Background checks - what's the deal?

Z

zahratustra

SasqWatch
Joined
January 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
"The bipartisan effort to expand background checks will not have the votes to advance in the Senate today, according to one of the architects of the deal.

"We will not get the votes today," Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., told NBC News.

Potential supporters, Republican Sens. Jeff Flake, of Arizona, and Florida’s Marco Rubio, could not risk a stand on background checks in the face of opposition from their conservative base because they are already leading on immigration, Manchin said."

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/nation...ote-Background-Check-Amendment—203365291.html

Can somebody explain to me what seems to be the problem? I thought that expanded background checks were a common sense way of preventing guns falling into the hands of the more disturbed individuals. But, apparently, some folks have problem even with that?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
It is common sense. Unfortunately common sense is not common. I didn't support this deal because it did nto go far enough. It exempted background checks for inherited guns or sales to relatives or neighbors.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,354
Location
Austin, TX
Background checks is a no brainer to me. With how broken Washington is, they need to take what they can get. I have zero confidence a truly smart compromise will be done.
 
I know that neither of you is a "conservative base" mentioned in my quote but does anybody have a clue what aforementioned "base" beef with this watered down bill?
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
It will implement background checks at gun shows and I believe private sales, which means that you can't just go to a gun show, pay your money and take home your gun.

Some don't like being inconvienced. Others think, wrongly, that the right to bear arms is absolute.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,354
Location
Austin, TX
I think it boils down to a slippery slope argument. The gun control folks have openly stated many times that their plan is to take many small steps toward a complete ban. Even if a given program makes good sense (as this one does, at least to me), it's viewed as part of a broader plot. Sure, the "militia righties" are being paranoid about what will be done with such a list, but when the other side openly states that they're not negotiating in good faith it gets pretty hard to trust them on anything.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
There are plenty of people who do not believe in a complete ban but think that better background checks is a good idea. These are reasonable people. The extreme on the far right (who are the base of the Republican party) are not reasonable. They are paranoids who think the government is going to take control of their life.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,682
Location
Studio City, CA
That's because the extreme on the far left want to.

And that's the problem, our elected officials have become beholden to the extremes.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,354
Location
Austin, TX
What does this term "background checks" imply ? Any crimes ?
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,962
Location
Old Europe
Mainly so. It will bring up if you meet any of the criteria that would violate the law to sell you a weapon. I believe, though I could be wrong, that you have to state on the app that you don't have any mental illness that would make it a danger to yourself or others to possess the weapon, of course that's not worth much since its dependent on the honor system.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,354
Location
Austin, TX
Thrasher said:
The extreme on the far right (who are the base of the Republican party) are not reasonable. They are paranoids who think the government is going to take control of their life.
Click to expand...
You're letting your stereotyping show. All it takes is a quick thought to know that your statement simply does not hold water. 29% of Americans self-identify as Republican (31% as democrat, for comparison). Presumably, to be considered a "base", a group should be at least half of the whole, yes? So, you're claiming 14% of all Americans are "extreme on the far right". It follows that 14% of all Americans would be considered "extreme on the far left", assuming something close to a normal distribution. So you're wanting to label roughly a quarter of all Americans as extremists. We appear to have a different definition of "extreme".

If you want to demonize the other side with some broad brush slander, it's generally best to make sure your numbers at least sorta kinda stand up to scrutiny.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
Thrasher said:
That's simply not true.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. The far left has as much influence of people like Nancy Pelosi as the far right has over Michelle Bachman.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,354
Location
Austin, TX
No, you said that the far left wants government to take control of all people's lives. That is not true. Or you were just being unclear. If so, clarify.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,682
Location
Studio City, CA
the gun lobby, not the gun industry, fears this will create a central repository of gun owners for the government to hound in the future. Its as simple as that, truism or paranoia. I am friends with a couple of gun hoarders. As much as I hate the things fear of the gov't is their main argument, even for buying an anti-tank weapon.

They're also a great investment, though no one will state that. You can always find a buyer and they only seem to in
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,215
Location
The Uncanny Valley
It should be noted that background checks are mandatory in nearly every state for the types of guns that are used in 98% of gun violence. Maybe some people think its silly to pass laws that have little chance of actually accomplishing their stated goals. Especially when that law contains a variety of other measures whose long term effects on the situation are unclear.

One of the biggest problems we have is that people tend to judge bills based on their name or some popular description, rather than their content. Of course that makes it especially easy to demonize its detractors. "He voted against the violence prevention act! How can anyone be against preventing violence!" Most of the political arguments you hear these days (from anyone) are just long sequences of thought terminating cliches.
 
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
615
Thrasher said:
No, you said that the far left wants government to take control of all people's lives. That is not true. Or you were just being unclear. If so, clarify.
Click to expand...

Actually the far left and the far right both want to control peoples lives. I think this is fairly obvious to anyone that steps back and stops looking at the world through partisan colored glasses.
 
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
615
Thrasher said:
There you go strawmanning again DTE, with false claims about what I actually said. Not surprised.
Click to expand...
I even quoted what you actually said. All I did was spell out for you the numerical implications of exactly what you said. That's not strawman--that's simply doing the thinking you were too lazy or too foamy to consider.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,547
Location
Illinois, USA
Does anyone have a link to the text of the expanded gun background check proposal? I searched the library of congress but didn't find it...
 
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
380
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom