Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun-sales background check bill needs all Democratic senators on board. Four are still hold-outs (180 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  OK. And if that's true, why should that stop (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener, Smoh, PinHole

    law enforcement from trying to catch the bad guys?

    Let me guess, because it's inconvenient for the law abiding gun owners - more paperwork, more hassle, another $10-15 for a background check.

    Is that too much to ask to try to stop the bad guy with a gun? Apparently it is.

    •  Let's refocus - it's inconvenient for whom? (5+ / 0-)

      How many children must be dismembered?

      How many women must be "accidentally" shot by their spouse who was "cleaning" a loaded gun?

      How many teens will act on impulse - ending their lives before they had a chance to really begin?

      How many honest citizens must be sacrificed by someone, who shoots the guys who arrive to replace the windows, when in the throes of paranoia they mistake them for an intruder.

      How much slaughter will it take?

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 11:11:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ok but background checks don't address this. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Patrick Costighan, FrankRose
        •  That's Wayne LaPierre verbatim - they are false (4+ / 0-)

          premise right? Because the bad guys aren't going to submit to a background check.

          Yeah, and drivers don't adhere to all the rules of the road - so let's take down all the stop signs, due away with speed limits and for that matter, why should any one have to pass a drivers license test or be required to get insured?

          Makes perfect sense.

          •  But drunk driving rules are applied to drunk (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose

            drivers only.  They get caught and they go to prison.

            We don't take away all cars from sober people or make them pass a sobriety test everyday to drive, because they might drink and drive one day.  If they do drink and drive, we are going to put them in prison.  That is the rule.

            Same with guns, or it should be. If you get caught with a gun and you are a felon, bury them behind a jail cell. If you commit a gun crime, you should spend you remaining days behind bars and thus you can't hurt anyone else.

            •  That doesn't make any sense. Speeding laws (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Smoh, PinHole

              apply to all drivers regardless if whether they are speeding or not - police point a radar gun at ALL drivers, the law abiding and the non-law abiding.

              •  Drunk driving laws pertain to drunk drivers and (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose

                their crimes.  

                •  Again - you're not making sense. You can't cherry (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Smoh, LilithGardener

                  pick your drunk driving scenario and ignore all the other scenarios were your point doesn't hold up. And, your drunk driving scenario doesn't make all that much sense either - ever heard of a drunk driving check point? Law abiding drivers are pulled over to check to see if they have been drinking or not.

                  And just like there are many laws that apply to all gun owners, drunk driving laws are not the only laws that pertain to drivers.

                  Law abiding drivers are checked to see if they are speeding. And so should law abiding gun owners be checked to be sure they are not breaking laws.

                  •  and when they break the law....we are going to (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FrankRose

                    do what?  

                    Same as we do now?  Ignore it?

                    •  We don't ignore drivers who have (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Smoh, LilithGardener

                      been caught drinking. They are punished. We don't ignore people who want to buy a gun but can't pass a background check - we don't let them buy the gun. That's not ignoring in my book. And, yes, let's punish them for trying - there's an area we have agreement. Why doesn't the DKos gun club rally support for this instead of wasting so much time on the message boards?

                      •  I do constantly and I am ignored every time I (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        FrankRose

                        bring it up.

                         I actually had someone tell me "what you want is a police state....what about criminal rights?? Criminals already have sentences that are too long." Kid you not!

                        I was floored at the hypocrisy. Making it as tough as we can for law abiding gun owners is apparently okay....but making criminals who actually commit gun crimes pay dearly is apparently mean and unfair.

                        •  I'm guessing it has to do with profiling. That (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Smoh, LilithGardener

                          exact point was brought up at a Senate hearing on the subject - why aren't there more prosecutions of criminals who get checked in a background check? I'm guessing it's also about money - not enough money to staff to do that. The answer given at the hearing by a police captain was "we aren't in the business of chasing paper, we chase criminals - ie, committing crimes on the streets."

                          Then the issue becomes - efficient use of resources (money) and funding, and the GOP is pretty much against funding anything when Dems are in power.

                        •  ... on second thought - it's more likely because (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          LilithGardener

                          the NRA wants those people to be able to buy a gun - it's all about the $$$ for them. They've supported legislation to let people deemed mentally ill to be re-establsihed as OK to own a gun.

      •  Good point - sort of like second hand smoke ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        it's the unfortunate side affect of smokers puffing away in public places. Gun accidents, stolen guns used in crimes, straw purchasing, guns in the wrong hands ... it's the price we all have to pay so some gun owners can fully and completely enjoy their guns.

        •  Many predicted the demise (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          We Shall Overcome, tytalus, Smoh

          of the restaurant and bar sectors when smoking in them was banned in NYC.

          Guess what actually happened?

          Special permit cigar bars where it was permissible to smoke and drink continued a brisk business.

          Restaurants no longer had to bear the expense of creating and staffing "non-smoking" and "smoking" sections.

          Patrons could spend a long evening with friends eating and drinking at a bar/restaurant/music venue without their hair and clothing reeking of smoke.

          Smokers had to excuse themselves from conversation or the next course and step outside. Smoke breaks for some became the social escape valve, a needed break, or an excuse to make a phone call.

          Restaurant/bar/entertainment businesses flourished.

          The new policy is an unmitigated success.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 11:26:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Called 'murder'. (0+ / 0-)

        As bare hands murder twice the numbers that all rifles combined do, perhaps we should focus on the action of the criminal.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 04:40:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No, I am just saying that background checks won't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose

      stop this.  Enforcement of the laws on the books would be a better start.

       Do you know that of the people who fail background checks now....very, very few of them ever even get questioned must less prosecuted? This won't change with even more background checks....when it doesn't happen even now, and 60% of gun sells are done with a background check.

      Are we all of a sudden going to have more police to follow people around, or more funds to pay more people to enforce more laws....when the ones we have aren't enforced?

      Enforce the laws we have, make them stronger, pay more people to actually make sure they are being followed, make stronger and more strict penalties for people who commit gun crimes.

       

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site