Connecticut school shooting

[Balta1701]

Unless that results in political liabilities for the conservative Democrats.

 

Not that the party shouldn't be doing this, just that it might come at legitimate political costs.

And now you hit the serious Q: what's the point of a 55-45 majority when it takes 60 votes to pass anything? Oh darn, the Democrats lost the Senate, now they'll never be able to pass background check legislation.

[StrangeSox]

And now you hit the serious Q: what's the point of a 55-45 majority when it takes 60 votes to pass anything? Oh darn, the Democrats lost the Senate, now they'll never be able to pass background check legislation.

 

Well if the idiot in charge would have done something about the filibuster, we wouldn't have so many reports of bills 'failing' with more than 50 votes. I place almost all of the blame for how dysfunctional the Senate is on Reid.

[bmags]

legal bribes. it's ruining our government.

 

But it's also that you have a hardcore minority that makes their voice heard and floods senators with feedback and SHOW UP TO VOTE vs. a huge majority that agrees with the bill, but probably not enough to matter when the election rolls around.

[StrangeSox]

Here's Chait making the argument that, of the battles to lay down on, this was the right one for red state democrats

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/...und-checks.html

[mr_genius]

But it's also that you have a hardcore minority that makes their voice heard and floods senators with feedback and SHOW UP TO VOTE vs. a huge majority that agrees with the bill, but probably not enough to matter when the election rolls around.

 

what was the result of the senate vote? how many for how many against?

 

and if you don't think money is a big factor in those votes you are incorrect good sir.

Edited April 18, 2013 by mr_genius

[Jake]

Money has little to do with it in this case -- they are far more moved by votes, and they perceive many votes at stake when you vote anything that deals with restricting one's ability to acquire guns.

[mr_genius]

what was the result of the senate vote? how many for how many against?

 

 

it was 54-46 . just looked it up

[StrangeSox]

Worst Deliberative Body In The World

[Balta1701]

it was 54-46 . just looked it up

(and just to note, Harry Reid changed his vote to "against" in order to give himself permission to bring the bill back up in the future as required by some ridiculous rule, so in reality it was 55-45 in favor).

[mr_genius]

Money has little to do with it in this case -- they are far more moved by votes, and they perceive many votes at stake when you vote anything that deals with restricting one's ability to acquire guns.

 

so you're saying it's the will of the people that is stopping it

[StrangeSox]

so you're saying it's the will of the people that is stopping it

Sort of. The Senate is anti-democratic by nature since it gives all arbitrary land masses equal representation and not all citizens equal representation. Right or wrong, that's the way it is, and it means that rural citizens, who are more likely to be pro-gun, are over-represented in the Senate.

 

Then combine that with the fact that, while 90% of Americans may favor some expanded background checks, the 10% who oppose them really oppose them. Failure on this bill isn't make-or-break for most of that 90%.

[mr_genius]

Sort of. The Senate is anti-democratic by nature since it gives all arbitrary land masses equal representation and not all citizens equal representation. Right or wrong, that's the way it is, and it means that rural citizens, who are more likely to be pro-gun, are over-represented in the Senate.

 

The house of reps is more pro-gun than the senate.

[Jake]

so you're saying it's the will of the people that is stopping it

 

Sort of. It is the perceived will of the people that stops it. Whether Congresspeople can accurately perceive these things is very much up for debate. Sometimes they will also intentionally contradict the will of the people for different reasons, and not just lobbying groups. Most politicians have issues they feel really strongly about and those are often what motivates them to be a public servant. For instance, my former Congressman Tim Johnson in IL was a Republican, but would do battle with his party or whomever else if someone was trying to mess with a state or national park. Nobody in my district gave a flying s*** about parks, but he did.

[NorthSideSox72]

Never stated whether I was for it or against it. In any case, you exposed your obvious lefist allegiance by calling all who voted against it idiots or whatever word you used. Not only do I think this type of discourse hinders your argument, but it is the exact reason this country can never get anything done.

Hahah, "leftist allegiance", that's a good one. Ask some of the regulars here who are actual liberals what they think of that.

 

Anyway, let me give you a list here:

 

--Restrictions on certain types of guns and/or ammunition

--Connecting federal or state databases for gun purchase to mental health information

--Placing armed guards or the like at schools and other locations

--Federal or state registries of gun owners, weapons owned

--Mandatory firearms training

--Changes to waiting periods

--Changes to criminal backgrounds and who can buy guns

 

That is a list of some of the other popular areas of discussion as to where changes might be made, more or less restrictive, in terms of gun control. In each and all of those, there are reasons for going one way or the other. Some people may not like the reasons, but, each of those has good and bad points.

 

As for background checks, we already require that - at standard gun shops and businesses that sell guns. Now, one might argue I suppose that no background checks should be done at all - I don't agree, but that is one argument that can be made.

 

Here is where there simply is no argument to be made: if we are already doing background checks at brick and mortar stores, why is closing the loopholes for gun shows and internet sales a problem? Not even the NRA can come up with a reason they are against the closing of the loophole. Literally, they have not given a reason. They just don't want it. Won't say why.

 

I understand your point, that compromise is important - that goes without saying. But there are some issues where there isn't even an argument being made on one side, it is simply a political lobby trying to show what it can do to look tough. Without a reason. That, just as much as a lack of ability to compromise, is what causes problems in our government.

 

[Texsox]

The part of this I find silly is the argument that criminals will not follow the law so it wouldn't stop x, y, or z from happening.

 

Of course not. By definition criminals break laws, that is why we call them criminals. Laws establish the punishment. Capone didn't pay taxes on his criminal profits and went to jail. Of course criminals will not pay taxes, but it's why he is in jail. So when the police catch someone with a gun and no background check, etc. or any other legal nicety, the criminal does time. No need to wait for him to commit a more violent crime.

[lostfan]

The part of this I find silly is the argument that criminals will not follow the law so it wouldn't stop x, y, or z from happening.

 

Of course not. By definition criminals break laws, that is why we call them criminals. Laws establish the punishment. Capone didn't pay taxes on his criminal profits and went to jail. Of course criminals will not pay taxes, but it's why he is in jail. So when the police catch someone with a gun and no background check, etc. or any other legal nicety, the criminal does time. No need to wait for him to commit a more violent crime.

If we used this non-logic we could just get rid of every law we have and not pass any again, ever. After all, criminals won't follow them. What's the point?

[Y2HH]

The part of this I find silly is the argument that criminals will not follow the law so it wouldn't stop x, y, or z from happening.

 

Of course not. By definition criminals break laws, that is why we call them criminals. Laws establish the punishment. Capone didn't pay taxes on his criminal profits and went to jail. Of course criminals will not pay taxes, but it's why he is in jail. So when the police catch someone with a gun and no background check, etc. or any other legal nicety, the criminal does time. No need to wait for him to commit a more violent crime.

 

I think the issue I have with this is how they're going about it. If they want to solve this, then solve it, stop trying to use round about methods and/or political deception to make it look like you're doing something. It's become another dog and pony show to make it appear they're "trying".

 

Federalize gun crime. Problem solved, across the board. If you have a gun, register it, and you have X days to do so before the new law goes into effect. Have a valid FOID card, etc. Basically, you have to follow all the local laws, just as you're supposed to be doing now. Be sure that that law understands there are people that "own" guns, hidden somewhere in their basements they have no idea they even have. When such a gun is found, it will be obvious it hasn't been used, simple ballistics will show that. You obviously don't arrest such people. What it will do is send the message that if you're pulled over, or found with a gun illegally...have a nice time in prison for the next few years.

 

The message will spread quickly.

 

Also, stop with the call to ban assault weapons right now, because they aren't even the issue. After you solve the actual issue, go back and look into determining what level of "weaponry" is not legal for a citizen. For example, an atomic bomb, or a bazooka. But first, solve the issue we have on hand. I say this because these fabled "assault weapons" aren't even being used in these crimes.

[Y2HH]

If we used this non-logic we could just get rid of every law we have and not pass any again, ever. After all, criminals won't follow them. What's the point?

 

The point is these laws are there for when criminals DO break them, we have a means to do something about it.

 

The issue is, we aren't.

 

In Chicago, if you are caught with a gun illegally, there is about a 70% chance you do zero time for it. This is exactly why we have laws...so when we catch people with illegal guns, they're put away for a spell to send a message to them and their friends that it's a one way ticket to the big house.

 

We aren't doing that now with the laws we have now. So like you said, what's the point in having laws we aren't enforcing anyway? I understand the jails are full, but they always seem to have money for stuff...so borrow more and build more. Way more. But keep the people safer than you're keeping them now. But because they robbed the pensions in a state with an amendment protecting pensions they have to shut down prisons? I don't think so. Invalid excuse.

 

http://bit.ly/13V7UiB

Edited April 23, 2013 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Federalize gun crime. Problem solved, across the board. If you have a gun, register it, and you have X days to do so before the new law goes into effect.

LOL.

 

I'll leave it to someone else to predict what the response to this will be and why it can't possibly ever be considered.

[Y2HH]

LOL.

 

I'll leave it to someone else to predict what the response to this will be and why it can't possibly ever be considered.

 

It can easily be considered.

 

You are only federalizing gun crime. Not LEGAL ownership of guns. I'm not suggesting anything that overturns local guns laws. Those laws remain the same. The only change you make at the federal level is imposing a MINIMUM sentence, so the local judges can't just let you off with a warning, like they're doing now.

 

All it is, is a federal mandate that if you are arrested for a gun violation, you do a MINIMUM prison sentence without possibility of parole. That's all. The local courts can still try the case, but if found guilty, they have to abide by the minimum sentence set by the feds.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

It can easily be considered.

 

You are only federalizing gun crime. Not LEGAL ownership of guns. I'm not suggesting anything that overturns local guns laws. Those laws remain the same. The only change you make at the federal level is imposing a MINIMUM sentence, so the local judges can't just let you off with a warning, like they're doing now.

 

All it is, is a federal mandate that if you are arrested for a gun violation, you do a MINIMUM prison sentence without possibility of parole. That's all. The local courts can still try the case, but if found guilty, they have to abide by the minimum sentence set by the feds.

"If you have a gun, register it"

 

Immediate response from the only people who matter:

 

"OH MY GOD THE GOVERNMENT IS COMING FOR MY GUNS THEY CAN'T DO THIS I'M GOING TO HAVE TO START KILLING PEOPLE FOR FREEDOM!!!!!!!"

[Y2HH]

"If you have a gun, register it"

 

Immediate response from the only people who matter:

 

"OH MY GOD THE GOVERNMENT IS COMING FOR MY GUNS THEY CAN'T DO THIS I'M GOING TO HAVE TO START KILLING PEOPLE!!!!!!!"

 

Easy response to that is everything remains the exact same as it is now. The same federal/local laws apply, just as they always have. The only change is that the feds mandate a minimum sentence for those CONVICTED of gun crimes.

[Balta1701]

Easy response to that is everything remains the exact same as it is now. The same federal/local laws apply, just as they always have. The only change is that the feds mandate a minimum sentence for those CONVICTED of gun crimes.

So you said "if you have a gun register it" for what reason? That's completely different from what you've said here. All you've said here is that you'll make sentencing laws tougher, which brings a "la de freaking da" from me.

[Y2HH]

So you said "if you have a gun register it" for what reason? That's completely different from what you've said here. All you've said here is that you'll make sentencing laws tougher, which brings a "la de freaking da" from me.

 

Kind of glossed over...I was merely pointing out that all the local laws should be followed just like they should be being followed now, if that includes local registration, then do that. I was merely pointing out actual fixes to what they're talking about, vs the dog and pony show they're giving us. They want a registry, so make one. If that's not feasible, what is feasible is mandating a minimum sentence structure at the federal level so the local courts lose the ability to do what they're doing now...and that's giving people sentences of 3 months, or 0 days for gun convictions.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Y2HH

[witesoxfan]

FYI, as a pro-gun advocate, I have no problem with a national registry.