Which US Senators Voted Against Expanded Background Checks For Gun Purchase? UPDATED

Sorry, I'm not familiar enough with the US Senate... Did the the bill pass?

@phanmo: Assuming Greg's list to be complete and accurate, that's 45 votes against background checks (not including Reid, who is noted as voting that way for procedural reasons--something he would only do if the vote didn't go the way he would have preferred). That implies that a cloture vote failed: 54 voting for cloture (if there were no abstentions or other non-votes, and again I'm not counting Reid), but those motions require 60 votes to pass. But I don't actually know whether that's the case.

Eric Lund, 3 senators didn't vote.

Under the ":Haw! That's nothing!" category: there is currently a bill that, if passed by both houses and signed by the president, would "restore the freedom" for a class of mentally ill people to buy guns without the permission of a judge. The bill was sponsored by the NRA of course, and introduced by some clown named Cornyn or something like that. I suppose the idea is to make more USA citizens terrified of people with guns, and induce them to go buy guns to defend themselves (and shoot their own children accidentally).

This is what I read:

"The Senate rejected a measure from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to expand background checks for guns purchased online and at gun shows on a 48 to 50 vote and an amendment from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to prevent individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms on a 45 to 54 vote. The amendments were offered to an Obamacare repeal package currently being debated in the Senate and they needed 60 votes to be adopted."

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-demo…

...except when they're shooting their grandchildren unintentionally. Or, their spouse shoots them in a fit of rage. Or ... (the list is LONG)

Pryor, Begich, and Baucus are no longer U.S. senators. Manchin and Toomey have introduced gun control bills twice, after Sandy Hook and again after San Bernardino. The list above records the vote after Sandy Hook, not the recent vote.

"
most recently and famously the killing of 14 people in San Bernardino by two people who should not have owned firearms but were apparently able to legally purchase assault rifles, pistols, and thousands of rounds of ammo.
"
Why should these two people have not been allowed to purchase firearms? Their intent could not have been known.

With the vote on the terror watch list amendment, compounded by the evidence that the San Bernardino shootings were an act of terrorism, it now seems clear that the Republicans are more interested in protecting terrorists' “second amendment rights” than in protecting Americans from terrorists.

OT, Paul Krugman had this to say about the Republican Party's contribution to modern civilization:

“Future historians — if there are any future historians — will almost surely say that the most important thing happening in the world during December 2015 was the climate talks in Paris. True, nothing agreed to in Paris will be enough, by itself, to solve the problem of global warming. But the talks could mark a turning point, the beginning of the kind of international action needed to avert catastrophe.
Then again, they might not; we may be doomed. And if we are, you know who will be responsible: the Republican Party.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/republicans-climate-change-de…

At what point do we consider NICS a failure? http://tinyurl.com/d65aedq

At what point do we favor liberty, with all it's potential problems, over the false security of a police state?

At what point do the antis concede that their policies are spectacular failures responsible for disarming the law abiding while the armed criminal runs amok?

If certain politicians are loathe to deport 10 million people, how do they propose finding and acquiring hundreds of millions of weapons that are now in private hands?

ron points out that all the countries in Europe who are "responsible for disarming the law abiding", are famous for having "armed criminals running amok".

Yes, ron, Europe has been overrun with armed criminals gunning down the populace for decades. They have about one mass shooting there per week.

Wait... Wait...

No, that's "The United States has about one mass shooting per week."

ron is insane.

Why should these two people have not been allowed to purchase firearms? Their intent could not have been known.

Kevin, why should they not have been able to purchase pipe bombs, too? After all, their intent could not have been known.

For that matter, we should start allowing children to buy guns. As Kevin counsels us, their intent as far as what they'll do with them can't be known either, therefore "it's safe" for society to allow this, too. (The NRA is all for it; why shouldn't you be?)

Kevin, why should they not have been able to purchase pipe bombs, too? After all, their intent could not have been known.

Kevin could be the one member of our faculty members who believes that possession of any weapon, from .22 calibre single shot pistol to a tank or military aircraft (his words) should be available for civilian ownership - "how else will you defend yourself when the government turns on you?"

Pointing out that if you live in that fantasy world you have to realize that the government could simply call Lt. Handerson at station 3 in an air-conditioned room in Kansas and task a drone+Hellfire missile to do the job hadn't occurred to him or change is mind. Stupidity like these radically extreme gun clowns possess is impossible to stamp out.

One should maybe ask Kevin, “How else will my government defend itself when the like of you turn on it?”

#12
There are many Republicans who accept evidence, but it's those who don't, or who find it expedient not to, who call the shots.

And to anyone who espouses the thought that our government is somehow "bad" and should be torn down, rendered incapable through starvation of revenue, etc., I suggest you pack up and go move to the land of your government-free nirvana.

Somalia should be on your short list, if not #1. Enjoy the FREEDOM of NO TAXES and NO GOVERNMENT to impede you. Or your friends. Or your neighbors. Or the criminals down the street. Or terrorists.

Good luck with that. Please write when you get there. 'K, bye.

Enjoy the FREEDOM of NO TAXES and NO GOVERNMENT to impede you. Or your friends. Or your neighbors. Or the criminals down the street. Or terrorists.

And the teams of special ops folks from several other countries who really are roaming around that country looking for bad guys. You'll get a chance to see how well you stack up against them.

...but they'll have their guns. So, ipso facto, they'll be "safe".

Nothing is more American than apple pie and Napalm from 30,000 feet.

It does seem to be the export of preference for the right.

We had several groups of 5th graders on campus today. A couple of us from math/stat ran a little lesson on basic modular arithmetic (literally, clock math) for them - using remainders from division to tell time x many hours in the future. We told them they could challenge their parents and grandparents with it. (My suggestion to present the basics of statistical functionals and Gateux derivatives on spaces of distribution functions, and use them to indicate how robustness properties for and asymptotic distributions of various estimators can be developed was voted down by my colleagues. Maybe next year. :{ )
Overall the kids loved it. One little girl I walked past had finished her worksheet before everyone else and was taking apart her pen. I asked her whether she liked taking things apart: she said yes but that putting them back together was more fun, and that "I want to be an engineer."
It is infuriating to think of all the roadblocks to education the right would put in her way if they are successful in their plans for the country.

Ah yes, the "Republican War on Women"...

Which should more properly be termed,
"The Republican Assault on Women".

Congress Moves to Sabotage the Paris Climate Summit
BY ELIZABETH KOLBERT
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/congress-moves-to-sabotage-…

Ah yes, the “Republican War on Women”

I was referring more to the republican war on anything that makes for a civilized society, subset of access to education, but your comment works too.

I prefer "assault on" in place of "war on", as 'war' is one of their cherished terms and (for them) connotes goodness: Power, Military, Honor, Fighting the Good Fight, Defending their Ways, etc.

It's not a war; it's an assault. As in, Sexual Assault, Assault & Battery -- something repugnant and shameful.

"...disarming the law abiding while the armed criminal runs amok..."

Speaking of the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit, gotta feel sorry for those poor geniuses who get their world views from NRA bumper stickers. It must be hell on the laundry budget, constantly having to bleach those brown streaks out of your shorts.

Gotta admit though, it's great for the ol' gun bu$ine$$, what with sales going up after every bloodbath.

Yes, the cancer-stick industry should have taken a lesson from them:

Cigarettes do cause cancer! Here, smoke this, it will calm your nerves about it.

Maybe they're jealous that the gun industry's victims tend to die in public in bloody splashes, while the tobacco industry's victims go out with a whimper in the privacy of hospital wards, with the only burst body parts being those cut open by a surgeon's knife...

::sigh:: Some industries get to destroy mankind with such glamor -- and so much glorification and hype (all free) by those conspiratorial news organizations. Even the illicit drug industry has their celebrity customer base to promote their instruments of misery and self-destruction.

What's the world coming to?

A 7-year-old girl was shot and killed by a man police called paranoid at a soccer practice last night in Michigan. He had a concealed carry license and had purchased the gun legally.

The senators who voted 'No' are culpable, as are all the other members of the pro-gun-death lobby. And they will be culpable for the killings that happen tonight, and tomorrow, and the next day...

What people fail to realize is that background checks do not work if the person purchasing a gun has no prior criminal record. If a person has ever been jailed for domestic violence, armed robbery, simple assault, drug abuse and /or selling drugs, or a whole host of felonies and misdemeanors, these things will show up on any background check.

A background check cannot tell the future of crime. If the purchase who purchases the gun has never been arrested or even issued a citation of anything illegal, then his record will be clean. With a clean record of a crime free life, how does that background check then prevent that same person from then using his newly purchased gun to go out and commit a crime with it?

I have purchased guns before and have never not had to go through a background check. The gun show loophole as the some call it is a joke. Even dealers have to conduct a background check at a gun show . At least they have at every one of them I have ever been too. The so called gun show loophole is not actually where a representative from a store sells an individual a gun with question. It is merely where one individual shows up and sell his privately owned firearm to another individual with absolutely no affiliation with a registered FFL dealer.

You can do the same thing from home. I would never do such a thing in fear that the other person would use the gun I sold him to commit a crime with it and the serial number would be registered in my name. That is a stupid thing to do, but people do sell guns right out of their own home. In my state that is legal.

There are over 200 million guns floating around America with over 12 trillion rounds of ammo stockpiled around the country. If people were as violent as the left wing media makes them out to be, civilization would not exist.

I do not own guns to hunt with, though I have hunted before. Firearms is a hobby for some. Collecting, etc. Shooting is also a sport. An Olympic sport to be exact. MY hobby of target shooting as an enthusiast does not make me a cold blooded killer. I have never shot anyone and hope I never have to. I support the right for others to open and conceal carry if they so choose (a right to choose), but I personally do not carry a firearm on me or even in my vehicle unless I am going for a stroll in the pasture, field, or woods. Even then it is more for self defense than for hunting. We have stray feral canines and feral hogs and a quite a few aggressive coyote packs running around killing off horses and goats and such. I carry in the wild because i would rather be able to fend off a wild creature than become the next victim of one. I do not necessarily carry to kill on purpose, but if I see an attack coming, I would feel better with a gun or some defensive weapon than not having one.

As for home defense, I support guns for that and it is legal to defend your family against a threat if the police is not able to get there in time. Of course you should always call the police first, but self defense is a right.

As for the purpose of guns, left wingers have it correct. Guns are made for killing. So are bow and arrows, spears, swords, etc. They are weapons, but are also used as a tool. Hunting requires these tools. The absolute purpose of the second amendment has absolutely ZERO to do with hunting though. It is put into place in order that citizen have the right to form militias to protect themselves from their own government should that government become a tyranny.

Sorry if people do not like it, but that was the intent. People say even if America did become a tyranny, citizens could not fight off the military with its superior firepower and capability. Not entirely true. all that superior firepower and training has not helped them in their struggle against private citizen militias in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria yet. It bothers me that we have weapons that can provide a bright flash and make an entire city disappear, but cannot defeat a bunch of goat humpers driving stolen Toyotas and firing antique weapons. either they have a super powers of invincibility, o we are holding back our capabilities.

This web page claims that people who live in "more conservative states" are more likely to be killed by guns than people in "more liberal states." I have not bothered to examine the claim, but I do know that according to the FBI and religious affiliation surveys, violence increases as religiosity increases.

https://www.crowdpac.com/blog/gun-deaths

It looks like the web page does not take in to account population density. That invalidates the chart.

https://www.crowdpac.com/blog/gun-deaths

@#16 Did you mention something about poisoning the well?

Do any antis ever discuss what liberty is, how it should be exercised, how government must not impede it...or are these concepts foreign to those who avoid firearms?

You're getting back to that idea that only government can be trusted with weapons. Is corruption something to be encouraged? Do we deny human nature regarding power or try to govern it in any way?

Basic history lesson: Once upon a time, there was a King. He did as he pleased. Eventually, those the King ruled escaped and began a new nation that split the power between many government officials who were answerable to the people, making the people the final authority on matters of law. You now reside in that new nation where the government is to obey the laws of the land established for the Liberty and benefit of the people.

ron gets today's award for the post where thought is most seriously lacking

How ironic, ron. "Laws", by their very nature, limit "Liberty".

Which do you favor? Your sense of "Liberty" appears to more closely match "license" and "anarchy" than the true definition of "Liberty".

(P.S. ron, your referring to the scholars who post here as "antis" is Poisoning the Well.)

#37
"Basic history lesson..."

I'm always amused by the ignorant provincialism of the many Americans who assume that America is the world; here that American history is History. Not all democracies developed in the same way as the U.S. Some of them are indisputably more democratic, and considering (among other things) the somewhat feudalistic lack of mobility and the oligarchical distribution of wealth in today's America, more free. Worshiping an illusory Liberty has become a device of enslavement.

...especially when it comes bundled with a political agenda that insists on "Liberty for me & my faction at the expense of Liberty for everyone else".

"Basic history lesson: Once upon a time, there was a King. He did as he pleased. Eventually, those the King ruled escaped "

No, he didn't. He needed the support of Parliament, in particular the Commons, where bills providing him money came from. His policy against the north american colonies was subject to constant attack, by the likes of William Pitt ("Pittsburgh", you may have heard of that American town). The members of the Commons were elected, and the property restrictions and the like weren't that different than those adopted by the new United States.

Our Founders would've been happy with an outcome that gave them the same democratic rights as those held by Englishmen in England. Their fight against the King wasn't against the English form of semi-democracy, but rather the refusal of the King to make the Colonies full partners with England.

Ron misunderstands history, just as he understands everything else.

#43
My point is that the persons who are most obsessed with LIBERTY as a grand abstraction fail to see how and by what it's being constrained, and in fact support the forces that constrain it. In practice the liberty they so vocally proclaim is the right of the powerful, i.e. the ultra-rich and the large corporations, to screw the powerless, a category they themselves usually belong to. An example: those who believe in LIBERTY are against unions and regulations. The institutions and rules that protect them are weakened, and their identification with the powerful leaves them even more defenseless.

#44
Thanks.

#46
Yes. Ron reduces history to a fairy tale.

Now this guy, clearly anti-American, is warning folks in Europe not to fuck up their response to terrorism the way the United States did after September 11. /snark

Too little too late?

Of course, life would be much simpler if my computer would sense my intent to include a link and just do it, rather than making me actually do it.

http://www.politico.eu/article/us-senator-warns-eu-against-dragnet-resp…

#40 Referring to posters as "scholars" gives them more credibility than they deserve.

Let's talk Liberty...http://tinyurl.com/jr8sxro
The Principle

1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that the God-given, unalienable right of Man to "Liberty" means primarily Freedom from Government-over-Man--or, otherwise stated, Liberty against Government-over-Man.

Liberty-Responsibility

3. According to this philosophy, Liberty must always be taken to mean Individual Liberty-Responsibility, with emphasis upon the duty of respecting the equal rights of others and just laws expressive of "just powers" (to quote the term of the Declaration of Independence) designed to safeguard the equal rights of all Individuals. Individual Liberty-Responsibility involves the self-governing Individual's being burdened with the duties underlying his share of the responsibility for their safety of the Liberty of all Individuals, and of their other unalienable rights. Lacking such a sense of responsibility, Liberty can readily degenerate into license. Individual Liberty-Responsibility denotes that challenging freedom which tests the courage and wisdom of Free Man because of the truth that:

Only the brave dares to be--only the wise can remain--Free Man

By accepting the challenge, performing the duties, of

Individual Liberty-Responsibility under constitutionally limited government."

#47
That's a very well-written comment which my #43 summarizes (in too few words perhaps).

ron, did you get your entire education from bumper stickers?

#43...how does this show favor to one side vs another?
#54...public education...and college degree at a State run Liberal Arts deal...

Kevin (#8): Why should these two people have not been allowed to purchase firearms? Their intent could not have been known.

The woman had been posting praise for the ISIS leader on Facebook (under an assumed name.) This was discovered quickly after the massacre; it might have been discovered beforehand.

Ron (#10): At what point do the antis concede that their policies are spectacular failures responsible for disarming the law abiding while the armed criminal runs amok?

When 20,000 people are not denied guns when they should be. The linked article says the 20,000 were denied guns. It's hypothetically possible to make a case that they should have gotten their guns — but you haven't made that case.

If certain politicians are loathe to deport 10 million people, how do they propose finding and acquiring hundreds of millions of weapons that are now in private hands?

Who has proposed this?

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/11/20/democrats-push-…

This article makes clear the basis of the NRA's objection to preventing those on the FBI's terrorist watch list from buying guns. It's the same as it ever was: that some names on the watch list may not belong there.

It is in principle a valid objection. Many have in the past been prevented from boarding airplanes because they shared a name with someone on the list. However, I haven't heard of that happening for years. And in any case, the NRA's solution is exactly the wrong one. The right solution would be to prevent those listed from buying guns, and then give them a way to challenge the decision. This provision already exists for those who think they are on the list by mistake.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599… This is a point that we should all agree to...that government watch/no-fly lists are inappropriately wide nets burdening more innocent people than is acceptable. ( A different rabbit trail...)

Even POTUS admitted the impotency of the State to keep people safe via intrusive surveillance. The impotency of all the previous "gun safety" laws is evident, and everyone agrees that further measures will not eradicate these criminal acts.

#59...no...they've not openly admitted it...why would they? NYT just did , though...do we think they stand alone? http://tinyurl.com/nje4gru

Oh wait...sure they do...http://tinyurl.com/oj5xvyp"
“Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the UK is a good example,” Clinton said at a town hall Friday in New Hampshire, referring to mass shootings in those countries.

“That was a buyback program. The Australian government as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns and they basically clamped down going forward” on gun control, Clinton said.

She conveniently left out the word MANDATORY buy back." "

"MANDATORY Safety for the Public", anyone?

Go ahead say it: "We'll all be safer if everyone has a gun in his hand". In 3.. 2.. 1..

ron, I'm not surprised you have no idea of the facts behind the situation in Australia, as the coverage of the laws and research on the results has been spotty (and the "research" that gets reported on Fox, Breitbart, and other conspiracy outlets is uniformly false).

First, the notion that Australia's laws for gun ownership were identical to ours is not correct - there were always more restrictions than there are here - there is no provision in their Constitution like we have. That doesn't mean guns weren't widely own, or important, but the situation was not identical to ours. Key point that is repeatedly omitted by the right, as are the facts about the buyback program.
The buyback purchased and destroyed nearly 1 million firearms, mostly semi-automatic .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns (I don't believe individual states in Australia kept detailed records breaking this information down more completely: If they did I've never seen it). Again, contrary to the writings of commonly sent emails or the facebook "warnings" about the buyback, murders and suicides did not skyrocket after the buyback. The typical bit of deception used to make this point is to give "statistics" in isolation, with no supporting context. For example, I was just sent an email about Australia saying "After the buyback Victoria experienced a 300% increase in gun homicides from 1996 to 1997."
Well, no -that's complete bullshit. A check shows that in 1996 and 1997 Victoria's population was roughly 4 million. In 1996 they had 7 gun homicide deaths. In 1997 they had 19 (which is an increase of 171% - the folks who wrote the email are apparently as numerically challenged as they are ethically challenged). Note that whether you think in terms of raw numbers, or percentage change, if you are claiming to argue there has been a long term pattern of increase, that bit of isolated data and poor representation doesn't do it. It is worth noting that suicide rates by gun and homicide rates by gun are down from their pre-buyback levels.

There are many more problems with the "facts" in your statement, but one thing is clear: your take on what happened in Australia is as far from correct as I would be if I were to try to design a nuclear reactor.

The little summary at this link is about 5 years old but it does provide a decent summary of valid studies and statistics about Australia's program. Read it. And stop getting your "facts" from places known to staffed by people who are nothing more than paid liars.

https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2013/01/bull…

#61...I'm not sure with the state of education in the US, that everyone being armed would be the ideal solution. However, I don't believe that law-abiding people should be burdened or treated like criminals for having the means and desire to defend their families.

People who determine to learn proper weapons handling and usage are not a threat to society. This does presuppose an educated and moral people.

Here's a report on 15 recent mass shootings. It finds that in 7, possibly 8, of the cases, there was documentation of previous crime or mental illness that should have prevented the shooters from buying the guns they used.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-…

The import seems obvious: information on such conditions is not reaching the law enforcement agencies that should have it. The system needs improvement.

Background checks cannot prevent all mass shootings, but they can prevent more mass shootings. That is enough reason for strengthening them.

The last two links in Ron's #60 are to sites slugged "LegalInsurrection" and "AmericasFreedomFighters." Needless to say that in claiming the New York Times and Hilary Clinton have called for confiscation of Americans' guns they are, um, making inoperative statements.

Dean, we're told that "The leopard cannot change his spots".

The import seems obvious: Until the system has been improved, all sales of guns in the United States should be halted.

Wonder how fast the NRA would scramble to make the system work properly?

But.. Wouldn't that only be a form of self-contradiction?

Oh, man, shoulda retorted immediately with, 'Why every Muslim “should be punished” because of a tiny few number with guns.'

Watch his jaw drop and smoke curl out his ears.

(Intentionally didn't add watch his eyes glaze and start rolling around aimlessly, since that's normal for his type... Though most are mouth-breathers.)

I live in the USA. I want to have "Freedom":

Freedom from the Fear that my fellow citizen unnecessarily possesses one or more guns, any of which could be used to shoot me, a family member, a neighbor.

Freedom from the Wants & cravings of my gun-loving neighbor's extremist insecurities that warp his mind into thinking that he should be allow to possess firearms because such power will provide the palliative to soothe his aching fears.

Freedom from the corrupting Speech (influence) of the NRA, which seeks to subvert Democracy and hold my elected political leaders hostage unless they do the bidding of this unpopular minority.

Freedom to live a life in a country that supports and follows the ideals it was founded on, including service to society, personal responsibility, and doing unto others as we would have done to us -- not "every man for himself", Survivalism, or fascist ideologies.

Give me the liberty of these Freedoms!

(Perhaps someone should commission a Rockwell 5th Freedom: Freedom from a right-wing militaristic society.)

Better background checks are a good idea.

If someone is mentally ill that should be a reason not to pass a background check.

Of course, we have to be careful not to include people on lists they shouldn't be on.

However, not the idea for a permit to have a gun is a bad idea (desertphile).

Do you get a permit for free speech - renewed or denied every three years?

No.

You cannot permit fundamental rights.

#72 "Freedom to live a life in a country that supports and follows the ideals it was founded on, including ... personal responsibility, and doing unto others as we would have done to us — " Are you appealing to the Christian "Golden Rule" as a foundational principle of America? Would that not also include being pro-life and pro self-defense (personal responsibility)?

How is one to defend oneself without weaponry? How will the infirm or weak respond to criminal force? What should the victims of the recent mass shootings have done?

Possessing a gun may currently be a Constitutional right, but it is in no way a fundamental right.

Cosmicomics is spot-on: I’m always amused by the ignorant provincialism of the many Americans who assume that America is the world.

America is an aberration in the world for this "right" to populate our homes with unnecessary deadly weapons. The Civilized World does not allow this, and proves that it is not only not fundamental, it is entirely unnecessary.

The bill of rights (1-10), like freedom of speech (1st amendment), freedom of religion (1st amendment), the right to keep and bear arms (2nd amendment), right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure (4th amendment); right against self-incrimination (5th amendment); right to counsel (6th amendment); right to a jury trial (7th amendment); right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment (8th amendment), etc. are what are know as fundamental rights.

They are individual rights and they are fundamental - pretty much by definition in the United States.

This is a USA thing.

but I disagree with you Brainstorms.

In the USA - the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right - like the right to free speech.

You do not need a permit from the government (Federal or State) to have a rifle in your house. And the suggestion that you can only have a rifle in your home if you get a permit, were it to be passed into law, would be struck down as a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Now the right to carry the gun out in the public can be subject to a permit (we call it the right to carry in Minnesota).

Although most scholars think if a law is to restrictive is would violate the right to BEAR arms, and some courts (lower level) are beginning to strike down laws using the right to bear arms portion of the 2nd amendment.

Bottom line - it doesn't matter if you think America is an aberration - the 2nd amendment is the law of the land and governs in the USA.

Brainstorms #75:

Here is a wikipedia cite for our review:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights

I quote from the article:

"This set in motion a continuous process under which each individual right under the Bill of Rights was incorporated, one by one. That process has extended more than half a century, with the free speech clause of the First Amendment first incorporated in 1925 in Gitlow v New York. The most recent amendment completely incorporated as fundamental was the Second Amendment right to possess and bear arms for personal self-defense, in McDonald v Chicago, handed down in 2010."

So in the USA - the 2nd amendment is fundamental - as stated by the Supreme court in 2010.

BoR specifically limits Congress (the Legislative branch of the feds) from abridging these few Rights and reserves the rest to the People.

But as we've traded negative law for positive law ( http://tinyurl.com/q75fgx5 )...MOAR State infringements are demanded by some (because they fear the NRA?).

ron:

"People who determine to learn proper weapons handling and usage are not a threat to society. "

Let me fix that for you:

"People who determine to learn how to properly fly large airliners are not a threat to society" ... or very large buildings.

Right.

Of course, if we were to accept the truth of your original casting of the message, then it would appear that there's absolutely no reason for the NRA or other 2nd Amendment fundamentalists to reject calls for proper training and licensing of people before they're allowed to buy a gun.

Ron:

"BoR specifically limits Congress (the Legislative branch of the feds) from abridging these few Rights and reserves the rest to the People."

And the Constitution specifically decrees that there be one Supreme Court, and among the powers of that Court ...

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution ..."

That last pesky word making it obvious that the Court, and not individuals like you, decide what is, and what is not, a constitutional act of congress.

Desertphile #81:

Driving is a privilege not a right - that is why the state can license it.

That is not the case with having a gun in your home.

No license required.

If you want to change that you will need to get the constitution amended.

#82
I guess this gentleman is contemptible for protecting himself and his coworker, in your humble opinion.
http://tinyurl.com/jses2aw

He just needed his "real penis", eh? What do you suggest he did with it at that point?

I got it #82...http://tinyurl.com/j39a6bb

That's the move you think REAL men can put on people with guns, right?

So if driving was a right under the constitution, it would be wrong to license it...

the right to own a firearm is predicated upon membership in a militia.

Here in West Michigan we have a not-insignificant number of clowns in the "open carry' sect who assert that every citizen is according to the Constitution, a member of a national military by default, and so is automatically allowed to carry a weapon wherever he/she chooses to go: schools, churches, day care sites, etc.

#87 "...the right to own a firearm is predicated upon membership in a militia."

If you say so... http://lawandliberty.org/what_mil.htm ""Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.

These statutes also divide the Militia into various classes, such as "organized" or "unorganized","

That's a very broad definition...but it refutes this silliness about militia membership. Wrong tree...

People have listened to so much wingnut radio that it's now mainstream to bloviate about everything. When language has no meaning, reason has no meaning; falsehoods are equal to facts, and idiots swamp the body politic. It's the age of the troll bois! Enter RickA, ron, sn, and all the rest...

Desertphile, to quote myself (#43):

The “BUT! FREEDOM!” clowns whore-ship their illusory "Liberty" …especially when it comes bundled with a political agenda that insists on “Liberty for me & my faction at the expense of Liberty for everyone else”.

Given the topic at hand, let's render that, The “BUT! FREEDOM!” clowns war-ship their illusory “Liberty” ...

@#93
Why are guns related to orifices to you?

Pro-freedom and pro-life are related in that people do what they can to protect innocent life. It is natural for people who value life to defend their own and other people's bodies (especially those who are infants). Guns are simply effective items in that cause. Not to initiate violence, but to defend from violence.

Items (guns, knives, vehicles) can be used appropriately or inappropriately, it is up to the user to determine how the item is utilized. Hence, we do not jail the item, but the person who misuses the item.

Crickets regarding #84 & #85?

The reference, ron, is to all of the inherent contradictions people on the right have for rights of people (I have no experience with your views on abortion, same sex marriage, etc., so nothing aimed at you).
For far too many the right to carry is obvious: the right to same sex marriage (as an example) should be prohibited because (plug any of a wide variety of reasons here).

Desertphile #88:

Yeah - they amended the constitution to fix that. See the 13th amendment.

If you want to license gun ownership you will have to amend the constitution also.

I am not sure why that makes you, dean and brainstorms so mad - it is just a fact.

I am not sure why that makes you, dean and brainstorms so mad

The repeated self-enforced lack of comprehension on your parts. What part of the comment

I am pro-gun ownership. I grew up with guns; all of my peers had and have guns; our parents had guns and our children have guns.

above makes you think Desertphile or the rest of us are against gun ownership.

The problem (for me) is the complete lack of honesty the proponents for open carry give: crime rates are up (not true).
Murders with guns are up. (not true). People with guns stop crimes all the time (not true - it is an incredibly rate occurrence). government has no right to limit where we can carry guns (not true - the Constitution clearly gives courts the rights to make decisions on that).

A little honesty and acknowledgement of facts from the pro-carry group would be wonderful - it just isn't there.

#99 Crime rates have fallen as people have taken to arming themselves. http://tinyurl.com/nb8kw25

As for the rarity of people using weapons to stop crime...I'd reference the link in #84 where a robbery is stopped, but this is unlikely to make the paper or the statistics column anywhere. As the economy sinks and morality is not exactly robust, does one think that society becomes more or less likely to turn to violence against their fellow man? Point being that these incidents can't be quantified, but as more people are dwelling in cities, it seems logical that attempted crimes are more likely.

Government is converting negative rights into positive rights, overstepping their authority and burdening the law-abiding public, while selectively prosecuting law breakers. (Nation of laws or a Nation of men?)

It doesn't matter if crime is down when it happens to you or your family. Stats are interesting, but if you're the 1/10,000...you're still injured or worse.

Do weapons give one the license to be discourteous? No. Violent? No. Anything other than what you'd expect from a law-abiding citizen? No. Have we lost a bit of tact and respect for one another as we're divided along political lines? To be sure. Not to excuse it, but what do we expect as politicians whip the public into a frenzy 3-4 days a week?

Some prefer to hide the weapon and retain the element of surprise, others find exposed weapons easier to access and effective at deterrence.

Anyway, the easiest way to tell if someone is against law-abiding citizens obtaining and using weapons to defend themselves is that they generally speak poorly of metal/plastic devices used to fire projectiles. These inanimate objects become an evil scourge on our society and the STATE cannot go far enough to eliminate them from our conscientiousness.

DP has an interesting line that he draws where people can keep but not bear arms unless they are home. When and where that was ever a societal norm, I'm unaware, but nevertheless, when pro RKBA people are attacked with Elementary School ad hominem "logic", it's a good indicator of where people stand.

Dean #99:

I am not talking to Desertphile about open carry.

We are discussing his idea to license gun ownership (see comment #71).

I am merely pointing out that his idea is not constitutional and he has to change the constitution if he wants to implement it.

Open carry is a different issue than owning a gun.

Now I am happy to discuss open carry with you, rather than licensing gun ownership with Desertphile.

Yes - I agree crime is down in general and murder with guns is down. The data show a giant drop from 1980 to today, and it is all down to about 1/3 of what it was in 1980 ish.

I agree people with guns do not stop crime all the time.

I agree that states have some right to permit where people can carry guns.

In Minnesota - people with a permit to carry cannot carry into a school.

They cannot carry into a business that has a sign saying "Guns are banned on these premises".

However, some states are saying guns are banned everywhere and these laws are being struck down by Federal courts because of the "bear" portion of the 2nd amendment.

For example, recently a court held it was not constitutional to ban guns on federal parks - so now people can bring a gun to a federal park.

State parks are a different issue.

But I would say to you that it doesn't matter if lots of people have used guns to prevent crime.

It doesn't matter if it is a good idea to let lots of people own guns.

What matters is what the constitution says and how the courts have interpreted the 2nd amendment right.

The 2nd amendment has been incorporated and is a fundamental right of each citizen of the USA.

The burden of proof is on the courts to deny a person the right to own a gun.

Like committing a person because they are insane - a court process would have to be launched to deny a person the right to own a gun.

Absent a court order denying gun ownership, after the government met its burden of proof (crazy - felon - restraining order - etc.) - anyone can own a gun.

Even kids can own a gun.

In Minnesota a child of 12 (going off memory - it might be 13) can take gun safety and hunt with a parent.

Some people think this is a bad idea - but that doesn't matter.

Most of the ideas I read require changing the 2nd amendment.

That is all I am pointing out.

Desertphile #101.

Assuming this person is a USA citizen and not a French person, I don't see anything in his rant which would preclude his right to own a gun and even buy ammunition for it.

People have a right to free speech and just because they say something you disagree with does not mean that another right they have is curtailed.

Now if this person was talking about taking his guns and shooting muslims or feminists that might be enough for the government to meet their burden of proof to take away the right of this person to own a gun.

But remember - the person has the right unless the government can meet their burden of proof - just like everybody has the right to free speech - but cannot use it to incite specific actions of violence.

So in principal I say yes - this person can own a gun (based on just your little snippet). His opinion and hate mean nothing with regard to his right to keep and bear arms.

I see that the international predictions market now has a USA gun legislation market: will President Obama close the "gun show loophole" regarding background checks? The stock opened at 9 cents. That's a damning indictment against the USA, recognized by international observers.

Since this is considered such a rare occurrence by some here, I thought it would be of interest...http://tinyurl.com/gl878pg

Riddle me this anti's--What is one to do when at the point of a criminal's gun?

Ron, why are children's lives less important to you than your hobby?

ron, it isn't just a "consideration" that people with guns stopping crime is a rarity, it's a fact - one of those things you don't like.

Facts never get in the way of the agendas of the pro-deathers.

#107 "Ron, why are children’s lives less important to you than your hobby?"

The lives of children (and other innocent people) is THE REASON for armed self-defense (my "hobby"). They're of primary importance to me.

Why are they not to everyone?

(Thanks for asking...and I haven't figured out how to do the move in #85 to keep everyone safe)

DP, #111...I'm saddened that you were injured by either negligent or criminal acts involving firearms. I can see where you're coming from and that you may not have had an opportunity to return fire (if malice was involved). You may, however, be painting with too broad a brush regarding people who wish to travel with long guns (or sidearms or both).

I may be stupid, but I knew that you can't distinguish the law abiding from the criminal just on looks alone. I'm sorry you had to learn this in such a traumatic way. "You stupid shits are too fucking stupid to understand that a criminal with a gun looks exactly the same as a non-criminal with a gun; that forces us sane pro-life people to assume everyone with a gun is a threat and a danger and a criminal— we have no fucking choice in the matter."--I suppose that's how intelligent people write and reason, yes? Thanks for documenting those "facts".

Yes, Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson, and many other action actors have carried my gun in action movies...and it does, indeed, warm my heart.

I see in the news this morning that a three-year-old shot both of his parents with a hand gun, in Albuquerque. The boy has a fine future working for the NRA.

The boy has a fine future working for the NRA.

Shaping gun non-control policies, no doubt.

I agree with the general thrust of this piece, to call out all who voted against MT, a common sense change to our gun laws which will pose no serious obstacle to legal gun ownership when it passes.

However, I disagree with the author's choice to characterize those who vote against MT as being "by definition gun nuts". This is likely true of a few, but extremely unlikely to be true of all. I say this because opposition to any sort of gun regulation proposal, at least at the national level, is always conspicuously spearheaded by the industry lobby group the represents the interests of the manufacturers of the item in question. And like all industry lobby groups, this one is simply doing what they were sent there to do: whip support for any law that helps them push product, and whip opposition against any law which would hinder them to push product.

So, while it may be satisfying to caste all lobby apologists as nutters, this ultimately hurts the cause, because as much as you'd think otherwise, being labelled a gun nut is actually a politically preferable option to being labelled an industry pawn. at least with the gun nut label, Congressional R's can count on the support of the nativist wing of their base. And the gun lobby itself counts on this too. So let's acknowledge this dynamic and not play into it. Call it what it is: it's voting for the interests of an industrial lobby which produces a product whose use results in great physical harm to the American public. A public who, by the way, agrees with the proposed new regulation by a margin of about 9 to 1. Simply pointing out these facts deprives the industry's friends in Congress of the "plausible deniability" they need to continue supporting the lobby. But calling them all gun nuts renews their lease on this excuse.