre ban. Scott probably had another upper on order before he shot this video. Scott, you sneaky son of a bitch, why didnt i think to do this first?
 
http://reason.com/archives/2018/02/18/a-cure-for-mass-shootings-doesnt-exist

A Cure for Mass Shootings Doesn't Exist
There are no plausible options that offer more than the faintest prospect of preventing the next massacre.

Every time there is a mass shooting, a chorus goes up: "We must do something to keep this from happening again. We can't tolerate it any longer."

Revulsion understandably creates a demand for remedies. But every time, we do nothing, to the fury of those who denounce the inaction as shameful.

There is a simple explanation, though, for the inaction. It's not that the National Rifle Association is all-powerful, that too many Americans are blind to reason, or that most are complacent about wanton slaughter. It's that there are no plausible options that offer more than the faintest prospect of preventing a massacre in the next year or the next decade.

Our constitutional framework was not designed to facilitate drastic government action. It was designed to prevent it in the absence of a clear and durable public consensus. In this instance, there is none.

Mass shootings are a horrific problem that is peculiarly resistant to solutions. To a great extent, public policy is impotent. Until the advocates of new restrictions can make the case that they would make a difference, little is likely to happen.

What answers do they offer? One is reinstituting the federal ban on "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines that was in effect from 1994 to 2004. Another is expanding the federal background check system to cover private sales. Another is to make it easier to flag people with mental health problems and bar sales to them.

These are not necessarily wrong, but they are unpromising. Though an AR-15 may be particularly useful for mass shootings, there are many substitutes that fire just as rapidly and use equally destructive ammunition. A ban on high-capacity magazines would be a puny impediment to someone like the killer in Parkland, Florida.

Mass shooters, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck told me, "always use multiple guns and/or multiple magazines, enabling them to easily fire many rounds quickly even if they had only smaller-capacity magazines. And they do not need guns that fire fast, because they do not fire fast during their crimes." The Parkland shooter had multiple magazines.

A 2013 study of the 1994 law for the National Institute of Justice said, "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence." It also said, "Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement."

Even if the law had any positive effect then, it would be far less likely to help today, because there are far more of these guns now. In 1994, Americans owned about 1.5 million "assault weapons." The number is now around 8 million.

Restoring the 1994 law would not eliminate them. It would only block new sales—and foster new models engineered to get around the new rules. People would be able to keep and buy the "assault weapons" already out there.

Background checks for private sales would make it harder for felons to acquire guns. But mass shooters have typically gotten their arms legally from licensed dealers as the alleged killer in Parkland did.

Yes, it might make a difference if the United States emulated Australia by outlawing certain guns and requiring owners to surrender them. Constitutional issues aside, that sort of law couldn't be passed here—or enforced. It belongs in the realm of fantasy.

Broadening the exclusion for mental health problems would mean penalizing millions of people who pose no danger. It would also deter troubled gun owners from seeking treatment.
 
Denny Crane said:
http://reason.com/archives/2018/02/18/a-cure-for-mass-shootings-doesnt-exist

A Cure for Mass Shootings Doesn't Exist
There are no plausible options that offer more than the faintest prospect of preventing the next massacre.

Every time there is a mass shooting, a chorus goes up: "We must do something to keep this from happening again. We can't tolerate it any longer."

Revulsion understandably creates a demand for remedies. But every time, we do nothing, to the fury of those who denounce the inaction as shameful.

There is a simple explanation, though, for the inaction. It's not that the National Rifle Association is all-powerful, that too many Americans are blind to reason, or that most are complacent about wanton slaughter. It's that there are no plausible options that offer more than the faintest prospect of preventing a massacre in the next year or the next decade.

Our constitutional framework was not designed to facilitate drastic government action. It was designed to prevent it in the absence of a clear and durable public consensus. In this instance, there is none.

Mass shootings are a horrific problem that is peculiarly resistant to solutions. To a great extent, public policy is impotent. Until the advocates of new restrictions can make the case that they would make a difference, little is likely to happen.

What answers do they offer? One is reinstituting the federal ban on "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines that was in effect from 1994 to 2004. Another is expanding the federal background check system to cover private sales. Another is to make it easier to flag people with mental health problems and bar sales to them.

These are not necessarily wrong, but they are unpromising. Though an AR-15 may be particularly useful for mass shootings, there are many substitutes that fire just as rapidly and use equally destructive ammunition. A ban on high-capacity magazines would be a puny impediment to someone like the killer in Parkland, Florida.

Mass shooters, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck told me, "always use multiple guns and/or multiple magazines, enabling them to easily fire many rounds quickly even if they had only smaller-capacity magazines. And they do not need guns that fire fast, because they do not fire fast during their crimes." The Parkland shooter had multiple magazines.

A 2013 study of the 1994 law for the National Institute of Justice said, "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence." It also said, "Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement."

Even if the law had any positive effect then, it would be far less likely to help today, because there are far more of these guns now. In 1994, Americans owned about 1.5 million "assault weapons." The number is now around 8 million.

Restoring the 1994 law would not eliminate them. It would only block new sales—and foster new models engineered to get around the new rules. People would be able to keep and buy the "assault weapons" already out there.

Background checks for private sales would make it harder for felons to acquire guns. But mass shooters have typically gotten their arms legally from licensed dealers as the alleged killer in Parkland did.

Yes, it might make a difference if the United States emulated Australia by outlawing certain guns and requiring owners to surrender them. Constitutional issues aside, that sort of law couldn't be passed here—or enforced. It belongs in the realm of fantasy.

Broadening the exclusion for mental health problems would mean penalizing millions of people who pose no danger. It would also deter troubled gun owners from seeking treatment.
Click to expand...
There is an option no one wants to think about. And that is to change the ideology of public school entirely.

As of now public schools care nothing for anything but test scores. Test scores = money. They spoon feed our children answers and dont teach them to critically think. A critical thinker will assess their current situation, and weigh the consequences of the possible actions they wish to take. A critical thinker who is being bullied, or feels outcast, will brainstorm solutions. Perhaps one solution is go steal dads gun and kill everyone. But a critical thinker will toss that idea out when they realize the only outcome is jail or murder/suicide.

The typical liberal dult student however doesnt critically think. He acts on emotion. He has been spoon fed answers so when the answer doesnt come to him about why he is an outcast he goes into an ego filled rage. Challenging questions are too hard so he responds with anger. He's afraid his precious ego will never recover without 1 more participation trophy. He remembers learning about survival of the fittest in science class. He listens to hitler's speeches about the more evolved white man. Now our emotional liberal zealot has a purpose.

Mean while the homeschooled christian kid is learning that he is accountable to a holy God. He recognizes that pride and the ego will cause only destruction. Sure, when other kids make fun of him he's sad. But jesus taught him to pray for them rather than retaliate in anger. He would never even contemplate shooting his peers. He has been taught fundamentally that we are all fearfully and wonderfully made, not a product of being better than the competition. He rrcognizes evolution as a theory, a very poorly supported theory with no real tangible scientific evidence. He prays for the idiots that believe in tge ideology however. Dad is taking him shooting this weekend, to learn how to hunt and support a family. He will probably teach him about the bill of rights and why it guarantees freedoms that other countries werent providing at the time of it's conception.
 
What's really changed is the rise of two-income households. Before the 1980s, women worked as secretaries and teachers, mostly. Or they stayed at home and ran the households. During the Reagan years, 24M jobs were created and a massive number of those went to women (all for it!).

Where parents (mothers) were around to keep an eye on their kids a lot of the time, that role has now been handed off to the schools. The schools are terrible at parenting (and most everything, actually).

This is not a slap at women working - I'm all in favor of empowering everyone and treating people fairly, period. This is just an observation.
 
Denny Crane said:
What's really changed is the rise of two-income households. Before the 1980s, women worked as secretaries and teachers, mostly. Or they stayed at home and ran the households. During the Reagan years, 24M jobs were created and a massive number of those went to women (all for it!).

Where parents (mothers) were around to keep an eye on their kids a lot of the time, that role has now been handed off to the schools. The schools are terrible at parenting (and most everything, actually).

This is not a slap at women working - I'm all in favor of empowering everyone and treating people fairly, period. This is just an observation.
Click to expand...
A very good observation. I too am all for women's rights. (However, i've never subscribed to the idea that someone should have MORE rights than others, based on a previous lack of rights whether that lack was perceived or factual)

However, lack of parenting is a far more likely cause for the mental health problems developing in kids. Xbox raises them at home and school babysits them when parents are at work.
 
Denny Crane said:
What's really changed is the rise of two-income households. Before the 1980s, women worked as secretaries and teachers, mostly. Or they stayed at home and ran the households. During the Reagan years, 24M jobs were created and a massive number of those went to women (all for it!).

Where parents (mothers) were around to keep an eye on their kids a lot of the time, that role has now been handed off to the schools. The schools are terrible at parenting (and most everything, actually).

This is not a slap at women working - I'm all in favor of empowering everyone and treating people fairly, period. This is just an observation.
Click to expand...

rasheedfan2005 said:
A very good observation. I too am all for women's rights. (However, i've never subscribed to the idea that someone should have MORE rights than others, based on a previous lack of rights whether that lack was perceived or factual)

However, lack of parenting is a far more likely cause for the mental health problems developing in kids. Xbox raises them at home and school babysits them when parents are at work.
Click to expand...

Not bad guys!

I would just add one thing. If you don't want to care for the child properly, and I do mean, mom or dad, then do not bring it into this world. The village does a real poor job of replacing mom when it comes to raising children. It is not like we are short on people and can't afford to reduce the replacements rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top