The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

Hacker15e said:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.55a4474a0e660aed75daa2de87d21389.7e1

So, President Obama gets a direct vote on the gun control measures he was advocating (which, IMHO, was a legitimate request)...and when it doesn't go the way he wants it, it is 'shameful'. And he adds to it the false dichotomy/straw man argument that, because the Senate did not vote for this line of lawmaking he was advocating, that they did not care about 'the lives of all our children'.



I support President Obama's desire to provide a safe society for our children and all the rest of the citizenry. I find it ridiculous that he (and other lawmakers) are hanging the entire ability to ensure that on this ridiculous method of ensuring it.
Click to expand...

You do understand currently 90%+ of Americans want universal background checks, including Wayne LaPierre until a few months ago.
 
Hacker15e said:
I support President Obama's desire to provide a safe society for our children and all the rest of the citizenry. I find it ridiculous that he (and other lawmakers) are hanging the entire ability to ensure that on this ridiculous method of ensuring it.
Click to expand...

This is an honest question--what about the bill is "ridiculous"?
 
I don't feel that there is anything "ridiculous" about requiring background checks for most gun sales... I think the ridiculousness comes from thinking that this will provide the "safe society for our children."
 
MercFE said:
I don't feel that there is anything "ridiculous" about requiring background checks for most gun sales... I think the ridiculousness comes from thinking that this will provide the "safe society for our children."
Click to expand...

I certainly don't think more extensive checks will make us "safe"...but if we've decided we can limit the right of certain individuals to own firearms, shouldn't we be able to make sure they don't?
 
Seggy said:
You do understand currently 90%+ of Americans want universal background checks, including Wayne LaPierre until a few months ago.
Click to expand...

#1. The NRA supported the NICS system -- NOT "universal background checks" -- as opposed to a 5-day waiting period or background checks that were not "instant" as was proposed in the law in 1999. That was 13 years ago...not "a few months ago".

#2. Surveys of 1000 randomly-selected individuals are not equal to actually knowing what 300 million people want.

#3. Surveys have not asked questions which represent actual specific background check measures. The surveys certainly have not shown that level of support for "universal" checks, but rather a non-specific "background check", or "expanded background check".

As one Senator said today,
Gun-control advocates point to polls that show support for expanding background checks. But members of Congress do not get to vote on broad poll questions. They have to vote on specific legislation
Click to expand...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...osal-sen-mike-lee-editorials-debates/2090793/

More than anything, such survey answers reflect the average citizens' ignorance about current firearms laws and what would be different under various actual proposed laws. There are lots of Americans who think, in their own ignorance, that there is such thing as a "gun show loophole", too. If they don't even understand that aspect of the law, then I have no faith that they have any understanding whatsoever of the implications of non-specific legislation they're being polled about.
 
zmiller4 said:
This is an honest question--what about the bill is "ridiculous"?
Click to expand...

The idea that these measures were in any way methods of reducing violence committed with firearms.

I agree that violence is a problem that needs to be addressed; the problem is that political leadership has completely ignored exploring those other root causes, and finding ways to combat those causes, in favor of pursuing a political objective (gun control) that the left has pursued for years which has dubious connections to those root causes of violence.
 
MercFE said:
I don't feel that there is anything "ridiculous" about requiring background checks for most gun sales... I think the ridiculousness comes from thinking that this will provide the "safe society for our children."
Click to expand...

I have two objections to it:

#1, there is no authority, Constitutional or otherwise, which authorizes the Federal government to have authority over the sale of legal private property between non-commercial individuals. The current NICS check authority comes under the commerce clause and applies to commercial transactions.

#2, there is no other Constitutional right which is so regulated. If it is discriminatory to require ID for a voting right (which is not even codified in the B of R), and if the poll tax is unconstitutional, then I don't see how it can possibly be constitutional to require a background check (which costs money to accomplish) to have access to a constitutional right.

EDIT: I would be in favor of discussing the Coburn version of the "expanded background check", which also did not go anywhere. Although I also think that there is questionable authority for the Federal Gov't to require this, and that it would set a frightening new threshold for access to the ability to exercise a constitutional right, I think this causes the least 'damage' in those departments. The lack of a fee to conduct a self-background-check is a big help in the 'poll tax' problem that other background check laws create.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.a...nd_check_amendment/20130417_13_0_WASHIN543857

A more detailed explanation of the Coburn version:

Dr. Coburn’s amendment would require a NICS check or validation permit to be presented for non-FFL transfers, exempting family transfers, estate/will transfers, and all temporary transfers.
The requirement can be satisfied in one of four ways:
1) An FFL takes custody ofthe firearm in order to perform a background check on the transferee as mandated in Schumer original and Manchin-Toomey
2) Presentation oftemporary 30 day permit created by running a self-NICS check through a new consumer portal(details below)
3) Usage of a concealed carry permit or any other state issued permit that requires a NICS check to be conducted to obtain
4) Any other alternative that a state comes up with to satisfy the validation requirements for secondary and private market transfers. The amendment also includes a provision that places penalties on ATF agents that abuse records during audits, an IG report on the FBI’s 24 hour destruction rule compliance, a prohibition on records, a prohibition on centralizing records pertaining to gun ownership and a provision that allows states to assume primacy of enforcement of the background check law.
Consumer Portal
  • FBI shall provide a consumer portal through its website, mobile application, or other applicable medium to allow a potential transferee to run a NICS check on his/herself
  • A successful background check will provide potential transferee with a temporary 30 day permit that validates he/she is not prohibited from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm
  • The temporary permit can be used by the transferee for any private transfers in compliance with state or federal law during the 30 day time window
  • The permit will be made available to the transferee as an electronic printable document, via a mobile application or other appropriate means
  • The 30 day permit will provide the name, date of expiration of permit, and a unique pin number that can be used to verify activation by transferor
  • The consumer portal will be designed with privacy protections so that only a prospective transferee can run his/her own NICS check
  • The documentation provided by consumer portal will utilize necessary fraud protections
  • A valid 30 day permit provided by the consumer portal that is verified with a valid governmentissued photo identification would suit the law’s requirements
  • Information provided by prospective transferee to conduct background check through the consumer portal must be destroyed within 24-hours as occurs for FFL conducted background checks
The new law will not go into effect until the consumer portal is up and running, and the law will be nullified if the consumer portal is permanently shut down or defunded.
Click to expand...
 
exneophyte said:
Wasn't sure if I should start a new thread, but I read this article and thought it pointed out some interesting points on the part of law enforcement infringing on citizens rights related to guns and citizens having very little recourse:

Texas Soldier Arrested for 'Rudely Displaying' Weapon
Click to expand...

From the reports I've seen, that individual is someone who has a history of provoking confrontations with the law in order to show he is being persecuted for bearing arms in public. I don't find the clips of the confrontation he's provided to be compelling, since we don't have the rest of the video to understand the true context of what happened.
 
Hacker15e said:
#2. Surveys of 1000 randomly-selected individuals are not equal to actually knowing what 300 million people want.
Click to expand...

So how can you tell what people want in your mind outside of the group think we see from the enthusiastic gun owners who think they are constitutionals scholars? You know as well as I do that these polls are used by both sides to data mine information.

#3. Surveys have not asked questions which represent actual specific background check measures. The surveys certainly have not shown that level of support for "universal" checks, but rather a non-specific "background check", or "expanded background check".
Click to expand...

Splitting hairs.

As one Senator said today,

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...osal-sen-mike-lee-editorials-debates/2090793/

More than anything, such survey answers reflect the average citizens' ignorance about current firearms laws and what would be different under various actual proposed laws. There are lots of Americans who think, in their own ignorance, that there is such thing as a "gun show loophole", too. If they don't even understand that aspect of the law, then I have no faith that they have any understanding whatsoever of the implications of non-specific legislation they're being polled about.
Click to expand...

Like I care what Mike Lee says.
 
Seggy said:
So how can you tell what people want in your mind outside of the group think we see from the enthusiastic gun owners who think they are constitutionals scholars? You know as well as I do that these polls are used by both sides to data mine information.
Click to expand...

I'm not really in the habit of using any survey statistics to support my position, and I haven't used any in this particular discussion that I'm aware of. Judgments about legality of legislation have no requirement for percentages of widespread public support to be valid. In fact, the very reason we have a Constitution with specifically-protected rights enumerated in the amendments are to prevent such "tyranny of the majority".

Seggy said:
Schematics
Click to expand...

Not semantics -- words mean stuff, and in this case each of those three things "background checks," "expanded background checks," and "universal background checks" refer to three very different concepts that have three very different impacts to the law and have differing levels of legal basis of authority.

Seggy said:
Like I care what Mike Lee says.
Click to expand...

You don't have to care what he says -- but what he expressed about the dramatic difference between support for a concept and support for specific legislation is still a very important aspect of why what small-scale surveys say and legislation that gets voted on in Congressional session do not neatly line up.
 
Hacker15e said:
From the reports I've seen, that individual is someone who has a history of provoking confrontations with the law in order to show he is being persecuted for bearing arms in public. I don't find the clips of the confrontation he's provided to be compelling, since we don't have the rest of the video to understand the true context of what happened.
Click to expand...
Heck, you can pretty much tell just from that one video. I don't get why anyone would think being a dick to a police officer would have a good outcome, regardless of who is in the wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top