Gun Control: Shiny Toy Guns

[Arlenton]

There isn't a National Alcohol Association telling people that getting drunk is a Constitutional right and rallying single issue drunkards voters over it.

Indeed, there also isn't a powerful lobbying group preventing regulations on alcohol that 90+% of people polled consistently support either (universal background checks, even on private sales).

tfw 90% of the population doesn't vote.

[Zyr and Pony]

Indeed, there also isn't a powerful lobbying group preventing regulations on alcohol that 90+% of people polled consistently support either (universal background checks, even on private sales).

Daily reminder that the Democrats voted against that very idea because the Republican proposal didn't go out of it's way to screw people over.

Source?

And details? Because I suspect there's a lot more to this than you're letting on here.

[Telconi]

Daily reminder that the Democrats voted against that very idea because the Republican proposal didn't go out of it's way to screw people over.

Source?

And details? Because I suspect there's a lot more to this than you're letting on here.

That's actually pretty much it, Republicans proposed strengthening background checks and diverting additional funding to NICS, Democrats literally threw temper tantrums on the floor to make it go away...

Ban high capacity alcohol containers (HCACs)

There isn't a National Alcohol Association telling people that getting drunk is a Constitutional right and rallying single issue drunkards voters over it.

Nobody NEEDS 750 milliliters...

[Arlenton]

Indeed, there also isn't a powerful lobbying group preventing regulations on alcohol that 90+% of people polled consistently support either (universal background checks, even on private sales).

Daily reminder that the Democrats voted against that very idea because the Republican proposal didn't go out of it's way to screw people over.

Was that the Cornyn bill? I forgot about that. Was it voted on (mostly) party lines?

[Telconi]

There isn't a National Alcohol Association telling people that getting drunk is a Constitutional right and rallying single issue drunkards voters over it.

Indeed, there also isn't a powerful lobbying group preventing regulations on alcohol that 90+% of people polled consistently support either (universal background checks, even on private sales).

Also, universal background checks on private sales are at best a stupid feel good regulation.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Daily reminder that the Democrats voted against that very idea because the Republican proposal didn't go out of it's way to screw people over.

Source?

And details? Because I suspect there's a lot more to this than you're letting on here.

Manchin-Toomey. A Blue Dog Dem and a Republican came together to draft a UBC bill that would expand background checks to include private sales but included sensible exemptions for friends and family members not needing to run checks on each other. It also included some stuff to improve NICS if I'm not mistaken. The Democrats refused to get on board and pushed their own bill that was stricter and both died as a result.

If they actually cared about it they could have had UBC's at the federal level years ago.

[Zyr and Pony]

Source?

And details? Because I suspect there's a lot more to this than you're letting on here.

That's actually pretty much it, Republicans proposed strengthening background checks and diverting additional funding to NICS, Democrats literally threw temper tantrums on the floor to make it go away...

There isn't a National Alcohol Association telling people that getting drunk is a Constitutional right and rallying single issue drunkards voters over it.

Nobody NEEDS 750 milliliters...

1. No source, no believe.

2. I now really don't think that's the whole story. Why did Dems want it to go away? Was there something else in the bill that made them want it to go away? GIve me a source and quotes from their "temper tantrum" as you call it.

3. If you're talking about this Cornyn bill, it does NOT create universal background checks, which may be one reason they want it to go away, because they have their own competing bill which would create UBCs, and it's still an ongoing discussion anyway.

[Zyr and Pony]

editL double post. Damn slow chromebook

[Arlenton]

That's actually pretty much it, Republicans proposed strengthening background checks and diverting additional funding to NICS, Democrats literally threw temper tantrums on the floor to make it go away...



Nobody NEEDS 750 milliliters...

1. No source, no believe.

2. I now really don't think that's the whole story. Why did Dems want it to go away? Was there something else in the bill that made them want it to go away? GIve me a source and quotes from their "temper tantrum" as you call it.

3. If you're talking about this Cornyn bill, it does NOT create universal background checks, which may be one reason they want it to go away, because they have their own competing bill which would create UBCs, and it's still an ongoing discussion anyway.

So, basically, Dems won't compromise.

[Telconi]

1. No source, no believe.

2. I now really don't think that's the whole story. Why did Dems want it to go away? Was there something else in the bill that made them want it to go away? GIve me a source and quotes from their "temper tantrum" as you call it.

3. If you're talking about this Cornyn bill, it does NOT create universal background checks, which may be one reason they want it to go away, because they have their own competing bill which would create UBCs, and it's still an ongoing discussion anyway.

So, basically, Dems won't compromise.

Not like they ever have?

[Washington Resistance Army]

1. No source, no believe.

2. I now really don't think that's the whole story. Why did Dems want it to go away? Was there something else in the bill that made them want it to go away? GIve me a source and quotes from their "temper tantrum" as you call it.

3. If you're talking about this Cornyn bill, it does NOT create universal background checks, which may be one reason they want it to go away, because they have their own competing bill which would create UBCs, and it's still an ongoing discussion anyway.

So, basically, Dems won't compromise.

"Compromise" in the gun debate really just boils down to us being expected to give things away with nothing in return, tbh.

[Telconi]

So, basically, Dems won't compromise.

"Compromise" in the gun debate really just boils down to us being expected to give things away with nothing in return, tbh.

Also this.

[Zyr and Pony]

Source?

And details? Because I suspect there's a lot more to this than you're letting on here.

Manchin-Toomey. A Blue Dog Dem and a Republican cam together to draft a UBC bill that would expand background checks to include private sales but included sensible exemptions for friends and family members not needing to run checks on each other. It also included some stuff to improve NICS if I'm not mistaken. The Democrats refused to get on board and pushed their own bill that was stricter and both died as a result.

If they actually cared about it they could have had UBC's at the federal level years ago.

Not that that couldn't be abused in any way...

Which might be why they opposed it, actually. Tell me this is an unrealistic scenario. Someone buys a gun for a relative who cannot buy it legally (say through a modified straw sale), the person who wants the gun "buys" it from the first person (say by paying them back), therefore bypassing all background checks because they're "buying" it from a relative.

It took me less than ten seconds to come up with that loophole

[Arlenton]

So, basically, Dems won't compromise.

"Compromise" in the gun debate really just boils down to us being expected to give things away with nothing in return, tbh.

I feel like Republicans are compromising with the bills they have put up. The Republicans putting these bills up, and have put bills up in the past, don't have any obligation to push for any form of gun control, yet they do anyway. If anything, for the vast majority of them, voting in favor of these harms them.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Manchin-Toomey. A Blue Dog Dem and a Republican cam together to draft a UBC bill that would expand background checks to include private sales but included sensible exemptions for friends and family members not needing to run checks on each other. It also included some stuff to improve NICS if I'm not mistaken. The Democrats refused to get on board and pushed their own bill that was stricter and both died as a result.

If they actually cared about it they could have had UBC's at the federal level years ago.

Not that that couldn't be abused in any way...

Which might be why they opposed it, actually. Tell me this is an unrealistic scenario. Someone buys a gun for a relative who cannot buy it legally (say through a modified straw sale), the person who wants the gun "buys" it from the first person (say by paying them back), therefore bypassing all background checks because they're "buying" it from a relative.

It took me less than ten seconds to come up with that loophole

That's already illegal.

[Zyr and Pony]

1. No source, no believe.

2. I now really don't think that's the whole story. Why did Dems want it to go away? Was there something else in the bill that made them want it to go away? GIve me a source and quotes from their "temper tantrum" as you call it.

3. If you're talking about this Cornyn bill, it does NOT create universal background checks, which may be one reason they want it to go away, because they have their own competing bill which would create UBCs, and it's still an ongoing discussion anyway.

So, basically, Dems won't compromise.

I'd go with Reps want to ignore the will of the people. Remember, polls show, consistently, that 90% of people want universal background checks, but Republicans refuse to pass them into law.

And Dems might compromise anyway. From my source:

The politics
Democrats would have the votes to block the Fix NICS bill if they banded together and insisted it not pass without universal background checks included. But it's not clear if they will choose to do that because it could mean that nothing passes Congress.

They may choose compromise over nothing getting done still.

[Telconi]

Manchin-Toomey. A Blue Dog Dem and a Republican cam together to draft a UBC bill that would expand background checks to include private sales but included sensible exemptions for friends and family members not needing to run checks on each other. It also included some stuff to improve NICS if I'm not mistaken. The Democrats refused to get on board and pushed their own bill that was stricter and both died as a result.

If they actually cared about it they could have had UBC's at the federal level years ago.

Not that that couldn't be abused in any way...

Which might be why they opposed it, actually. Tell me this is an unrealistic scenario. Someone buys a gun for a relative who cannot buy it legally (say through a modified straw sale), the person who wants the gun "buys" it from the first person (say by paying them back), therefore bypassing all background checks because they're "buying" it from a relative.

It took me less than ten seconds to come up with that loophole

Ok, law says they need to perform a background check when selling between family, how does that stop them from doing that anyhow?

[Arlenton]

So, basically, Dems won't compromise.

I'd go with Reps want to ignore the will of the people. Remember, polls show, consistently, that 90% of people want universal background checks, but Republicans refuse to pass them into law.

And Dems might compromise anyway. From my source:

The politics
Democrats would have the votes to block the Fix NICS bill if they banded together and insisted it not pass without universal background checks included. But it's not clear if they will choose to do that because it could mean that nothing passes Congress.

They may choose compromise over nothing getting done still.

Those polls, if accurate, don't matter. Because the party that is pro-gun wouldn't be in the position it is if they were.

And no. Dems are not compromising. At all. They voted against a bill intended to delay gun sales to individuals included on a government terror watch list in 2016, because Republicans made it.

[Telconi]

So, basically, Dems won't compromise.

I'd go with Reps want to ignore the will of the people. Remember, polls show, consistently, that 90% of people want universal background checks, but Republicans refuse to pass them into law.

And Dems might compromise anyway. From my source:

The politics
Democrats would have the votes to block the Fix NICS bill if they banded together and insisted it not pass without universal background checks included. But it's not clear if they will choose to do that because it could mean that nothing passes Congress.

They may choose compromise over nothing getting done still.

The will of the people is worthless and stupid.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'd go with Reps want to ignore the will of the people. Remember, polls show, consistently, that 90% of people want universal background checks, but Republicans refuse to pass them into law.

And Dems might compromise anyway. From my source:



They may choose compromise over nothing getting done still.

Those polls, if accurate, don't matter. Because the party that is pro-gun wouldn't be in the position it is if they were.

And no. Dems are not compromising. At all. They voted against a bill intended to delay gun sales to individuals included on a government terror watch list in 2016, because Republicans made it.

We really have reached a point where both sides will refuse to vote for something if the other team made it.

It kinda sucks tbh.

[Telconi]

I'd go with Reps want to ignore the will of the people. Remember, polls show, consistently, that 90% of people want universal background checks, but Republicans refuse to pass them into law.

And Dems might compromise anyway. From my source:



They may choose compromise over nothing getting done still.

Those polls, if accurate, don't matter. Because the party that is pro-gun wouldn't be in the position it is if they were.

And no. Dems are not compromising. At all. They voted against a bill intended to delay gun sales to individuals included on a government terror watch list in 2016, because Republicans made it.

That watch list stuff is dumb.

[Arlenton]

I'd go with Reps want to ignore the will of the people. Remember, polls show, consistently, that 90% of people want universal background checks, but Republicans refuse to pass them into law.

And Dems might compromise anyway. From my source:



They may choose compromise over nothing getting done still.

The will of the people is worthless and stupid.

Does anyone really believe that Republicans would be in the position they are in if those polls were correct? Even assuming they are, people rate their want for gun control extremely low. To the point of there being no reason to push for gun control.

[Zyr and Pony]

Not that that couldn't be abused in any way...

Which might be why they opposed it, actually. Tell me this is an unrealistic scenario. Someone buys a gun for a relative who cannot buy it legally (say through a modified straw sale), the person who wants the gun "buys" it from the first person (say by paying them back), therefore bypassing all background checks because they're "buying" it from a relative.

It took me less than ten seconds to come up with that loophole

That's already illegal.

But how would it be enforced if family members are excluded from universal background checks? They would allow police (or other choice enforcement agency) to stop the sale, and potentially confiscate the gun, if a monitoring agency spotted the background check. Or it came up on a reregister that the gun had been sold without a background check, raising red flags. (Speaking of, 70% of people support gun registries. They wouldn't have to be national, maybe statewide or even just on a county level).

[Washington Resistance Army]

That's already illegal.

But how would it be enforced if family members are excluded from universal background checks? They would allow police (or other choice enforcement agency) to stop the sale, and potentially confiscate the gun, if a monitoring agency spotted the background check. Or it came up on a reregister that the gun had been sold without a background check, raising red flags. (Speaking of, 70% of people support gun registries. They wouldn't have to be national, maybe statewide or even just on a county level).

It's not enforced now. Nothing would change, all universal background checks are just feel good legislation.

Also no, registries are never going to go anywhere. California did a great job of showing us all why we should never register anything.

[Arlenton]

That's already illegal.

But how would it be enforced if family members are excluded from universal background checks? They would allow police (or other choice enforcement agency) to stop the sale, and potentially confiscate the gun, if a monitoring agency spotted the background check. Or it came up on a reregister that the gun had been sold without a background check, raising red flags. (Speaking of, 70% of people support gun registries. They wouldn't have to be national, maybe statewide or even just on a county level).

How would background checks prevent someone from buying a gun, with money given by someone unable to buy a gun, and giving the gun to the person unable to buy it?