nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Firearms background checks

rossie1977

Republicans are never going to vote on even allowing background checks it seems. 188 no's for this bill https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/text obviously going to fail in Senate

The nra control the Republican party considering 85% of Republican voters want background checks https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article206965864.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

mrbrianj

seamus wrote: »

It's going to be hard I suppose to get a non-polarised discussion about this on an Irish message board, because the attitude to guns is fundamentally flipped.

In the US the attitude is that the individual has a right to a gun unless it can be shown why they shouldn't have one.
Here in Ireland, the individual has no right to a gun unless they can show why they need one.

"Home defence" would be a typical reason for purchasing a gun in the US, but if you put that on your Irish licence application, it would be immediately denied.

I agree with Leroy that boiling the frog is really the only way to approach this. Small measures that restrict firearm availability every so gradually. Along with measures that can't really be considered gun control, but nevertheless have the same effect. Such as educational programmes, guns-for-cash amnesties, etc etc.

Very good point. "Rights" or "access to" are not the big problem in the US, its Reason. Home defence being one of the biggest wrong reasons!

seamus

It's going to be hard I suppose to get a non-polarised discussion about this on an Irish message board, because the attitude to guns is fundamentally flipped.

In the US the attitude is that the individual has a right to a gun unless it can be shown why they shouldn't have one.
Here in Ireland, the individual has no right to a gun unless they can show why they need one.

"Home defence" would be a typical reason for purchasing a gun in the US, but if you put that on your Irish licence application, it would be immediately denied.

I agree with Leroy that boiling the frog is really the only way to approach this. Small measures that restrict firearm availability every so gradually. Along with measures that can't really be considered gun control, but nevertheless have the same effect. Such as educational programmes, guns-for-cash amnesties, etc etc.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Separated from the Trump thread as it is a sufficiently discrete issue, not really an exclusively presidential issue and it seems that posters have a lot to say about it.

jooksavage

B0jangles wrote: »

Apparently the NRA used to be in favour of strict regulation of firearms. Their own president said the following while testifying during hearings on a gun control act in 1934

Apparently they only became very extreme and very very political in the late '70's under Wayne LaPierre. I've noticed a tendency among pro-NRA, pro-gun people to act as though its current stance on gun rights is just a natural progression of the organisation's stance right back to the writing of the constitution and the founding fathers, when it's actually the result of about 40 years of increasing fanaticism and extremism. (and lobbying by the gun manufacturers of course!)

As a gun owner myself, I honestly can't fathom how psycho f***ing maniacs like the NRA have so much clout. There's definitely a few nut-jobs here in Ireland who'd probably have that "cold dead hands" mentality too but most people I shoot with are reasonable, responsible gun owners. They might bitch and moan about the cost of a gun license or the hassle of trying to line up a meeting a with the local Super to get an application sorted but I don't know anyone who thinks registration is a bad thing or thinks automatic weapons should be legal.

I wonder would there be any appetite in the States for a rival, moderate, apolitical, hunting and competition-based organization for gun owners who weren't averse to gun-control measures? Could something like that ever isolate and neuter the fanatics in the NRA or would it fall flat?

B0jangles

Apparently the NRA used to be in favour of strict regulation of firearms. Their own president said the following while testifying during hearings on a gun control act in 1934

Karl Frederick wrote:

"I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. I have when I felt it was desirable to do so for my own protection. I know that applies in most of the instances where guns are used effectively in self-defense or in places of business and in the home. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.

Apparently they only became very extreme and very very political in the late '70's under Wayne LaPierre. I've noticed a tendency among pro-NRA, pro-gun people to act as though its current stance on gun rights is just a natural progression of the organisation's stance right back to the writing of the constitution and the founding fathers, when it's actually the result of about 40 years of increasing fanaticism and extremism. (and lobbying by the gun manufacturers of course!)

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

A wonderfully emotive post, full of sentiment and ideology.

Now, if you would care to address the issue?

If the desired endstate is that all firearms sales be conducted with a background check, which I presume is something we agree upon, why is the easiest and least intrusive manner which actually achieves this not the best route? If I can have an app on my 'phone which the government uses to let me into the country, we can probably have an app which can be used to verify firearms eligibility.

Because we know that the NRA will never move willingly to the endstate, they will try to block at every turn. Therefore, it is necessary to take a longer, more complicated, and ultimately a waste of everyones time, route to nudge them gradually.

Like the boiling frog. Make each change so small as to be not worth arguing against on its own but always moving towards the endgame. The clear evidence of how the NRA will block everything shows that this is the only realistic option left.

If even the largest domestic shooting even tin history cannot get the NRA and gun supporters to take the issue seriously then what exactly do you think will? Maybe kids getting shot at school? Nope. Maybe people being killed in a nightclub? Nope. Maybe thousands of deaths a year? Nope.

And any politician that even raises the prospect of tightening gun control is immediately targeted.

So clearly they need a difference approach as the gun supporters are never going to listen to logic on this, it is emotional to them.

If I can have an app on my 'phone which the government uses to let me into the country, we can probably have an app which can be used to verify firearms eligibility.

ANd on this specifically, this actually highlights the problem. People accept the need to checks and security, but that is for terrorists. The gun is personal and a right and 'ain't nobody touching my guns'. Your proposal of an app is perfectly reasonable. People need licences for cars, documentation to take out a loan, a passport to leave the country, but have you ever looked at the response when somebody tries to say that gun control should be increased? Remember, Trump got a lot of gun owners on the claim that HC was coming after their guns. He didn't even need to say what he was going to do, the fear of HC was enough.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

A wonderfully emotive post, full of sentiment and ideology.

Now, if you would care to address the issue?

If the desired endstate is that all firearms sales be conducted with a background check, which I presume is something we agree upon, why is the easiest and least intrusive manner which actually achieves this not the best route? If I can have an app on my 'phone which the government uses to let me into the country, we can probably have an app which can be used to verify firearms eligibility.

But your brilliantly emotive post about intrusion in your liberties and some 'third parties' and extra cost to you... Was what ?

To be frank you are no different to the rest of the gun folks . You will put as many blockers in the way to stifle any checks on guns until it becomes unstoppable. Years of the same years of death.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

It's time to start getting intrusive.

Your way kills kids.

Your way is the NRA way your way is the republican party way. Your way kills kids.

The time for getting your back up over a few extra dollars is over. It's gas actually that you get upset over paperwork and a few dollars when kids are shot to death in their dozens in their classrooms.

I'd assume your attitude would change significantly if your own kids schools were involved.

Actually I'm in no doubt. ...... It'll never happen to me.... Yeah?

And just a note. This isn't all Maud Flanders. Think of the kids .. kids actually die every year en masse. That's just plain incredible. Greatest country on earth... So many freedoms .... Etc etc etc etc.

A wonderfully emotive post, full of sentiment and ideology.

Now, if you would care to address the issue?

If the desired endstate is that all firearms sales be conducted with a background check, which I presume is something we agree upon, why is the easiest and least intrusive manner which actually achieves this not the best route? If I can have an app on my 'phone which the government uses to let me into the country, we can probably have an app which can be used to verify firearms eligibility.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

The argument works both ways. If they keep proposing legislation that isn't going to pass because they want it their way, then it becomes as political stunt, not a pragmatic policy. Both sides here are failing: Anti-gun for generally proposing things which are more restrictive than will pass, and pro-gun for generally failing to bring up proposals which are likely to.

It's un-necessary, an extra expense in time and money, adds the requirement for records to be kept, which is of more questionable political support, and it doesn't add any tangible benefit to the system. If the desired endstate is "all firearm sales involve a background check", then both mechanisms achieve it. One is more likely to be followed in practice.

You can have a process. Why make it a more difficult/disincentivising process than it needs to be?

Think the idea through. What is the enforcement mechanism for making sure that both parties, when they make an agreement to trade a firearm, take the time, effort and expense to find an FFL and go through that process? How would it differ from the enforcement mechanism that when two folks make an agreement to trade a firearm, that they then-and-there do the background check against the same federal database?

So if you have two different mechanisms for doing a background check, both against the same database, but one is easier/more convenient to do than the other, and both are enforced in the same manner, which is going to have the higher compliance rate, and thus is better to be enacted? There is a tenet of US constitutional law which says that any law enacted for a purpose must be the least-intrustive law possible to achieve the that purpose. I'm kindof happy with that as a general policy for legislation, be it constitutional-related or not.

It's time to start getting intrusive.

Your way kills kids.

Your way is the NRA way your way is the republican party way. Your way kills kids.

The time for getting your back up over a few extra dollars is over. It's gas actually that you get upset over paperwork and a few dollars when kids are shot to death in their dozens in their classrooms.

I'd assume your attitude would change significantly if your own kids schools were involved.

Actually I'm in no doubt. ...... It'll never happen to me.... Yeah?

And just a note. This isn't all Maud Flanders. Think of the kids .. kids actually die every year en masse. That's just plain incredible. Greatest country on earth... So many freedoms .... Etc etc etc etc.

Manic Moran

Igotadose wrote: »

"Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good" - Voltaire and others

Might want to show *some* progress here. Waiting around for the perfect bill is just what the gun lobby wants. It'll never happen.

It might, should there be a national emergency declared by a Democratic president though :pac:

The argument works both ways. If they keep proposing legislation that isn't going to pass because they want it their way, then it becomes as political stunt, not a pragmatic policy. Both sides here are failing: Anti-gun for generally proposing things which are more restrictive than will pass, and pro-gun for generally failing to bring up proposals which are likely to.

Whats wrong with independent involvement?

It's un-necessary, an extra expense in time and money, adds the requirement for records to be kept, which is of more questionable political support, and it doesn't add any tangible benefit to the system. If the desired endstate is "all firearm sales involve a background check", then both mechanisms achieve it. One is more likely to be followed in practice.

Why would you not want fire arms to be an actual 'process' to obtain perhaps with some legitimate expense.

You can have a process. Why make it a more difficult/disincentivising process than it needs to be?

I mean, its a firearm. Not a toy. Why do you want the system for checks to be just cheap and easy and a box ticker? Because that is basically what you are saying here.

Think the idea through. What is the enforcement mechanism for making sure that both parties, when they make an agreement to trade a firearm, take the time, effort and expense to find an FFL and go through that process? How would it differ from the enforcement mechanism that when two folks make an agreement to trade a firearm, that they then-and-there do the background check against the same federal database?

So if you have two different mechanisms for doing a background check, both against the same database, but one is easier/more convenient to do than the other, and both are enforced in the same manner, which is going to have the higher compliance rate, and thus is better to be enacted? There is a tenet of US constitutional law which says that any law enacted for a purpose must be the least-intrustive law possible to achieve the that purpose. I'm kindof happy with that as a general policy for legislation, be it constitutional-related or not.

Igotadose

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm one of that majority who wants background checks improved, but am happy with the no-vote on this one, looking at the text of the bill. It's basically a repeat of the same proposal put out after Sandy Hook, which requires third-party involvement, records keeping, and additional hassle and expense.

"Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good" - Voltaire and others

Might want to show *some* progress here. Waiting around for the perfect bill is just what the gun lobby wants. It'll never happen.

It might, should there be a national emergency declared by a Democratic president though :pac:

Manic Moran

rossie1977 wrote: »

The nra control the Republican party considering 85% of Republican voters want background checks https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article206965864.html

I'm one of that majority who wants background checks improved, but am happy with the no-vote on this one, looking at the text of the bill. It's basically a repeat of the same proposal put out after Sandy Hook, which requires third-party involvement, records keeping, and additional hassle and expense.

That the Republicans should, when they had the majority, have passed the Coburn/McCain proposal from back then which mandates background checks without third party involvement (There are at least two ways of doing this, the one proposed by them requires internet authentications for buyer and seller, the other requires the use of the system which already exists for firearms dealers) doesn't make the Mike Thompson bill any better.