Kanluwen wrote:
But really. This is a bad idea through and through.

And the fact that there were measures to regulate internet and private gun sales defeated is shameful.

 whembly wrote:
Uh... wow... Obama is coming off as a petulant child here...

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
That and the "90% of all Americans support this" bugged me as well. If they did, you wouldn't have seen a 54-46 split on that Senate vote. For every person writing in against it, you would have had AT LEAST 3 times as many people writing in for it.

 Seaward wrote:

Internet gun sales are already regulated.

 dogma wrote:

The matter isn't settled, the amendment can be brought for reconsideration by any Senator on the prevailing side; most notably Harry Reid. The man who voiced support for an AWB and voted 'no' on the Manchin-Toomey proposal.

As such, "petulant" isn't exactly an apt descriptor.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
That and the "90% of all Americans support this" bugged me as well. If they did, you wouldn't have seen a 54-46 split on that Senate vote. For every person writing in against it, you would have had AT LEAST 3 times as many people writing in for it.

The people doing the voting aren't 90% of Americans. They are politicians, the kinds of people who couldn't organise a knees up in a brewery unless it benefited themselves, in which case it would have been passed so fast it would have made your head spin.

 dogma wrote:
What changes would Manchin-Toomey make to make the regulation of internet gun sales? I mean, I honestly don't know, I've been focused on the fallout from Boston.

"In every Quinnipiac University poll since the Newtown massacre, nationally and in six states, we find overwhelming support, including among gun owners, for universal background checks," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "American voters agree with the National Rifle Association, however, that these background checks could lead someday to confiscation of legally owned guns."

By a 48%-38% margin, voters in a Quinnipiac University survey said that the government could use the information from universal background checks to confiscate legally owned guns. And gun owners believe 53%-34% that the checks could lead to confiscation of legal guns. There's also a partisan divide on the question, with 61% of Republicans, 51% of independents and 32% of Democrats expecting confiscations.

 whembly wrote:
Uh... wow... Obama is coming off as a petulant child here...


So... did Adam Lanza submit to an extensive background check?
Did James Holmes or Jared Loughner?
Do the gang bangers in Chicago submit to background checks? No? Surely, you jest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

My M&P pistol has a seventeen round mag. Can I use that? (its a pistol).

Nope.

Why not?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, both he and Biden did come accross as sore losers.

I'm a little surprised by that actually, Obama's always been most courteous in his speeches.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
But really. This is a bad idea through and through.

And the fact that there were measures to regulate internet and private gun sales defeated is shameful.

Internet gun sales are already regulated.

It's people who buy dumbass lines from politicians hook, line, and sinker that really annoy me. You probably think gun stores are just shipping arsenals straight to everyone's house because the anti-gun moonbats decided to lie about things a little.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And putting guns on teachers does?

Bull. That's just kneejerk garbage.

 Kanluwen wrote:
See this?

This is me leaving the thread. Dealing with people who think that "guns in schools = safety!" is not my idea of a fun night.

 Ouze wrote:
I'd be OK with a bill that simply required background checks at gun shows - let's at least try to get the thing nearly everyone agrees on.

Second Amendment: Gun ownership restrictions that the president said were supported by 90% of the nation have died in a Senate controlled by his party. Exploiting Newtown is haunting the power grabbers.

Just last week it was a political no-brainer. "Ninety percent of Americans support universal background checks," President Obama asserted yet again. This time he was at the University of Hartford, less than an hour's drive from Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Ct., where 20 students and six staff members were slaughtered just before Christmas. With Obama were many of the Newtown victims' parents.
"How often do 90% of Americans agree on anything?" the president asked, provoking laughter. "And yet, 90% agree on this ... 80% of Republicans, more than 80% of gun owners, more than 70% of NRA households. It is common sense."
The president added that "there is only one thing that can stand in the way of change that just about everybody agrees on, and that's politics in Washington."

He challenged Congress: "If our democracy is working the way it's supposed to, and 90% of the American people agree on something, in the wake of a tragedy you'd think this would not be a heavy lift."

Turns out that our republic is working the way it's supposed to. A Gallup poll asking what's the most important problem facing the country shows why what the president is trying to do is indeed a "heavy lift" — only 4% in both April and March cited "guns/gun control," down from 6% in February.

The "economy in general" at 24%, "unemployment/jobs" at 18%, "dissatisfaction with government" at 16% and "federal budget deficit/federal debt" at 11% all dwarfed concerns about guns. And the problems of "health care," three years after ObamaCare was passed, and "ethical/moral/family decline" are both more worrisome to the public than gun control.

As moderate Democratic senators, especially those facing re-election next year, run away from gun-restriction legislation, it's no mystery what's happened.

As Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said on Wednesday, "in some cases" the president has used Newtown victims and their families as props. While still grieving, they were flown on Air Force One to lobby Congress, with the president repeatedly insisting -- yelling, in fact -- that "this is not about politics!"

There is something repugnant about the parents of murdered children being exploited several months later. It's especially distasteful when the victims' parents are hardly unanimous on gun control. Note Mark Mattioli, who compellingly called for well-trained, on-site armed guards to protect schoolchildren as a more effective alternative to new gun laws.

Even some of the most pro-gun control Democrats, notably Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, whose 1994 assault weapons ban failed ignominiously, admit as much. Intensified background checks, she conceded, "would not have prevented the tragedy in Newtown."
Well then, why should Newtown be the rationale to rush such a government power grab into law?

 Ouze wrote:
I'd be OK with a bill that simply required background checks at gun shows - let's at least try to get the thing nearly everyone agrees on.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
But if 90% of Americans are as supportive of this bill as Obama claimed, wouldn't most of those senators (republican and democrats) vote in favor of the bill to ensure they get reelected, or at least vote for what the people they represented wanted (aka their job)? Especially Democrats in red states who voted against the bill. The fact that there were 46 no votes implies that at least some of those senators think Obama's statistics were a load of bull and felt that if they voted yes, they would not be getting reelected or representing their state's interests. I mean, the bill only needed 6 more votes to pass, surely if it had as much support as he said it did it would have had no problem getting through.

Basically, there's no way this wouldn't have passed if it had 90% support from the public. 50, 60, even 70% sounds believable, but 90%? There's no way. The entire nation would be outraged right now.

And this still isn't over. All it'll take is another horrible event to be used as leverage and this will start all over again.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
But if 90% of Americans are as supportive of this bill as Obama claimed, wouldn't most of those senators (republican and democrats) vote in favor of the bill to ensure they get reelected, or at least vote for what the people they represented wanted (aka their job)? Especially Democrats in red states who voted against the bill. The fact that there were 46 no votes implies that at least some of those senators think Obama's statistics were a load of bull and felt that if they voted yes, they would not be getting reelected or representing their state's interests. I mean, the bill only needed 6 more votes to pass, surely if it had as much support as he said it did it would have had no problem getting through.

I'm not certain how things work over in Americaland in terms of elections for different levels of government and so on but I am pretty sure that there are some very powerful groups behind the "guns for all" camp with a lot of money and determination to ensure that they can sell guns to anyone and make lots of money and remain powerful groups... erm... I mean so that the rights of Americans are not trampled on by the damn commies!

Compared to much weaker and poorer and less united groups which want to have guns more tightly controlled.

My impression of American politics seems to be that politicians modulate their output based on who pays the fund contributions over what people in their constituencies may feel. There are also a lot of people who would say "yes, I want guns to be controlled" who would have much higher concerns when selecting someone to vote for... as someone else posted above, things like unemployment, the economy, etc.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I would bet a bill simply requiring background checks at gunshows would pass.

Maybe instead of trying to cram as much stuff as they can into one bill, and not just this issue but a lot of others as well, they could take small baby steps. Pass simpler laws.

By Dan Balz, Published: April 17

If there was ever a moment that symbolized the difference between the power of public opinion and the strength of a concerted minority, it came Wednesday when the Senate defeated a bipartisan measure to expand background checks on gun purchases.

By the time the vote took place, the outcome was expected. Nonetheless, the result was stunning, as was made clear by the angry reaction of President Obama, who had invested so much capital on getting gun legislation passed after the shootings in Newtown, Conn., only to see those efforts crushed on the legislation’s first real test.

Obama’s description — “a pretty shameful day for Washington” — captured the moment and summed up the frustrations that many ordinary Americans long have expressed about the capital, which is that the system appears tilted in favor of blocking action on important, if controversial, issues rather than enacting legislation to deal with them.

The proposal to expand background checks to sales at gun shows and on the Internet was sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), two gun rights supporters. It had the support of more than a majority of senators — 54 ayes to 46 nays — and it had the firm backing of the White House.

More significant, perhaps, in a polarized country is that the idea of expanded background checks received overwhelming support across the political spectrum. Nine in 10 Democrats, more than eight in 10 Republicans and independents, and almost nine in 10 Americans who live in households with guns backed the proposal, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. Nearly all of them said they “strongly” favored the plan.

In the ways of Washington, that still wasn’t enough.

“If you ever wanted a textbook example of intensity trumping preference, this is it,” said Ross K. Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University. “You could have 100 percent of those polled saying they wanted universal background checks and it would still be defeated. You can’t translate poll results into public policy.”

Before the vote, the White House Web site displayed the message: “Now is the time to do something about gun violence. Let’s make our call so loud it’s impossible to ignore.” But those voices could not overcome the power of the National Rifle Association, the rest of the gun lobby or the procedural obstacles that are common in the Senate.

The NRA mounted a campaign to block the Manchin-Toomey compromise, and other more stringent measures pushed by the president and Vice President Biden, such as a ban on military-style assault rifles and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines.

The demise of the Manchin-Toomey proposal — the most significant restriction on gun purchases that had any chance of passing — represented a resounding defeat for the president, who had seized on the issue after the massacre in Newtown in December.

It was a defeat as well for the victims’ relatives, men and women who have walked the halls of Congress and spoken out passionately for action. It was a defeat for former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who was nearly killed in a shooting in 2011 and who joined in the lobbying effort. They were at the White House with Obama and Biden after the vote, a tableau of hopes crushed.

Wednesday’s vote was also another setback for efforts to find bipartisan accord on difficult issues that have resisted resolution. “The Manchin-Toomey compromise has gone the way of the bipartisan budget commission, the Gang of 6’s deficit reduction plan and the [budget] Supercommittee,” Sean M. Theriault, an associate professor of political science at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an e-mail.

Theriault, the author of the recent book “The Gingrich Senators: The Roots of Partisan Warfare in Congress,” added: “While it provided glimmers of hope that a bipartisan compromise could be forged in the Senate, in the end, it serves as a reinforcement for how dysfunctional Congress has become.”

Few lawmakers were fully happy with the proposal that Manchin and Toomey put together. Liberals thought it didn’t go far enough. There were enough grumbles about it that Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has been a leader in the effort to enact new gun legislation, begged them not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In the end, only four Democrats — all from red states — opposed it. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) voted no for purely procedural reasons.

What sank the amendment, however, was the near-unanimous opposition of Republicans, who argued that the proposed restrictions would infringe on Second Amendment rights. Only four Republicans, including Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), backed the proposal.

There seemed no better opportunity in recent years for Congress to pass new gun-control measures, given the public outcry after the Newtown school shootings, which killed 20 children and six adults. Obama moved quickly, knowing that with each passing day the prospects for congressional action would diminish. He spoke out frequently and tried to rally not just public opinion but public pressure.

Reid, a longtime supporter of the NRA, brought a bill to the floor shorn of the assault-weapons ban and limits on high-capacity magazines, believing that would offer the best opportunity for passage of expanded background checks. Manchin and Toomey worked for weeks to develop a compromise that would diminish the opposition from the NRA and draw more Republicans to its side.

“In many ways, everything was in place,” Baker noted. “Public opinion. Two centrist senators. A full court press by the president. Astute parliamentary measures by Sen. Reid.” Still, it did not happen.

The Post-ABC News poll found that 60 percent of people in gun-owning households said they could support a politician with whom they disagreed on gun control if they agreed with that person on other issues. That was almost the identical percentage as people who live in households without a firearm.

But members of Congress are mindful of who votes and who doesn’t on hot-button issues, and they have seen the NRA’s power in past elections. That and the 60-vote threshold were enough to frustrate the desires of the majority for action.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Compared to much weaker and poorer and less united groups which want to have guns more tightly controlled.

See above, many people may support gun control, but only a few support it very strongly - strongly enough to go out and shout with signs because the bill didn't pass for example.

 Ouze wrote:
I'd be OK with a bill that simply required background checks at gun shows - let's at least try to get the thing nearly everyone agrees on.

Bromsy wrote: I'm not terribly opposed to the idea of background checks

 Kanluwen wrote:
But really. This is a bad idea through and through.

whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
But really. This is a bad idea through and through.

Kan (and anyone else)... seriously... read the following post with an open eye:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

It's a really long, but worth it...

It's a thorough and excellent overview of guns and gun control... In it, he lays out the reasons why the left calls for gun control, then eviscerates those arguments with facts and reason.

 juraigamer wrote:
Give it 8 months, a kid will get one of the guns in his hand and wack a teacher.