Skip to main content

View Diary: Washington Post Editorial Board Calls Senators Who Blocked Gun Bill Cowards (15 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And so what if there is a database? (10+ / 0-)

    We register our cars, boats, planes, trailers, homes and our persons.  If you want to drive a car, you have to get a license by demonstrating some level of operational competence.  Ditto with a boat or an airplane.  If you want to own a car, boat, airplane, or home you have to register it.  If you want to work you need a Social Security number.

    So what is the big deal with guns?  If guns don't kill people, people kill people, why not check to make sure that the person buying a gun isn't likely to use that gun to kill someone?  We purge voters who have names that are vaguely similar to someone else who might have commited a crime, but we will sell large magazine, semi-automatic guns to anyone who can plunk down the cash.

    90% of Americans want background checks.  But 90% of Republican Senators voted against them.  And 90% of them will probably get re-elected.  Go figure.

    •  Background checks are invasive and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      phonegery

      likely ineffective. More effective would be to ban the manufacture, importation and sale of assaultive weapons and the ammunition that goes with them. But, that would crimp the style of corporate enterprise, to which our legislators have delegated the task of keeping the populace in line with threats. Wouldn't want to defang the viper, would we?

      We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

      by hannah on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:40:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If it's invasive and likely ineffective, what's (0+ / 0-)

        the harm then in trying it?  Because it might inconvenience people by having them pay (in Colorado $12 or so) and wait an extra 5-10 minutes to start fondling their new joy-toy?

        The current background check system is what is ineffective, as the loopholes are so large they only catch a small fraction of the people that are supposed to be caught by it.  The people who aren't likely to pass know that so they go to the gun shows and Internet and other places where they can buy guns without records.  

        The way that the background checks would be effective is to expand it to cover all gun sales (notice I'm saying "sales", in case people start saying "grandpa has to be able to give a gun to a favored grandson", as though that's a common means of transferring arms in this country).

    •  The other instances you name are not protected (0+ / 0-)

      by the Constitution.

      While I want strict gun laws, we really shouldn't compare guns with the other things that require licensing.

      It’s the Supreme Court, stupid! Followed by: It's always the Supreme Court! Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

      by auapplemac on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 04:34:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Three words - well regulated militia (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ColoTim

        Regulation is called for in the Constitution, too.

        Imagine all the people, living life in peace. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. John Lennon

        by GwenM on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 05:06:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site