“Having background checks that included psychological evaluations and proof that the recipient had a need for the gun under consideration.”
cwj12 on Dec 6, 2013 at 10:48:39
“So to be clear --- You support a "needs test" for exercising Constitutional Rights. Who will be the grand arbitrator of "need" ? Since all rights protected by the Constitution are equal, how do you propose that "need" be established for freedom of speech, and who shall be the determiner of that right? How do you propose that every potential voter be psychologically tested to ensure that they can exercise the right to vote?”
“How were they supposed to know that his mom had an arsenal in her home? The gun nut lobby has made it impossible to keep a list of how many weapons a person buys.
And if you paid any attention, you would know that an outcry for help for people like Adam has been studiously ignored by the right wing. They even advocate bullying people like him as is evidenced in a recent case where the parents of a kid with Asperger's syndrome complained to school authorities about their kid being bullied, and the principal and the bullies' parents blamed the kid for being bullied.”
cwj12 on Dec 6, 2013 at 10:38:53
“There was / is no need for anyone to know what kind of "arsenal" any person has. How would the Government having a "list" of guns owned by everyone have changed anything that happened at Sandy Hook?
Then you blame the "right" for ignoring people ---- but you do not answer the previous question about "Moms Demand Action" --- where were / are they ? Where is the outpouring of love and help from the "left" for those same kids and their families?
You engaged in the exact thing that is not only unneeded but counter-productive. You, instead of offering a solution, attempt to deflect and "blame the guns" and "blame the right" and seem to refuse to acknowledge that the entire "village" Left and Right, Federal and State, gun owners and gun abolitionists, ALL, did nothing to help Adam and prevent the tragedy at Sandy Hook. Which makes you just as guilty as anyone you try to blame.”
“All other industrialized countries have managed to do it. What's wrong with America? I thought we were the ones who were exceptional. Maybe you meant "exceptional" in the sense of requiring special education classes.”
dancingstu2 on Dec 6, 2013 at 09:02:49
“What's different about America is obvious: the Second Amendment. We're not going to get rid of guns in America because we're not going to get rid of the Second Amendment. It's really just that simple. It doesn't matter what your politics are; that's the reality of America today, especially after the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to carry firearms to defend themselves.
Now how about we try to find a solution to reduce gun violence that doesn't rely on the fantasy of getting rid of all guns?”
“No, it's not false. When you concentrate on extraneous items that have no relation to the problem at hand, you can't legitimately count those as "thousands of state and federal laws regulating the sale, transport, and use of guns throughout the country." When you use those extraneous items to divert attention from the fact that anyone who wants to circumvent those laws can do it legally by going to a gun show or buying on the internet, then you have done absolutely nothing.
That almost all the mass killings (and Dogood's statement that only 30 people have been killed in mass killings is a flat out lie) are done with legally acquired guns is proof positive that the "thousands of state and federal laws regulating the sale, transport, and use of guns throughout the country" are useless.”
JGarrick62 on Dec 6, 2013 at 05:37:17
“If you think the existing laws are useless, then I presume you have no objection to repealing them all and making the manufacturing, sale, and carrying of any manner of weapon completely unregulated. That should make you the new best friend of the rabid pro-gunners. No more background checks. Gun sales to anyone of any age or criminal background who has sufficient money. Unrestricted open carry nationwide. Easy access to fully automatic weapons. No serial numbers. No paperwork of any kind. Sounds absolutely brilliant.
Or perhaps you'd like to reconsider your absolutist position that our existing laws do nothing.”
“To be against background checks is the very definition of a gun nut who would fail a legitimate background check. When even someone like Scalia, who never met a right wing position that he didn't immediately fall madly in love with, says that there can be legal controls on gun ownership, then there is no way to argue against gun control legislation. Having an emotional attachment to a gun is just sick.
Having universal background checks that meant something and included psychological evaluations is a reasonable solution to keeping instruments whose only function is to kill things out of the hands of people who would use them to kill other people.”
OdinsEye on Dec 6, 2013 at 12:42:58
“"To be against background checks is the very definition of a gun nut who would fail a legitimate background check. "
"Having universal background checks "
For the most part these are unenforceable, as California has experienced and Colorado is finding out.”
screaminrocket on Dec 6, 2013 at 04:43:53
“No one is against background checks, the problem is twofold:
1) Background checks already happen. I go to a gun-show (a common talking point), I have to pass a background check if I want to buy a gun from someone. I buy a gun from a store, I have to pass a background check. The only time I don't have to do a background check is if I sell a gun to my friend on a person to person basis, and if someone gives me a gun as a gift, no one has to background check me. For my guns, I passed two background checks. They wouldn't have stopped newtown either, the guns used there were stolen from someone who passed a background check.
2) How do you enforce "mental health checks"? Who gets removed, if you've ever visited a psychologist? If you've been diagnosed with ADHD? If you're on some kind of pill for something? What keeps those in power from changing the requirements for no reason? Raising the bar with no rhyme or reason?
In 1937 the National Firearms Act, which required automatic weapons to be registered, went into effect. From that time until 1987 the total number of crimes with legally registered automatic weapons totaled a whopping two incidents, and yet in 1987 the government still decided to close the automatics registry, effectively making fully automatic weapons illegal. Suffice to say, the government is not above raising the bar, and frankly I'm not ok with that.”
Mob Mule on Dec 6, 2013 at 03:42:46
“We have background checks. And yes, they work. I have over two thousand 4473 firearm transactions under my belt, and have had 34 denials to applicants in that course. That's 34 individuals who were refrained from purchase because the BATFE said 'no'. Most responsible gun owners support background checks for that reason, but a national registry, which is what "universal" background checks are, is imprudently unnecessary, illegal, has no chance in hell of curbing illicit firearm transactions, only enticing bureaucratic manipulation against those who 'do' obey our laws while further stimulating criminal invocation. This scenario has been presented verbatim throughout history as a very, very bad idea. But judging that you attend Texas A&M, the redneck intellectual compound we call College Station, you already knew that, right?
As far as Lanza? Well, have you stopped to consider that perhaps if society wasn't so screwed up in modern America these tragedies might drop? Of course you wouldn't, because you're a liberal, and trying to argue with a liberal is like trying to slap a TV to get a better picture.
Not to mention, a liberal in the wrong state. Go to Austin. You'll like it there.”
It was working fine until Glass Steagall was eliminated and the reserves that the banks were required to keep were all but eliminated. It was working fine until the government was forbidden to regulate derivatives. Where do you get this "never works out" from?”
heterodoxlibertarian on Oct 30, 2013 at 00:07:07
“It was not working fine. This is a total fantasy. The bank industry also captures the regulatory process and the government created the financial crisis by serving wall streets interests.”
“Except Fannie and Freddie weren't the ones who were bundling the mortgages, were they? That was being done largely by the private mortgage companies at the beginning and then some of the bigger banks as the process continued.”
“You aren't paying attention. The budget that the Democrats were offering was the one that the repubs wanted complete with all the sequestration. The negotiations had already been done and agreed to. Then the repubs decided to go back on the deal. You aren't allowed to do that.”
“Pay attention. You aren't paying anything for anyone else's contraception. Neither is the government. The money is coming from the insurance companies who would rather pay out for contraception than for child birth, C-sections, hospital care, etc. The latter is a LOT more expensive than inserting an IUD.”
“It's much more understandable if you realize that preventing abortions has nothing to do with it. The right wing, including the RCC bishops, couldn't care less about abortions per se. What they are all in a tizzy about is having control over women's personal lives. It's solely a dominance issue.
That means that they can't let women have access to contraception because that is also a means where women gain control and men lose power.”
“Why does anyone assume that he's a repub? Because that's the way he was raised. And there is no way that the son of a prominent repub politician is going to vote for Obama and you know it, especially one that attended Colorado State University.”
“What a silly question! It's so that people who are likely to vote for the wrong party don't get a chance to vote. Pure and simple. It's the Amerukan way. If you can win honestly, cheat. Isn't winning the only thing?”
“That isn't a very high bar to get over, but a guy who spent most of four years on academic probation while majoring in animal science is smarter than very few people. Perry got two A's in his university career, both in military science. He never did manage to pass freshman chemistry or if he did, it was with a D.
He's a hedgehog which means that he has only one trick up his sleeve, and that trick is to use his power to divert taxpayer funds to reward people who contribute to his reelection campaign. That's his only game plan, and so far it seems to be working, but it can't withstand too much exposure to the light.”
“There would be real jobs open for them so they wouldn't need to apply for benefits if WalMart never came into town. In Hearne, TX, for example, when a WalMart came in, they ran all the downtown businesses into bankruptcy, and then when WalMart pulled out, there was nothing left.”
statbiz1 on Jun 2, 2013 at 20:22:47
“Assuming your story is true, you see that as something bad. I see it as an opprotunity.”
“It's not too surprising that when WalMart responded to the report, they completely ignored the results, and instead addressed a completely different item. There may be all kinds of opportunities open, but how many manager positions are there per shelf stocker? What are the opportunities for the rest of them? They don't even make enough to live on and instead are dependent on the taxpayer to survive. But WalMart "forgot" to mention that. And that is the problem, that the majority of people who work for WalMart need government assistance to survive. It has nothing to do with "opportunities" that are open to a very few of them.”