Gun lobby wins: no new background checks.

[emzie]

It's only supported By the vast majority of Americans if you water down the question to "do you support background checks." I support background checks myself.

The issue is there was a lot more in this bill aside from background checks that do not enjoy the vast majority of Americans as supporters. And that's before you get to the amendments of your favorite Democrat busy bodies like assault weapons bans and magazine restrictions which similarly do not have majority support.

The fact that nothing in any legeslation proposed thus far would have done anything to stop any high profile shooting and have all failed to impact crime in precious iterations is almost besides the point. Almost.

Democracy spoke, and Obama thinks is shameful. Nobody gives a crap about what he thinks iis shameful or not, and whether you agree with him not his constant sanctimonious whining is not helping his cause. It just makes him look like a douche.

Seems to be an odd use of the word democracy, when the majority of a legislative body favoured something and it failed.

 

[Goodfella]

Seems to be an odd use of the word democracy, when the majority of a legislative body favoured something and it failed.

Unfortunately, due to Senate rules they had to do it that way or risk the Republicans making the situation worse by amending the bills and then passing the amended versions through.

 

[MobBoss]

Yes. 54 for, 46 against. 46 senators is a minority. Amendment required 60 votes in favor to pass.

Ah, balls, I saw that it required 60 just after I posted that. Apparently the cross party vote was equal: 4 GOP voted for it, and 4 Dems voted against it.

 

[ace99]

What the hell do party whips do these days?

 

[Goodfella]

What the hell do party whips do these days?

Apparently a lot.

 

[Patroklos]

Btw the online and gun show loophole is basically a Democratic lie. The vast majority of gun show buys do indeed have background checks. Just another reason this bill has nothing to do with solving an actual problem and everything to do with Democrats utilizing victims to achieve something they have always wanted without any connection to recent events.

Now that we are done with Obama's political theatre, how about a bill dedicated to mental health issues? You know, that thing that actually caused the event in question and the only thing that could have stopped it? Yeah, that thing.

Seems to be an odd use of the word democracy, when the majority of a legislative body favoured something and it failed.

Them be the rules of our democracy.

 

[emzie]

Them be the rules of our democracy.

No. Them be the rules of the legislative body itself.

 

[Dachs]

What the hell do party whips do these days?

I was going to answer with something semi-witty about the Home Rule Crisis but then I got sidetracked via the Molly Maguires into rereading parts of The Valley of Fear so yeah

 

[Patroklos]

Created via democracy within a democracy and accountable within that democracy.

If you are angry with the results the only people you have to blame is the Democrats who just spent four months needlessly vilifying half and polarizing all the country and generally being asses and in the process convincing nearly everyone that they really are the opportunistic douches we already knew they were. At this point why would any gun owner or supporter give them the time of day let alone give up on a bill that is essentially useless to it's advertised purpose.

So why has the Democratic Senate not brought forward a sweeping mental health bill? Well, because they were to busy inserting their long standing anti gun fetish in front of actually relevant issues.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I'm going to get mega boos and be labelled as a right winger for this, but I don't think we're a democracy in the sense most people seem to think.

 

[Goodfella]

Btw the online and gun show loophole is basically a Democratic lie. The vast majority of gun show buys do indeed have background checks. Just another reason this bill has nothing to do with solving an actual problem and everything to do with Democrats utilizing victims to achieve something they have always wanted without any connection to recent events.

That's not true. Only OR, CA, CO, IL, NY, and RI require background checks at gun shows for all purchases. MD, PA, and CT require background checks for hand guns and NJ, HI, IA, NE, MA, NC, and MI require permits to buy guns at gun shows, but these don't have background checks. The other 34 states have absolutely no requirements and these states are the states where most of the gun purchasing really takes place. So, to a degree the democrats are lying (because they often omit that some states regulate it), but for the most part they're telling the truth.

Note: I put the abbreviations to save time. Sorry to people not from the US who might not know what each stands for. Though it's not hard to figure out really.

 

[Patroklos]

So not true. As to the often mentioned 40% unscreened number it is basically complete BS. Not to mention the vast majority of guns used in grimes are not from gun shows.

Bloomberg’s office pointed us to a 1997 study by the National Institute of Justice on who owns guns and how they use them.The researchers estimated that about 40 percent of all firearm sales took place through people other than licensed dealers. They based their conclusion on data from a 1994 survey of more than 2,500 households. But it’s important to note that of the 2,568 households surveyed, only 251 people answered the question about the origin of their gun.

...

Other scholars had similar views. Paul Blackman is a retired criminologist and former research coordinator for the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. "Personally, I think your safest bet is to say that no one knows, but that the vast majority of crime guns come from some other source than gun shows," he told us.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/

Just another example of the Democrats hijacking momentum to grind an old axe instead of tackling a current problem.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Just another example of the Democrats hijacking momentum to grind an old axe instead of tackling a current problem.

That Iraq, Syria, Libya are safer than the USA ?
50% of all guns used in crime can be traced back to 4 gun shops, with DEA straw buying laws good luck with that.

So why has the Democratic Senate not brought forward a sweeping mental health bill?

I assume this is sarcasm ?

 

[Goodfella]

@ Patroklos:
The post I was responding to was about gun shows. Here's what you said:

The vast majority of gun show buys do indeed have background checks.

You haven't actually addressed my post.

 

[Patroklos]

That Iraq, Syria, Libya are safer than the USA ?
50% of all guns used in crime can be traced back to 4 gun shops, with DEA straw buying laws good luck with that.

No, they can't and as usual you are light on links.

I assume this is sarcasm ?

Link their bill then.

@ Patroklos:
The post I was responding to was about gun shows. Here's what you said:


You haven't actually addressed my post.

And you listed 16 states (Its actually 17, you left out FL)that do require them that comprise 52% of the population(my back of napkin counting). Then of course there is that little mentioned fact that most gun show vendors are federally licenced, so do require 100% back ground checks.

The ATF reports that between 50% and 75% of the vendors at gun shows possess a Federal Firearms License.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States

http://davekopel.org/2A/IB/the-truth-about-gun-shows.html

So between the vendors mostly being federally licenced and half the population living in states that require some sore of background check, especially for the most numerous gun type purchased (handgun), there really is no way that my statement can be false.

Another interesting titbit to illustrate just how much gun shows are not the problem:

In contrast, a Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report on “Firearms Use by Offenders” found that only 0.8% of prison inmates reported acquiring firearms used in their crimes "At a gun show," with repeat offenders less likely than first-time offenders to report acquiring firearms from a retail source, gun show or flea market. This 2001 study examined data from a 1997 Department of Justice survey of more than 18,000 federal and state prison inmates in 1,409 State prisons and 127 Federal prisons.[20][21] The remaining 99.2% of inmates reported obtaining firearms from other sources, including "From a friend/family member" (36.8%), "Off the street/from a drug dealer" (20.9%), "From a fence/black market source" (9.6%), "From a pawnshop," "From a flea market," "From the victim," or "In a burglary." 9% of inmates replied "Don't Know/Other" to the question of where they acquired a firearm and 4.4% refused to answer.[21] The Department of Justice did not attempt to verify the firearms reported in the survey or trace them to determine their chain of possession from original retail sale to the time they were transferred to the inmates surveyed (in cases where inmates were not the original retail purchaser).[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States

 

[warpus]

I'm going to get mega boos and be labelled as a right winger for this, but I don't think we're a democracy in the sense most people seem to think.

In a sense you are right. An ideal democracy is a place where everyone has an equal voice. And I'm not American, so I might get labelled as anti-American for saying this or whatever, but in America money talks. Those with money have more of a voice.

So it is a democracy, but not an ideal one by any means.

As for this gun issue, it's too bad that politics had to get in the way of a perfectly sane sounding proposal - background gun checks. I admit that I don't know much about the bill that failed, but on the face of it background gun checks seem like a very sensible thing to want to do.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm going to get mega boos and be labelled as a right winger for this, but I don't think we're a democracy in the sense most people seem to think.

We aren't. You're absolutely right. The Founders never anticipated a majority being able to trample a minority. In this case, the constitution worked as intended.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4797b6-a77f-11e2-9e1c-bb0fb0c2edd9_story.html

So a measure supported by the vast majority of Americans, including the vast majority of gun owners, is defeated by a minority of the senate.

Well played, gunmakers, well played. Wouldn't want to get in your way of selling product with few questions asked.

A shameful day indeed.

Oh, what a shame that you and Americans like you weren't able to unconstitutionally infringe on the rights of your fellow citizens who have done nothing wrong. What a shame indeed.

I applaud these results. Thank you GOA!

I thought this was disappointing news as well, but it tells us what to expect for pretty much the entire rest of this session of Congress. Honestly, I'd place a lot of the blame with Harry Reid, because this doesn't just reflect the particular influence of one position or another on gun issues alone. Having to pass bills through the House with compromises that the Republicans will accept alongside Democrats is expected. However, I think this shows there are going to be a lot of failures to get filibuster-breaking majorities on legislation on just about anything, including all the budget related fights, for the next couple of years. So it's looking like an inactive Congress at least all the way up to the next election.

This is a good thing...

Wait, so all of these failed?

I could maybe go for the second to last one, that's it.

Which of those sound like good ideas to you, about five have my tentative support. I see both lefty and righty positions I'd be behind on that list.

"Left" and "Right" are meaningless positions. Its authoritarianism VS liberty that matters. At least nine of those proposals are fundamentally anti-liberty. One of them was reasonable (the second to last one) but I also don't understand why they proposed it at all, considering their goals.

I'll simply say that I'm very surprised. I thought this was going to go through for sure.

So did I, so did I.

"Cornyn amendment: would federalize interstate reciprocity for concealed-carry permits"

It deserved to fail for that one alone.

It deserved to fail for basically all of them, but yes, that's a pretty darn good example of onee that deserved to fail...

 

[FriendlyFire]

he reports revealed for the first time that 1.2% of federally licensed gun dealers supply 57% of the guns used in crime. But, bowing to pressure from the gun lobby, Congress voted to restrict police access to crime gun trace data and cut off public access altogether. These restrictions, known as the Tiahrt Amendments (named for the Kansas Congressman who sponsored the bill), have passed in every Department of Justice budget since 2003, despite the fact that prominent law enforcement associations oppose them as a serious threat to public safety.

Handcuffing the ATF: The ATF, the sole government agency charged with enforcing federal gun laws, has operated without a permanent director since the Bush Administration, and operates with just 1,800 agents to monitor approximately 77,000 gun dealers. Given these constraints, it would take ATF 22 years to inspect all federally licensed gun dealers. Even if the ATF had the manpower to inspect most gun dealers, federal law limits the agency to a single unannounced inspection of a dealer in any 12-month period. Congress has made it increasingly difficult for the ATF to revoke licenses of crooked gun dealers.

An absence of records: It is impossible for law enforcement to know the whereabouts of millions of firearms in circulation today because Federal law explicitly bars the ATF from establishing a database of retail firearms sales, and private gun sellers are not required to keep a paper trail of transactions. Prior to 2001, federal authorities maintained criminal background check records for up to six months. Under President Bush, Attorney General John Ashcroft reversed this policy and ordered the destruction of all criminal background check records within 24 hours.

http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-trafficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/

With Republicans increasingly stripping gun enforcement laws, as well as gutting the law enforcement agencies ?

Besides given how safe places like Iraq, Syria and Libya are perhaps we should import there gun laws or complete lack of guns laws. It would make America a war zone much much much more safer place.

Seriously the last time Republicans were for there own designed, created, back and tested healthcare plan, Republicans decided they were against and would repeal it on the grounds of socialism, cost and free market principle. The chances of any kind of Republican healthcare policy having painted themselves into a corner are basicely zero.

 

[Goodfella]

And you listed 16 states (Its actually 17, you left out FL)that do require them that comprise 52% of the population(my back of napkin counting). Then of course there is that little mentioned fact that most gun show vendors are federally licenced, so do require 100% back ground checks.

Well actually, only 6 states require them on all purchases and 7 of the states require permits, not background checks. And the 52% population stat isn't really accurate as you probably know. Just because it's 52% of the population, doesn't mean they own 52% of the guns or more importantly, have 52% of the gun shows. I think it's reasonable to assume that the states with the most gun owners would also be the states with the most gun shows so it's likely that a pretty big majority are in the non-regulated states which just so happen to be the states with the most gun owners. I don't have any stats for gun shows per state though. And yes, many of the people at gun shows are licensed gun dealers, but at gun shows, they do not have to do background checks so that's not really relevant to the discussion.

Yes, I left out Florida because it doesn't have state-wide background checks. Only in various counties. But you're right, it still counts in a way. I'm not sure how many counties do it though.

 

[History_Buff]

how does something fail with 46 votes against (and actual votes, not this cloture business)

Welcome to American politics. They're completely and utterly broken.