[url="http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/17/4236136/senate-rejects-gun-control-amendment"]Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks despite broad public support | The Verge[/url]

Fail.

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

Good job us government voting against what 90% of Americans want. Just shows those idiots don't care about anything except their campaign donors.

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

I continue to find this place bizzarre and mind boggling.

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

Easy answer: Whoever has the most money makes the rules. Everyone in Washington is bought, so they just care about staying in office and voting in favor of the people who will get them jobs when they revolve out of office and into the private sector as "consultants" and make 400k a year.

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

Another thing: Never underestimate the stupidity of Americans. Tons of white hillbillies in the south think black and mexican folks are outside their houses ready to rape their women and kill them. I want to punch about 5 of my friends in the face because all i see is "erosion of gun rights" shit on facebook all day. Fortunately white rednecks are dying off and losing their voting power, so the usa is slowly becoming more progressive.

Note to self: If Washington wanted to take over your hillbilly town, your semi-automatic guns wouldn't do shit against whatever bombers they want to send to level the city from 50 miles above.

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

Before you go on a tirade about the stupidity of Americans...expanded background checks wouldn't have stopped any of the mass killings to which this reactionary bill was targeted to fix. Brady Bill didn't do it, so why would this one? Here are some facts:

The most common reason for ATF not to pursue illegal sales flagged by the [FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]National Instant Criminal Background Check System is because the individuals are[SIZE=2] not deemed to be a threat to the public. Expanding these ba[SIZE=2]ckground checks (like t[SIZE=2]hese [SIZE=2]power-tripping politicians tried to do)[/SIZE][/SIZE] to include [SIZE=2]wee[SIZE=2]d growers and those who have had a minor alter[SIZE=2]cation with the [SIZE=2]law (i.e. a do[SIZE=2]mestic [SIZE=2]disturbance[SIZE=2] li[SIZE=2]ke a one-off brawl in a bar[SIZE=2] [SIZE=2]20 years ago) [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]alongside violent criminals is definitely a case of 2nd Amendment erosion.

In 2004, prisoners doing time for gun crimes were asked where they sourced their weapons, and only 10% of them claimed to have procured them from a licensed dealer. The remaining 90% could have either 1) stolen it or 2) bought it from a seedy street dealer who doesn't concern himself with federal regulations. Additionally, only 2% of the inmates had purchased from gun shows or flea markets.

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]C[/SIZE]riminologists Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT] conducted a study in 2000, which sought to determine what kind of impact the Brady Act had in lowering homicides. Their conclusion (lemme' guess, the NRA bought 'em) was that it had no such effect. In fact, 9 out of 10 gun crimes originate from guns sourced by the 3 following methods: 40% by way of friends or family, 38% by way of the black market (street), and 10% by way of theft.

And it doesn't matter what a bomber at 52 miles above the city is capable of doing, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

[QUOTE=vinnie97;1087483]Before you go on a tirade about the stupidity of Americans...expanded background checks wouldn't have stopped any of the mass killings to which this reactionary bill was targeted to fix.[/QUOTE]

True statement. Doesn't mean that expanding existing provisions that align with common sense should just be ignored. Should we not have passed the clean air act because it wouldn't eliminate 100% of deaths caused by excess pollution? Of course not. Rightwing nutjobs want to make this into an either/or issue. It isn't. Note the right to bear arms shall not be infringed didn't mean you have the right to own whatever gun you want, and that that sentence should be taken at face value forever, not open to interpretation. Hell even Abraham Lincoln way back when said the Constitution is a living document.

[URL="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html"]So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? : The New Yorker[/URL]

[quote]The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.[/quote]

Is your right being infringed when you want to buy cough medicine and you have to show ID now? Or when you have to register for a license to drive your car? No...

Honestly the new bill if it passed wouldn't have done a whole lot I don't think, but passing laws that the majority of people want and are common sense is a good thing. It really is too late now to do anything about the gun problem in the USA IMO. There are just too many guns here and they aren't going to be taken away. It will probably be some years before any thorough bills are passed to crack down on any new sales substantially. Until then the USA will still be the #1 civilized country with the highest gun murder rate, and still will be the laughing stock of the rest of the world for how goddamn dumb we are in how we let this issue get so bad. Good job Amurrica.

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

IF people buying guns are "good guys", have no criminal activity/outstanding warrents etc - a background check makes no difference whatsoever to them. They still get their guns. Its just a piece of paper to fill in, the same as when you apply for a new job. No more no less.

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

[img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/d236c27ca2f21c30ba525ba5dd1fa146/tumblr_mhpt9b5pjT1r6k2lwo2_1280.jpg[/img]

[img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/1a8ba5ac7b4d7138d2738d532d3a8ba9/tumblr_mhpt9b5pjT1r6k2lwo9_1280.jpg[/img]

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

Where did I read all but 3 of the dozens (not sure of exact number) of senate members who voted against the changes Have received money from the gun lobby?

That is the issue for me. Legalised and legitimised bribery some would say.

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

Not exclusive to the US I should add.

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

Part of the problem is career minded politicians - people that put their own career survival before serving their country and doing the right thing.

Part of me wishes that we could see term limits imposed on various levels of government - they have it for the President, why not for congress, the senate and other branches of government?

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

The other issue being rural states getting as much say as states like NY and California

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

This used to be a Republic (I'd prefer it stay that way and not succumb any further to mob rule), and the House of Representatives makes that a nonissue. Term limits would be good, but so would requiring that any piece of legislation that passes also applies to the aristocrats who are trying to foist it upon the rest.

Anyway, I actually called my Senator to reject this piece of legislation, just as I'll do for the Internet Sales Tax. No lobbying or payoff involved.

[QUOTE="vinnie97;1088314"]This used to be a Republic (I'd prefer it stay that way and not succumb any further to mob rule), and the House of Representatives makes that a nonissue. Term limits would be good, but so would requiring that any piece of legislation that passes also applies to the aristocrats who are trying to foist it upon the rest.

Anyway, I actually called my Senator to reject this piece of legislation, just as I'll do for the Internet Sales Tax. No lobbying or payoff involved.[/QUOTE]

Actually if you look close on your 1040 you are supposed to be declaring your Internet purchases already. ;)

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

[QUOTE=floridaorange;1088300]The other issue being rural states getting as much say as states like NY and California[/QUOTE]

[video=youtube_share;BrimMyOoEDA]http://youtu.be/BrimMyOoEDA[/video]

Don't undervalue Alabama Man's vote

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

In next year's Boston marathon each runner and spectator is to be given a pressure cooker bomb. To keep them safe from bad guys with pressure cooker bombs ?? Logic. U. S. A. Stylee

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

[QUOTE=audrey_w;1088469] Logic. U. S. A. Stylee[/QUOTE]

except the majority of the US probably doesn't think that way.

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

[QUOTE=audrey_w;1088469]In next year's Boston marathon each runner and spectator is to be given a pressure cooker bomb. To keep them safe from bad guys with pressure cooker bombs ?? Logic. U. S. A. Stylee[/QUOTE] On the flipside, there was a knife attack on a TX campus last month...we'd better get to instituting a national ban on any sharp object that might be construed as an assault weapon because it has the potential to save just one life.

Progressive havens like Chicago and Detroit (where the likelihood of getting killed by gun violence is greater than that in areas of Afghanistan) are two rather glaring exhibits where the law-abiding become victims as the criminals run free. Somehow making a national registry (and I really don't care about anyone's denial of history repeating in such scenarios) of those who are trying to follow the law will curb the violence and killings.

Illogic defined.

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

[QUOTE=vinnie97;1088768]On the flipside, there was a knife attack on a TX campus last month...we'd better get to instituting a national ban on any sharp object that might be construed as an assault weapon because it has the potential to save just one life. [/QUOTE]

[URL="https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope"]Your logical fallacy is slippery slope[/URL] :

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

[quote]Illogic defined.[/quote]

Indeed.

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

A two year old shot by her 5 year old brother in usa...how could this terrible thing happen?

wait, the gun was given to the child as a gift...and left left accessible? !?! .and up to 60000 of these guns are sold annually in the usa apparently. ..

Only a matter of time before rest of the world becomes desensitised to shootings in the usa like it has to bomb blasts in kabul or baghdad.

I mean fuck me with all those guns around, legal and illegal I can't say I am am surprised.

We are due for another mass shooting I should add..its been a while.

Excuse the cynicism.

Ps Fuck corporate democracy I should add.

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;1088785][URL="https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope"]Your logical fallacy is slippery slope[/URL] :

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

Indeed.[/QUOTE] Must resist urge to push "view post."

Funny how you didn't apply this same presentation to the pressure cooker argument a few posts above mine. That's because it supports your agenda, so color me unsurprised. And of course you missed the point. I was illustrating how ludicrous it would be to institute a knife ban. Nowhere did I imply that it is an imminent piece of legislation. You blew it.

Speaking of career politicians: [URL="http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/02/reid-we-really-need-more-money-for-obamacare--stat-n1585297"]Reid: We Really Need More Money for Obamacare -- Stat - Guy Benson [/URL]

Stick it up your senile rear, Harry.

Back on topic, don't tell me your little gun control scheme is with purely innocent intentions, when you have the inability to be honest about for your own gunwalking agencies that have exacerbated the problem of Mexican gun violence:

[URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319205/In-gun-control-argument-Obama-blames-Americans-Mexican-deaths--Most-guns-used-commit-violence-Mexico-come-United-States.html"]In gun-control argument, Obama blames Americans for Mexican deaths: ¿Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States¿ | Mail Online[/URL]

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

Less guns around = less people dying via guns. Simple.

Note there are way too many guns already here to make that a reality though.

Re: Senate rejects bipartisan gun control measure for background checks

Everyone's a freedom fighter in the culture of war these days.