Skip to main content

OK so even the weakened background check bill to plug some of the loopholes in our current background checks regulations got killed in the Senate. The House now doesn't even need to think about thinking about this any more.

Lets see why background checks were defeated:

Five Democrats voted against the amendment: Mark Pryor of Arkansas; Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota; Mark Begich of Alaska; and Max Baucus of Montana. Reid voted against for procedural reasons, so he can bring the proposal up in the future. Four Republicans voted for: Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania; Mark Kirk of Illinois; Susan Collins of Maine; John McCain of Arizona.
The usual talking points were trotted out - "rights of law-abiding citizens," that the bill "will not prevent the next tragedy,” and on and on.

I am still waiting for anyone to tell me how full background checks on the sale/transfer of every firearm violates anyone's right(s), constitutional or otherwise? (I mean other than felons.)  As far as I can see background checks may be inconvenient, but inconvenience is not the same as violating the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Enter our oppressed friends that are struggling to survive/live/make a living/express themselves/have equality keep from having any meaningful regulations on firearms and actually come up with gems like these comparing any regulation on firearms to depriving them of civil rights:

"Yes, a civil right. No confusion. Right up there with treating everyone equally, regardless of colour, sexual orientation, creed, or gender." (in trying to explain how the right to bear arms is equal to civil rights)
and
"Two words: Selma, Alabama" (in response to someone asking how any firearms regulation is oppression)
So why were the background checks really defeated in the Senate?  Money, first the money that the senators get from the NRA (usually accompanied by an unhealthy dose of threats) and most importantly because these would cut into the profits of the manufacturers that the NRA lobbies for.  The veneer is definitely off, the NRA does not care about any rights, or about gun owners, or even the Constitution that they so frequently invoke - the NRA only cares about making money for the manufacturers that they shill for.

Illegal trafficking is the NRA's most important way to transfer legal guns into the criminal market, and the beauty of it is that many of these transfer are perfectly legal. Sure federal firearm licensees (FFLs) cannot do this without breaking the law, but anyone, other than these FFLs, can sell/transfer any firearm into the criminal market without breaking the law. It is not a right the NRA is defending, it is a market penetration tool.

How can it be perfectly legal for an individual (or a private dealer or anyone at a gun show that is not an FFL) to sell a firearm to a felon? Sure it may be illegal for the felon to buy it, but how can there be nothing wrong with a person selling to a felon and breaking no law? Even if there are some laws against selling to felons, all that the seller has to do is pretend he/she does not know the buyer is a felon and - presto - it is perfectly legal! All the seller has to do is use the idiot defense (just like Sergeant Schultz in Hogan's Heroes).

It is completely understandable that the NRA is fighting to maintain this channel to market as cutting it off would drastically reduce demand for the products they peddle, but what justification could any congress-critter have to continue obstructing regulations that do not violate the rights of any law-abiding citizen and are aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?  I mean 80-90 percent of all Americans think these should be passed (I think some of those are gun owners), but yet 46 congress-critters have to side with the NRA over the American people and obstruct even a watered-down bill.  No wonder the felons are so thankful to the Congress and to the NRA!  Lets hope that groups like Gabby Giffords' start evening the playing field in terms of money and in terms of holding the Congress accountable to the people.

In spite of what is said about me around these parts, I fully support the individual right to own firearms.  That is in no way inconsistent with sensible regulations being proposed and that the Newtown families and many others are asking for: like full criminal background checks (on every sale/transfer), limits on capacity/speed of delivery, licensing and registration (clearly registering existing firearms is just about impossible, but we can start registering all new ones or ones that change hands or just expand the existing registry we have had since 1934).

As has been very well said: "Your rights end at the point of my nose". And let us not forget about the noses of the more than 105,000 victims that are shot every year either.

The NRA apologists keep repeating that background checks will not change anything, but they are wrong - it will reduce the number of guns in the hands of people that shouldn't have them (and hurt the NRA's pockets in the process).

Originally posted to Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA) on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:11 PM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA.

Poll

Background checks on the sale/transfer of every firearm are:

22%84 votes
77%291 votes

| 375 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Missing from the entire debate (17+ / 0-)

    appears to be any consideration of balancing of rights.

    Even if there was a right not to have a background check that right would be colliding with my right to safety by not having a gun fall into the wrong hands.

    When you balance these two rights, my right to safety outweighs the rights of anyone wanting to own a deadly weapon.  

    •  Amen. This is what it's all about - EVERYONE's (16+ / 0-)

      rights.  The NRA has been very successful at framing this as a battle to save these "Second Amendment rights" that are under attack, and an even better job at leaving out those - very inconvenient - rights of others.

      •  We have had some diaries on the contributions (10+ / 0-)

        of the NRA to various candidates in House races. In nearly all cases the amounts averaged less than $5,000, per election cycle. A typical House race now costs about $1 million to be competitive. How much influence can $5,000 buy when a candidate needs $1 million?

        If you would like to actually receive some feedback it would be useful to have a poll with thoughtful questions which would not include the two in the poll you have published.

        Regarding the subject of your diary I support universal background checks on all firearms sales or transfers.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:28:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for your comment. Nothing sums up the NRA's (9+ / 0-)

          influence over Congress like this blog by the Sunlight Foundation does (portions below, but whole post is well worth reading, LINK, particularly for their graphics showing the magnitude of the NRA influence in the House/Senate):

          Of the 435 members of the new House, 205 – or 47 percent – received some money from the NRA during the last campaign. More than half have taken NRA money at some point in their career.  Of the Senate’s 100 members, 42 received contributions this past cycle and exactly half have received contributions at some point in their career. All told, 88 percent of Republicans now in Congress have received a contribution from the NRA at some point in their career, as have 11 percent of Democrats.

          The NRA’s beneficiaries include key players such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas. Sessions, one of the NRA’s top recipients ($4,950 this cycle, $64,000 over his career), will serve as the chairman of the House Rules Committee next year, a post that puts him in a position to decide what legislation gets onto the House floor, and what does not. Reid received $4,950 from the NRA the last time he ran (2010), and has received $10,450 over his career.

          In the House, the majority party can exercise near complete control over the legislative agenda, and that majority party next year will still be the Republicans – a party where the NRA has many friends. We find that 81 percent of the House Republican Conference (189 of 233 members) received some money from the NRA in their most recent campaigns, and 88 percent (204 of 233) have received NRA money at some point in their careers; Among House Democrats, 8 percent (16 of 201) received NRA money this cycle, and 10 percent (21 of 201) have ever received NRA money.

          ...

          In the Senate, 84 percent of Republicans (38 of 45) received NRA money during their most recent election, and 93 percent (42 of 45) have received contributions at some point. Among Democrats, 8 percent (4 of 53) received contributions the last time they ran, and 15 percent (8 of 53) have received contributions at some point.

          ...

          More than anything, these numbers help us to identify who the NRA considers its friends in Congress, and something about the closeness of those friendships.

          It is also important to note that the vast majority of the NRA’s $18.6 million in political spending this past cycle went to independent expenditures, including $13.1 million into the presidential race.  ...  While the NRA’s spending this election failed to yield the desired outcomes, the group spends at levels that politicians both fear and crave, which gives it power.

          ...

          It’s also important to note that for decades, there have been practically no resources and pressures on the other side of the issue. Members know that opposition to gun control brings political rewards (the support of the NRA) while support of gun control brings only political liabilities (the opposition of the NRA). Without a group on the other side, the calculus for members is clear, and explains why the United States has among the most permissive gun ownership laws in the world.

          Open Secrets has a great little tool to see how much money is thrown around and to whom it goes.

          It is not just the sums of money that they have been getting for decades, it is also the threats that they are given.

          As far as not liking the poll, I am sorry.  I cannot change it and include any suggested wording, but you are free to write your own diary and include a poll that is to your liking.

          •  here is another way they funnel money into (9+ / 0-)

            elections...

            The Law Enforcement Alliance of America was founded with NRA funding in 1991, when Congress was debating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. Police groups had come out strongly in favor of the bill, so the NRA founded the alliance to oppose it.

            The Alliance refuses to disclose its donors. “The NRA’s tax documents, however, reveal that it gave at least $2 million to the alliance between 2004 and 2010. Previous reports indicate that the NRA donated $500,000 annually to the organization from 1995 to 2004, which would total more than $6 million,” according to a February 2013 report from the Center for American Progress (CAP). The Alliance publicly opposes gun violence prevention measures such as background checks and keeping guns away from people on the federal government’s “Terrorist Watchlist.”

            Think Progress


            We are not broke, we are being robbed.

            by Glen The Plumber on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 08:19:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  DOC - that's my point the actual $$$ from the NRA (5+ / 0-)

            are peanuts in the context that a House race costs $1 million (some up to $10 million) and Senate races start at $10 million and go up from there. The data you quoted are the same amounts in my comment, inconsequential.

            It's not about the money, there has to be something else that gives the NRA its political leverage.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:56:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  When that measly money from the NRA has been (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber, coquiero

              given over decades and nearly half of all Congress (mostly Republicans by far) have been on the dole for so long, they certainly feel indebted and the NRA expects results for their contributions - made very clear in their "grading" of voting records, which is just another way to intimidate these congress-critters that they own. On top of it, the threat that they will support a primary challenger (or even someone from the other party of they think they can own them too).  On races like these, the NRA can spend huge amounts against incumbents that "betray" them, even if they actually don't, the threat is enough to get them to go along. Think of as nuclear detente - the threat of being annihilated by the US or the USSR kept many countries in line and obedient during the cold war.

              How can 46 senators have voted against a watered down background check bill?  The 4 Republicans that "betrayed" them have nothing to fear (granpa McCain is impervious to their threats - maverick that he is, Collins can't be touched, and Toomey/Kirk are the best that the NRA could hope for in their respective states). The 5 Dems that betrayed the people, truly fear the NRA's money because they are in states that there are lots of options for the NRA that would be better than them.  That leaves 37 Republicans that can't think of any reason to obstruct this other than the same old tired reasons.

              •  You forgot something. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon, VClib, FrankRose

                Sure, 5K for each election of a member of congress for a decade becomes 25K (two year cycle).

                But don't forget that it is also over 5 campaigns. At 1M each, that comes to 5 Million dollars.

                And the NRA's piddly 5K per cycle is nothing near what the various chamber of commerce / ALEC contributors will donate.

                Not to mention that the NRA doesn't hire the spouse / children / brothers / sisters / parents of the candidate for sweet positions on the Board Of Directors at 100K EACH YEAR.

                The NRA's strength has never been paying for support. The NRA's strength has always been in their ability to get their 5 million members to jam phone lines and show up at town halls and visit offices and send letters/faxes and put stickers on their car to be noticed by a candidate in traffic and so on.

                The NRA's strength isn't in money, it's in their people.

                The OFA campaign of 2008 functioned on the same principle of people over money. Small donations were great, but if faced with the choice between you giving them $15 or spending an hour phonebanking / canvassing they preferred to have your time.

                Look at the size of the respective organizations. NRA has 5 million people and thus takes a headquarters size complex plus staff to run it. The brady group has far fewer members and needs barely one floor of a 14 story building. NRA has less money after staffing expenses, but plenty of people as compared to MAIG which has bloomberg's BILLIONS but is so starved for people that it refuses to remove people from the rolls when they leave or even die!

                It's not the money, it's the membership. Still an M word, just not the one you keep pointing at.

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

                by JayFromPA on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 07:11:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So we must redouble our efforts to match the NRA's (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber, TheFern, coquiero

                  members.  That we agree on!  It is exactly what Moms Demand Action the Brady Campaign and many other groups are trying to do.  From Moms Demand Action:

                  The most important thing we can do is incredibly easy – just call your Representative. The other side is calling five times as often even though there are more of us! Members of Congress think we don’t care. Of course that’s not true, so please take three minutes while you sip your morning coffee or Diet Coke and call their offices.
                  (I added the bold, in their website it is highlighted in yellow)

                  Until the grass-roots match the NRA members the NRA will stay in power over nearly half of our Congress.

            •  It's the people. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon, VClib, FrankRose

              The NRA's strength isn't money. It's the membership.

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

              by JayFromPA on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 06:30:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That is certainly one of their strengths, accor- (5+ / 0-)

                ding to the Sunlight Foundation:

                The NRA also derives substantial influence from its membership base of more than four million members, many of whom look to the NRA voting scorecards as key inputs in their voting decisions. Half of 113th Senate gets at least an “A-“ rating from the NRA. In 2010, the NRA had a $243 million budget, dwarfing all other gun issue groups.

                It’s also important to note that for decades, there have been practically no resources and pressures on the other side of the issue. Members know that opposition to gun control brings political rewards (the support of the NRA) while support of gun control brings only political liabilities (the opposition of the NRA). Without a group on the other side, the calculus for members is clear, and explains why the United States has among the most permissive gun ownership laws in the world.

                (emphasis mine)

                So grass-roots support is important, and we are part of the grass-roots.  Support for sensible regulations of firearms is gaining traction and the NRA will eventually be defeated on this issue.  Sadly it will take time and many more innocent people will be shot.

          •  One of the NRA's 'top recipitents' got less than (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shamash, JayFromPA

            a measly five grand......and you think this illustrates the NRA's influence over Congress?

            Fucking seriously?

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 12:30:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  "right to safety"? What Amendment is that? (0+ / 0-)

      Does your "right to safety" outweigh the rights of anyone wanting to be free from being wiretapped without a warrant?

      Does your "right to safety" also outweigh the right of criminals to a fair and impartial trial?

      Exactly how many Rights are outweighed by your "right to safety"?

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 12:26:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Guess who said this: (16+ / 0-)
    "We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone. That means closing the Hinckley loophole so the records of those adjudicated mentally ill are in the system. This isn't new, or a change of position, or a concession. I've been on record on this point consistently, from our national meeting in Denver, to paid national ads and position papers, to news interviews and press appearances."
    Yes, Wayne Lapierre.
    Under pressure from their real masters - as you point out, DOC - they decided to change their position claiming that "it doesn't work."
    The complete quote from them re this change should read, "It doesn't work for the gun manufacturers thus it doesn't work for us."

    Thanks, DOC.

    Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

    by JoanMar on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:37:16 PM PDT

  •  What Do Citizens Have to Do With It? (8+ / 0-)
    but what justification could any congress-critter have to continue obstructing regulations that do not violate the rights of any law-abiding citizen and are aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?  I mean 80-90 percent of all Americans think these should be passed (I think some of those are gun owners), but yet 46 congress-critters have to side with the NRA over the American people and obstruct even a watered-down bill.
    Citizens don't run attack ad campaigns. Corporations do.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:37:59 PM PDT

  •  As people weigh the costs and benefits (11+ / 0-)

    Of pervasive and easy access to firearms to  any who seek them, they become less resistant to regulation.  If you choose to live without guns, like the majority of folks, controls on guns only serves to make you safer.  Even people who enjoy responsible ownership of guns would have an interest in keeping people who would likely misuse them from owning them, one might assume.  I think you're right about the NRA's motives, though.  Any sale of a new gun or accessory is money in their pocket, and with a Democrat in the oval office business is always booming at the gun store.  Without sensible regulation like what you suggest, though, there will likely be just as many notable shootings that capture media attention and the pressure will continue to build.  I don't think anyone bought the "...good guy with a gun" canard the de-facto spokesman for the gun culture offered as a vision for a safer America.  I think the die may have been cast, as I don't think most people can think about the massacre in Newtown and shrug it off as necessary evil for necessary liberties.

    "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

    by TheFern on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 07:45:25 PM PDT

  •  The Stop the NRA is a good headline distributor. (8+ / 0-)

    The latest is a good one and should bring around a few to some 'inconveniences' in gun ownership.

    In 26 US Senate Races in 2012 . . . 20 candidates with the lower NRA favorable grade won.
    We have commissioned a study from Douglas E. Schoen, LLC and James Farwell to answer the question: What is the actual influence of the NRA on the outcome of elections?
    Over the summer, we’ll be releasing new facts from the report every week or so.
    When the NRA is vote naked, maybe the laws will start to protect people, make sense, and stop giving gun toters a free ride.
  •  Giving them too much credit? (2+ / 0-)

    If they were advancing the interests of firearms makers and engaged in rational adult thinking, they'd try to get secondhand sales banned altogether so that anyone who wanted a gun would have to buy new.

    They may simply be stuck, unable to change, in their rut of fundraising through scare tactics. Notice that they were fine with background checks until someone actually proposed them.

    Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

    by Dogs are fuzzy on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:12:04 PM PDT

    •  good guy goes to gun show... (7+ / 0-)

      buys 10 guns...sells to 10 bad guys friends...no b/c required...gun laundering...they don't want this to end.


      We are not broke, we are being robbed.

      by Glen The Plumber on Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 09:38:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yup that opens up demand for 10 more guns to be (3+ / 0-)

        sold by the NRA's manufacturers.  All about supply and demand.

      •  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 ]

    •  I disagree (6+ / 0-)

      They need gun owners across the entire spectrum to have easy access to capital. Easy access to capital by selling one or more of their guns into the gray market of private sales, where the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy allows some to make a lot of money under the table, because the word "dealer" is not legally defined.

      How many guns sold make one a dealer? No one knows, so we pretend that the guy at the gun show who sells hundreds of guns a year is a private seller, not a dealer.

      To be able to buy the next shiny new version, plenty of gun owners need to raise disposable (and unreported) income by selling into the secondary market.

      "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 Wed Jul 03, 2013 at 10:14:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe I am giving them too much credit, but -based (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, TheFern, coquiero

      on what I learned from my marketing and economics professors in business school - closing this channel would cause a glut in the legal (or clean) used gun market, depressing the value of used guns because of lower demand. If the price of used guns drops, the new gun market will follow suite.  Simple supply and demand.

  •  Once again, a person whom has repeatedly (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JayFromPA

    stated his support for a gun ban & is a member of a group whose stated purpose is the repeal of the second amendment is incredulous that gun owners won't stand with him.

    You want expanded background checks?
    Step 1: Don't introduce them alongside a gun ban, like the President did.
    Step 2: Don't let someone whom has publicly said that she want to confiscate all guns, like Diane Feinstein anywhere near the issue....let alone at the head of the issue.
    Step 3: If you don't follow steps one and two, quit fucking whining about nobody giving a flying fuck when your other gun control plans fail.

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 12:23:06 AM PDT

    •  Frank, you're whining again. (4+ / 0-)

      And frankly begging for a ban.

    •  For what it's worth... (3+ / 0-)

      ...and this is my opinion only, but rhetoric like this:

      ...quit fucking whining about nobody giving a flying fuck when your other gun control plans fail.
      ...hurts your argument much more than help it.

      I agree with most of your points, but find myself not reccing your comments because of some of the language choice.

      It is well within site rules, of course, but can be read as abusive by those who choose to do so.

      Additionally, it is the sort of tactic we see so commonly with those on the other side of the discussion -- we should not lower ourselves to their level.  If we keep the discussion on facts and reason, then they have less opportunity to dismiss your arguments because of the way they are made, rather than their substance.  Don't give them that excuse to avoid the relevant points.

      My opinion only -- take it for what it's worth.

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

      by theatre goon on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 12:24:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ROTFLMAO!!!!! Excuse? Avoid Relevant points? I did (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, coquiero

        rec your comment as nasty attacks on those we disagree with are wrong and out of line, whether it is your side or ours - although it is very funny that you accuse those that propose firearms regulations of behaving like Frank (if any of us ever do, your side is sure to quickly report that).  Perhaps its is time to have a real conversation about firearms regulations, not the usual attacks that your side does.  

        Still not a word on how background checks violate any right!

        •  "Real conversation" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon

          If only we would come up with something as relevant as 'sacrificing', 'altar', 'cult' & 'bingo' when it comes to discussions about the 2nd Amendment & gun control.
          You really got me there, Tiger.

          "behaving like Frank"
          You mean linking the FBI murder stats, proving that the object you want to ban is responsible for less than half the number of murders than even bare hands are? Pointing out the political ramifications of said attempted ban? Linking where the NRA actually gets its income from? Pointing out the blatant inconsistency of you saying that you 'respect the 2nd A'--while you both push for a gun ban & are a member of a group that exists specifically to push for the repeal of the 2nd A?
          Darn me using facts as opposed to foolish statements & Bingo cards.

          "usual attacks"
          Like what? Link.
          You are not a martyr.

          "your side is sure to quickly report [behaving like Frank]."
          Go ahead, 'quickly report' me, bud.

          "Still not a word about how background checks violate any right"
          I have addressed this very issue. In this very thread, in fact.....of course, you decided to discuss me in lieu of having a 'real conversation'.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 08:01:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  thank you t-goon...this does not need to be (2+ / 0-)

        personal...we can disagree...but really my issues are with the NRA and politicians.

        I know if I got everything I wanted...ha...not likely...almost all gun owners would still have all the guns and rights they have now...they would just need to jump thru some hoops...I know you would disapprove on some issues...maybe be for some...but I must fight for what I think is right.

        peace...and happy fourth...go bbq...enjoy some rum with friends and family...but don't be shooting your gun in the air you damn pirate. ;7)


        We are not broke, we are being robbed.

        by Glen The Plumber on Thu Jul 04, 2013 at 01:06:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Contradictions (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon, JayFromPA, FrankRose
    In spite of what is said about me around these parts, I fully support the individual right to own firearms.
    If I said "In spite of what is said about me around these parts, I fully support the individual right to an abortion", and then listed my diary as:

    for Overturn Roe v. Wade
    Also republished by Shut Down Planned Parenthood

    If those were my statements and my affiliations, how sincere would you think I was?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site