Skip to main content

View Diary: The real reason the NRA opposes background checks - with poll (70 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Only in some states. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon, FrankRose

    The variable is the NICS check.

    In some states it is as you say, no NICS check required for any sale from one resident to another resident.

    In some states it is NOT as you say. There is a NICS check required for all sales from one resident to another resident.

    In a few states in between, it is still NOT as you say. There is a NICS check for handguns, but not for long guns, from one resident to another.

    Between the different laws for handgun versus long gun, and the different laws from one state to another, there is no valid way to make a simple blanket statement regarding background checks. Any simple blanket statement regarding background checks is going to be an outright falsehood in some manner.

    Now get yourself a song to sing, and sing it till you're done.

    by JayFromPA on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 06:46:13 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  A veritable Swiss cheese with very big holes so (5+ / 0-)

      that states like MA (where I live) that do have those strict checks on every firearm (including long guns) have the illegal guns imported from states like GA for distribution into the illegal market. Every so often they catch a duffel bag coming from GA that is full of handguns - all of which were purchased legally and sold/transferred to a private dealer that imports them into MA and sells them here.  I can call up a few people I know and, for the right amount of cash, get a revolver or a semi-automatic pistol for tonight - of course no questions asked.

      Your point is absolutely valid, until this mish-mash of regulations is standardized and we have a clear mandate that all firearms buyers must pass a background check it doesn't much matter that some states have very strict regulations. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

      •  So jail the smuggler. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, FrankRose, KenBee

        Is it that hard to come up with that course of action?

        Prosecute the guy who crosses state lines.

        And by the way, adding another background check to the process doesn't change your situation one tiny iota.

        I am pretty cynical about YOU in particular, and I bet you know this already, but there is already a law on the books that the smuggler is breaking when bringing guns from georgia to massachusetts. Why not prosecute that?

        If only your MAIG golden boy bloomberg would deploy his nypd teams on breaking the smuggling rings instead of sending them outside of their jurisdiction to run surveillance on muslims.

        And any minute now your RASA buddy detroitmechworks will pop in with that bingo card claiming that I'm deflecting "real progress against gun violence".

        Now get yourself a song to sing, and sing it till you're done.

        by JayFromPA on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 11:53:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And the law is enforceable how? Checkpoints for (3+ / 0-)

          all cars, trains and buses crossings state lines?  Talk about intrusive. In any case, the ATF does not even have a budget to get started on this - the Congress that the NRA owns made sure of it.   Of course background checks will help reduce the number of straw purchases that get smuggled daily across state lines. Right now people buy legal guns and easily transfer them to these smugglers. If the people have to do a NICS on every sale/transfer:
          1) They'll think hard about being used/paid to buy guns for these people, and
          2) Some of these smugglers will likely turn up in NICS.

          As far as the bingo card, you keep repeating "that won't work" as the answer to any solution presented. As they say in Cuba: al que le pica es porque aji' come.

          •  Easy. Those guns are not untraceable. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, FrankRose, KenBee

            It's funny. You get pissy at georgia, but really should not.

            In 2012 there were exactly 999 guns recovered and traced in massachusetts.

            Georgia was the source for 42.
            Maine was the source for 72 of those guns.
            New hampshire was the source for 129 of those guns.
            Massachusetts was the source for 453 of those guns!

            Now, what the hell is a bigger problem for YOU, those 42 that came from georgia or the 453 that came from the gun shops IN YOUR STATE?!?!

            Source, the ATF that you claim is so strapped for cash.>

            Now get yourself a song to sing, and sing it till you're done.

            by JayFromPA on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 04:36:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  And therein lies the problem. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JayFromPA, FrankRose
      Any simple blanket statement regarding background checks is going to be an outright falsehood in some manner.
      There are those who simply don't mind if their argument is based entirely on a falsehood or intentional ignorance.

      I'd even go so far as to say that some purposefully obfuscate and depend upon such falsehoods because they know they can't support their arguments any other way.

      MAIG is a good example of what I'm talking about -- they've never bothered letting reality get in the way of their claims.

      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

      by theatre goon on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 07:03:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Would you point out the falsehoods or intentional (3+ / 0-)

        ignorance that are in this diary? The lack of a national requirement for background checks for ever sale/transfer if the gaping hole used by the NRA to ensure easy transfer of legal guns into criminal markets, this maintaining demand for their product. Still nothing about background checks being a violation of anyone's rights (I mean other than the executives at firearms manufacturers and the NRA to get huge salaries).

        •  Besides what Jay has already pointed out? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose, KenBee

          Sure.

          So why were the background checks really defeated in the Senate?  Money...
          This is an unsupported assertion, ignoring that background checks may well have been defeated simply because those voting against them did not agree with this particular bill.
          Illegal trafficking is the NRA's most important way to transfer legal guns into the criminal market...
          Another unsupported assertion, accusing those who happen to disagree with you about this issue of engaging in criminal enterprises.

          I could go on, but this gives the general idea -- you are falsely attributing to others actions and opinions which they do not hold.

          When one must resort to such falsehoods to support their stance, it is probably time to re-examine that stance.

          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

          by theatre goon on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 07:32:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just because you don't like them does not make (3+ / 0-)

            them false. Since you are the one raising a stink, it seems that it's up to you to prove that those are false.  Sure they are my opinion, but that does not make them false.  Still not a word on how background checks violate any right!

            •  They are still falsehoods. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose, andalusi, KenBee

              It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not I like the statements -- they are simply not true.

              They are your assertions, the responsibility lies with you to support them.  False claims do not become true because you insist that someone else must prove those false claims are untrue.  This is pretty basic stuff, really.

              If you're going to stick with using such falsehoods to support your stance, then there is really nothing else to discuss.  Not for those of us interested in a "reality based" discussion at any rate.  Seems that's less popular at this site than it once was.

              I do note that you are now trying to divert attention from the outright falsehoods I pointed out, after you asked for them:

              Still not a word on how background checks violate any right!
              Diverting attention does not make false statements become true, either.  Nice try, but they are still fasle.

              Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

              by theatre goon on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 08:11:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Jay actually pointed out that what I claimed (4+ / 0-)

            could be true in some states...and does the NRA not fight even b/c laws in all states..??..if not themselves...they do thru surrogates.

            and really..??..you don't think this is all about money for them..??..it's always about the money.

            using your reasoning I should lay off the Koch Bros...I don't know what is in their head...maybe they really do believe global warming is a hoax...they are just trying to save us from those that want to take away our freedom to drive what and when we want...setting restrictions on manufacturers...social engineering thru gas taxes...tell us what kind of lightbulbs we can use in our own home.

            you are correct...we can never know the intent of the NRA or Koch Bros...I choose to follow the clues...follow the money...I think my opinion is informed and true...but I can no more prove it true than you can prove it false.

            I think the NRA uses the same marketing techniques as the RW and Madison Ave. have always used...causing people to load up on guns and ammo...because...fear...freedom...and sex...you will be free to run thru the grassy hills...if you buy this tampon or gun...somehow you will be a sexier if you use this deodorant or buy this gun...a sucker born every minute.


            We are not broke, we are being robbed.

            by Glen The Plumber on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 09:41:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You misunderstand or misrepresent my statements. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose

              I didn't say whether anything was about the money for the NRA.  The diary claimed that background checks were defeated in the Senate because of money.  

              The law was defeated in the Senate because there was not enough votes to pass it.  One can insist that the motive behind those votes was money all they want to, but it won't magically make it become true.  

              Further, accusing the NRA of being part of a criminal conspiracy is an outright falsehood -- no better than the sort of unsupported accusations that those on the extreme Right make.  It is a personal attack based on a conspiracy theory and lowers the level of discourse on the site as a whole.

              I was asked about falsehoods in the diary, I provided two examples.  Your digression into marketing techniques has no bearing whatsoever on that.

              All that being the case, you have not meaningfully replied to any of the points I actually brought up.  Perhaps you simply misunderstood my statements -- it is also possible that you intentionally misrepresented those statements so that you would not have to respond to them in any meaningful way.

              Either way, the end result is the same -- my points stand.

              Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

              by theatre goon on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 12:03:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Now you're a regular comedian! You said my state- (3+ / 0-)

                ments about the money and the NRA are false, but now you didn't say that?  As far as not enough votes, you're absolutely right - the NRA has enough senators bought that they can still filibuster anything they want.  It is all about the money.

                •  Not at all. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose

                  Glen seems to have misinterpreted (or misrepresented -- either way) what I stated, so I was clarifying my own statement, to make it more clear.

                  Your earlier assertion is still as false as it was when you made it -- your continued references to conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

                  Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                  by theatre goon on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 12:32:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Could you spell out what conspiracy theories I am (3+ / 0-)

                    referencing?

                    •  Sure. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FrankRose

                      That there are Senators "owned" by the NRA and that the NRA is involved in a grand criminal conspiracy to provide firearms to criminals.

                      Y'know, the couple of things I already pointed out as unsupported falsehoods of yours.

                      Because someone happens to agree with, and vote with, the NRA is not evidence that they are thereby "owned," no matter how many times you repeat it.

                      Some people happen to agree with them -- this does not make them part of any conspiracy.

                      And, before you use it as a dodge again, just because you claim that an assertion is "opinion" does not make it free from criticism.  A falsehood is a falsehood, even if you say it is only "opinion."

                      This really isn't complex stuff.

                      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                      by theatre goon on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 01:04:15 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So you don't believe that Congress-critters are in (0+ / 0-)

                        the pockets of lobbyists and corporations?

                        I never talked about a conspiracy to give guns to criminals - you made that up. I spoke about a channel to market used to increase sales.

                        I am not sure why you are here defending the NRA, maybe you'd be happier elsewhere.  I mean, why are you defending an organization that is in bed with ALEC and the Koch brothers?

                        And you still have not spoken about the central part of my diary, that no one's rights are even close to being violated by full background checks.

                        As they say - the lady doth protest too much!

                        •  I am defending the NRA... (0+ / 0-)

                          ...because you are leveling false and insulting accusations against the organization.

                          I would defend anyone against such.  It is the honest and mature thing to do.  

                          And, as it happens, you did, in fact, talk about a conspiracy to give guns to criminals:

                          Illegal trafficking is the NRA's most important way to transfer legal guns into the criminal market...
                          Your own words, from the original diary -- I made nothing up.  Are you not even honest enough to stand by your own words?

                          Clearly not, since you have now devolved to accusing others of your own poor behavior and the "maybe you'd be happier somewhere else" argument.

                          Yet another dishonest tactic on your part in this discussion.

                          Once again, when one has to stoop to such repeated, dishonest tactics to support their stance, it is probably time for them to reevaluate that stance.

                          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                          by theatre goon on Fri Jul 05, 2013 at 04:03:41 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

              •  I think you need to go back and read my parent (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero, DefendOurConstitution

                comment that Jay replied to...I was providing a reason why the NRA would not want to stop second-hand sales.

                never said the NRA was involved in a criminal conspiracy...just like the Chamber of Commerce does...they are representing their clients well...gun and ammo manufacturers...my drifting into marketing...is to show the point that they manipulate people into believing this is about freedom...as the CoC is looking out for workers' jobs...Chevron wants to save the planet...it's about making money...that is their job.

                if you wish to believe the NRA fights b/c's and registries because of the 2a or fear of confiscation...go ahead...I believe they are profit driven...these rules would dry up a market that they don't want to lose.

                why do you think the NRA fought so hard against the UN's small arms treaty..??..was it for your 2a rights..??..no..the treaty had no bearing on sales inside one's country...they want American gun manufacturers to be able to sale to rebels in other countries...money..!!..do you support the lies they pumped out about the treaty..??

                not enough vote in the senate..??..why..??..pressure from the NRA...what is the NRA's motive..??..money...it's always about the money.

                nothing dishonest in the diary...or my comments...doesn't need to be personal...they have their goals...I have mine.

                I will admit...I find the NRA's leaders to be disgusting people...as are Chevron's...the Koch Bros...etc...but they are masterful business people.


                We are not broke, we are being robbed.

                by Glen The Plumber on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 12:54:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We seem to be misunderstanding each other. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber

                  My comments about falsehoods in the diary were not aimed at you -- they were aimed at falsehoods in the diary, as I directly pointed out.

                  I responded to Jay's statement, not yours.  When asked about falsehoods in the diary itself, I provided them -- still, making no comment directly regarding your statements at all.

                  Your comment, in response to mine, appeared as though you were trying to respond to those points I made -- that is how I responded.  In other words, you seem to think that my comments were directed to you.  They were not.

                  My apologies for mis-reading your comments, as you clearly mis-read mine.

                  I provided the exact quotes I was responding to, you apparently saw them as directed at your statements.  They were not.

                  Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                  by theatre goon on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 01:11:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site