GOP = Guns Over People

GOP guns

TPM:

The latest national survey from Quinnipiac University confirmed something that’s been widely evident in the months since the massacre in Newtown, Conn.: Support for universal background checks is pretty much, well, universal. According to the poll, 91 percent of American voters support background checks for all gun buyers, while a mere 8 percent said they are opposed. The poll also showed 88 percent of gun owners in favor of universal background checks…

Today two things happened:

(1) President Obama eloquently made the case for gun safety legislation that is overwhelmingly popular with the American people.

(2) Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell declared that he would not allow any such legislation to be debated or voted on in the U.S. Senate.

UPDATE: RUNNING AWAY: Backers Of Gun Filibuster Duck Interview Requests. Cowardly is the only way to describe this.

  1. #1 by Bob S. on April 8, 2013 - 7:00 pm

    Richard,

    Aren’t you the person who refuses to release your tax returns and financial statements because you aren’t running for public office?

    Aren’t you the one who castigated Mitt Romney for releasing only 1 or 2 years of his returns when everyone else was releasing more?

    I don’t care about his high school transcripts or college transcripts or his law papers — all of which he has failed to release.

    His birth certificate is a requirement to run for the office and should have been released as soon as there were questions about it. After all, as you say, if he has nothing to hide, why not release it?

    My purchase or sale of a firearm isn’t in the public domain like running for office. There are already laws against people illegally buying or selling firearms. Why don’t you try to get those laws enforced by the government first before we make it double secret illegal to sell a firearm to a prohibited person, eh?

    The Syracuse study found the number of federal weapons prosecutions fell from about 11,000 in 2004 to about 6,000 under the Obama administration in 2011 — and ticked up to 7,770 in 2012.

    The GOP letter also cited data from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), which found in 2010, of 6 million Americans who applied to buy a gun, less than 2 percent — or 76,000 — were denied. Of those, the ATF referred 4,732 cases for prosecution. Of them, just 44 were prosecuted, and only 13 were punished for lying or buying a gun illegally.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/25/gun-debate-gun-crime-prosecutions-on-decline-amid-call-for-more-laws/#ixzz2PvJjVBGt

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on April 9, 2013 - 9:57 am

    Bob S.–

    Nobody ever asked to see a presidential candidate’s birth certificate until 2008. The Obama campaign posted it on their website in June that year. Ironically his opponent, John McCain, was born outside the United States.

    There’s nothing inconsistent about declining prosecutions when laws are inadequate. The problem is the Brady Act is too easy to dodge. It is very difficult to go after so-called “straw buyers.”

    Because of the nation’s hodgepodge of state and federal gun laws, it’s difficult to catch and convict people who act as fronts to buy weapons for felons. In essence, the authorities must prove the straw purchaser knew he or she was buying a gun for someone who couldn’t pass the background check and deliberately flouted the laws.

    …”Basically, short of a confession, you won’t be able to prove that case,” said Mike Smith, supervisor of the gang prosecution unit in the Cook County state’s attorney’s office.

  3. #3 by Bob S. on April 9, 2013 - 10:57 am

    Richard,

    While you may be technically correct about people asking for the Birth Certificate; it is hardly the first time the issue of the birth place of a president has came up.

    Mr. McCain was born on a military installation in the Canal Zone, where his mother and father, a Navy officer, were stationed. His campaign advisers say they are comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the requirement and note that the question was researched for his first presidential bid in 1999 and reviewed again this time around.

    And I’ll note for those mathematically challenged — 1999 was 9 years before the issue was raised with President Obama.

    Nor was he the only one.

    Mr. McCain is not the first person to find himself in these circumstances. The last Arizona Republican to be a presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, faced the issue. He was born in the Arizona territory in 1909, three years before it became a state. But Goldwater did not win, and the view at the time was that since he was born in a continental territory that later became a state, he probably met the standard.

    It also surfaced in the 1968 candidacy of George Romney, who was born in Mexico, but again was not tested. The former Connecticut politician Lowell P. Weicker Jr., born in Paris, sought a legal analysis when considering the presidency, an aide said, and was assured he was eligible. Franklin D. Roosevelt Jr. was once viewed as a potential successor to his father, but was seen by some as ineligible since he had been born on Campobello Island in Canada. The 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, whose birthplace is Vermont, was rumored to have actually been born in Canada, prompting some to question his eligibility

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=0

    There’s nothing inconsistent about declining prosecutions when laws are inadequate

    You have to be joking, right?

    A claim that actually proving someone knowingly and willingly broke the law is a INADEQUATE?

    Wow….I am really glad you don’t get to be the only one making the laws.

    Okay Richard…..how will the new background check stop the transfer of firearms to prohibited persons?

    Please note that I did not ask how will it make it easier to convict after the fact. But stop the transfer of firearms.

    And given that most firearms aren’t registered; how will you know who previously owned a firearm?

    • #4 by Richard Warnick on April 9, 2013 - 2:13 pm

      You dismiss the likelihood of conviction as if it was not an issue. But prosecutors have limited resources, and they tend not to pursue cases where a conviction is almost impossible.

      • #5 by Bob S. on April 9, 2013 - 2:30 pm

        I don’t dismiss it Richard but the statistics show that few people are even charged with the crimes.

        The GOP letter also cited data from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), which found in 2010, of 6 million Americans who applied to buy a gun, less than 2 percent — or 76,000 — were denied. Of those, the ATF referred 4,732 cases for prosecution. Of them, just 44 were prosecuted, and only 13 were punished for lying or buying a gun illegally.

        Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/25/gun-debate-gun-crime-prosecutions-on-decline-amid-call-for-more-laws/#ixzz2Q045R455

        And given that plea bargaining is so prevalent as a prosecution device; your argument is further weakened. They don’t have to win the case..heck most cases are settled by plea bargain. Yet even that isn’t being down.

        So…please explain how a change in the law, such as requiring background checks, is going to stop transfers?

        That is the reason why you and other gun control advocates want it, right? Keep guns out of the wrong hands.

        • #6 by Richard Warnick on April 9, 2013 - 2:39 pm

          I don’t claim that background checks are the answer. I want a ban on mass-murder weapons and high-capacity magazines.

          The universal background check was proposed by the Gun Lobby, that’s why it’s still on the table.

          “We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere, for anyone,” NRA head Wayne LaPierre said in May 1999.

          This is like health care and cap-and-trade. The right-wing proposes something, the Obama administration says OK, and then suddenly no Republican votes can be found anymore.

          • #7 by Bob S. on April 9, 2013 - 2:51 pm

            Richard,

            I think you are way off base in accusing the NRA of proposing outlawing private sales– using a comment from the 90s.
            I don’t remember the NRA or other ‘gun lobby’ proposing it but supporting it. Luckily the NRA has came to their senses.

            So you support a law that will not work while working toward a complete ban.

            Why should gun owners agree to anything like that knowing your eventual goal is a ban?

  4. #8 by Bob S. on April 9, 2013 - 11:34 am

    By the way Richard,

    Are you going to release your Tax returns?

    We need to make sure you aren’t ducking out of paying your fair share.
    Or do you think what you do with your money and your property is your business?

    • #9 by Richard Warnick on April 9, 2013 - 2:15 pm

      When you run out of legitimate arguments, here come the personal attacks.

      Look, maybe you ought to try and justify the position of Mitch McConnell that the American people do not even deserve a vote on legislation that has 91 percent support.

      I know the Gun Lobby is fear-mongering about gun registration. Personally, I think it makes sense, the same as having a license plate on your car. But nothing in the proposed legislation allows for a national gun registry.

      There is no “national gun registry.” The 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act explicitly prohibits it. The working version of the background checks bill, S. 374, does not create a national registry. It gets around the problem of regulating gun show or person-to-person gun sales by preventing sales “unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm.”

      So, yeah, if you think it’s a good idea to give a firearm (a deadly weapon) to your son/daughter for Christmas, under the proposed law you would have to take it to a licensed dealer. But that’s only because the Gun Lobby made common-sense registration illegal – remember that.

      • #10 by Bob S. on April 9, 2013 - 2:40 pm

        Richard,

        Well if showing how hypocritical you are is a personal attack, then it qualifies.

        I find it interesting you flatly refuse my desire to know what property or income you have but you want to know what property or income I might have if I own a firearm.

        Double standard?

        Jiminy Cricket, it is worse then talking to a brick wall. At least with the wall, I know it isn’t intelligent. YOU supposedly are.

        I don’t care how much ‘popular support’ an idea has — You didn’t seem to either when Prop 8 was approved by the California voters, did you?

        If it is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional. Further more, no evidence has been presented to show the law will work as advertised.

        And the bill in consideration does require records to be kept. How else will people be prosecuted for not conducting the check?

        So, yeah, if you think it’s a good idea to give a firearm (a deadly weapon) to your son/daughter for Christmas, under the proposed law you would have to take it to a licensed dealer.

        More importantly Richard — What if I decided to sell or give you a firearm for Christmas?

        Are you going to kill someone with it, commit mass murder?

        • #11 by Richard Warnick on April 9, 2013 - 2:43 pm

          There is no plan to register guns. Get that fact into your head. Politicians are too cowardly to even vote on background checks, which is a proposal that came originally from the Gun Lobby itself!

          • #12 by Bob S. on April 9, 2013 - 2:57 pm

            Richard,

            Why do you lie?

            You state there is no plan to register firearms despite repeated calls for just that!

            We’ve gone through this before and I’ve proven you to be a liar. There are calls for registration. Gun control advocates like you are planning for it.

            The Obama Administration’s National Institute for Justice admitted in a memo (posted on this site repeatedly) that background checks will not work without registration.

            So please, let’s debate the subject but stop lying about things already proven

  5. #13 by Richard Warnick on April 9, 2013 - 3:17 pm

    Bob S. asks:

    Why should gun owners agree to anything like that knowing your eventual goal is a ban?

    The short answer is that the background check legislation now before Congress has the support of 88 percent of gun owners, with 11 percent opposed. So Bob S. belongs to a tiny minority of a minority on an issue that has the support of 91 percent of Americans.

    The long answer is, there is already a federal ban on automatic weapons. We need to reinstate the previous ban on mass-murder weapons and high-capacity magazines in order to make it harder to commit mass shootings. The bogus claim that any of this violates the Constitution ignores the entire body of constitutional law.

    Public opinion strongly supports what I am saying.

    There is an emerging consensus on guns among the American public. Most Americans agree that handguns should not be banned, that more needs to be done to keep guns away from dangerous people, and that military-style weapons don’t belong on the streets.

    Federal law absolutely prohibits the establishment of a national gun registry. No legislation now before Congress proposes establishing a national gun registry. Blindly repeating the Gun Lobby fear-mongering on this issue is not an intelligent position to take.

    • #14 by Bob S. on April 9, 2013 - 3:37 pm

      Richard,

      You simply appear unable to stop lying.

      There is not ‘ban’ on automatic weapons. There is a prohibition on the sale of NEW fully automatic weapons but those made before 1986 are legal and in possession of thousands of individuals.

      You opinion is not enough to sway me no matter how many times you state it.

      The Heller Decision stated that a ban on an entire class of weapons was unconstitutional. Even the Gun Control Act of 1968 and modified in 1986 by the Hughes Amendment did not ban fully automatic firearms completely.

      So pray tell if we can’t ban fully automatic firearms; how in the world do you think it would constitutional to ban semi-automatic firearms?

      Your appeal to popular support does not sway me, no matter how many times you bring it up.

      So.. let’s recap.

      1. It would be unconstitutional to ban semi-automatic firearms.

      2. It would not be effective in reducing crime to enact a background check law — with or without registration.

      3. You didn’t answer the effing Question!

      Why should we agree to any new law knowing you and others like you want to ban firearms?

  6. #16 by Richard Warnick on April 9, 2013 - 4:22 pm

    Bob S.–

    You’re wrong on both points.

    1. It would be unconstitutional to ban semi-automatic firearms.

    Actually, Justice Scalia allowed for laws like that in his majority opinion on Heller. I’ve quoted it before, no need to do so again. But such a ban is not included in the package of gun safety regulations that the Senate is now refusing to even debate.

    2. It would not be effective in reducing crime to enact a background check law — with or without registration.

    Not true. The Gun Lobby has favored closing the gun show loophole for a long time (until recently). Research shows that 85-90 percent of the firearms used in crimes were purchased legally from unlicensed dealers or by “straw buyers” at licensed dealers.

  7. #17 by Bob S. on April 9, 2013 - 6:23 pm

    Richard,

    Scalia mentioned things like “Felon in possession”, “prohibition on carrying in sensitive places” and “mentally ill”. Nothing can be construed in those examples as approval of a ban on an entire class of firearms.

    here is a novel idea — instead of repeating your OPINION over and over and over and over again — why don’t you show me using Scalia’s words AFTER Heller that would indicate he would approve a ban on semi-automatic weapons.

    I realize you think everyone should just take your word but I’m a stubborn sort and want to see evidence.

    And that is a shabby logical fallacy combining two different activities and legal requirements to inflate the numbers.

    Let’s break down your argument – again.

    The report states that “of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale.

    Now that isn’t 27.7% of all guns used in crimes; just the ones that could be traced back to an FFL.

    And that was within a two year window, entirely possible that some of those guns were stolen from rightful owners, right?

    While many guns are taken off the street when people are arrested and any firearms in their possession are confiscated, a new study shows how easily arrestees believe they could illegally acquire another firearm

    So even if you make another law; do you really think that it would stop the criminals? I don’t.

    So that leaves private sales — by the way, it is a lie to say “unlicensed dealers” – either they are breaking the law by conducting a business, which is rare or the individual legally occassionally sells a firearm.

    Now given the huge number of firearms and let’s use the inaccurate figure of “40% of all firearm sales are through private sales” as a base.

    How — again I ask the question you refuse to answer — How will requiring a background check on sales stop a criminal from getting a firearm?

    It is already illegal to sell a firearm or purchase one through a straw purchase.

    How will requiring another step stop criminals from getting the gun?

    • #18 by Richard Warnick on April 9, 2013 - 7:12 pm

      I’ve quoted the relevant part of the Heller decision at least twice on this blog. Maybe you like circular discussions, but I prefer to move on.

      Similarly, we have established that the current law outlawing straw purchases is routinely violated in broad daylight (often with the “real” purchaser present) because it is nearly impossible to convict anyone absent a confession.

      And you can stop making the bogus argument that anything short of a perfectly effective law will have no effect at all. Every life we can save is a win, IMHO. Try to see the glass as half-full.

      How can you justify the position of Senator Mike Lee et al. that background checks should not be debated or voted on in the U.S. Senate? This legislation has as much public support as it is possible to have. Gun owners are for it. NRA members are for it. And they are going to filibuster this?

      • #19 by Bob S. on April 10, 2013 - 4:14 am

        Richard,

        The justification is simple – the filibuster is part of the debate and vote process. If the issue is sound and legal; then there should be no trouble a.) getting the senators not to filibuster it or b.) gaining enough votes to over ride it.

        You’ve quoted the section that I cited — Long standing laws such as prohibition on possession by felons, mentally ill or in sensitive places. I’m looking for supporting statements – not your words but Scalia’s — that would indicate a broader ban approval.

        You can not find that.

        I’m not making the argument that anything short of a perfectly effective law is will have no effect – You are making that case.

        Similarly, we have established that the current law outlawing straw purchases is routinely violated in broad daylight (often with the “real” purchaser present) because it is nearly impossible to convict anyone absent a confession

        The current requirement for background checks is not working — according to you– so let’s do it some more with more people.

        How in the world does it make sense?

        So an easily evaded law when done in front of experienced, knowledgeable people like licensed dealers is going to be effective when two people he doesn’t know come in and asks for a background check?

        It doesn’t make sense — it will not be effective at stopping criminals from getting firearms.

        • #20 by Richard Warnick on April 10, 2013 - 5:52 pm

          Not “let’s do it some more,” but let’s do it better. That makes perfect sense. You know, most Americans are concerned about the rising toll of shootings in our country.

          More people were killed by firearms in the USA last year than have died in 10 years of the Afghanistan war.

          • #21 by Bob S. on April 10, 2013 - 6:00 pm

            Richard,

            How is it going to be better?

            Do you have a list of every firearm in the country?
            Do you have a list of every gun owner in the country?

            Are you going to have inspections on a daily basis to insure firearms are where they are supposed to be?

            NO.

            What is going to happen is a criminal is going to get a gun and then in the investigation if there is every one the paper trail will be followed and some poor shlub who moved 4 times and lost a sales receipt is going to be changed with ‘gun running’.

            Meanwhile the people doing straw purchasing and having a long criminal record will have another charge they plea bargain out of.

            The National Institute of Justice — you remember — a part of the Barack Obama Administration’s Department of Justice — has said that ‘universal background checks’ will not be effective in reducing crime unless there is a national registration of firearms.

            So…..please if you can…explain how it will be done better??????

            I’ll wait but I wont’ hold my breathe

  8. #22 by cav on April 9, 2013 - 8:20 pm

    It’s so popular in fact that wasting a lot of the Precious senate’s
    precious time debating is wholly unnecessary. What then is holding up the vote Mr Lee?

  9. #23 by Bob S. on April 10, 2013 - 6:39 am

    Richard,

    Since you are unwilling to show the actual text of what Scalia wrote in the Heller Decision; I’ll do it.

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    Now what in that do you think justifies a ban on an entire class of firearms ?

    And it continues to say this:

    Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

    It certainly can not be argued that AR-15 /AK-74 pattern rifles aren’t ‘in common use’. Especially when a person considers the fully automatic version of those weapons are ‘in common use’ with many armies around the world and just about every local, county, state and federal law enforcement agency.

    Let’s look at what was said directly above that also:

    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

    Again — it is hard to argue (but I’m sure you’ll do it anyways) that the type of weapon under discussion isn’t used by the militia and that people don’t use those style of weapons for lawful purposes.

    Directly under the quote about “longstanding prohibitions” is this:

    The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

    While it is absolutely true that most people choose a handgun for self defense; it is equally true that many Americans choose an AR-15/Ak47 style rifle for self defense also.
    Even the Federal government recognizes the utility of that style of weapon for personal defense

    3.0 REQUIREMENTS AND TESTING STANDARDS
    3.1 General. DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.

    https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0

    Scalia continues with:

    Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.

    So if a city wide ban on handguns is unconstitutional under any standard of scrutiny and the federal government recognizes the type of weapon as being useful for ‘personal defense’ — just how do you think a ban on AR-15/AK-47 style weapons would be constitutional?
    Pure delusion?

    Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of Justice Stevens’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for … military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [short-barreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,” the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

    Here Scalia expands on his earlier comment and shows that if anything AR style weapons would be especially protected under the Miller decision.
    Unless you want to disagree that ‘its use could contribute to the common defense’?

    You might want to think carefully about how you argue this issue.

    That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machine guns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machine guns being useful in warfare in 1939.

    I’ll close with one last quote from the decision:

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    So….I’ve presented evidence supporting my view that a ban on ‘mass murder weapons’ as you call them would be unconstitutional.

    What evidence do you have to support your opinion?

  10. #24 by Richard Warnick on April 10, 2013 - 5:28 pm

    Bob S.–

    As you know, I have quoted Justice Scalia’s opinion several times already because he clearly approved the constitutionality of a mass-murder weapon ban. This is notable because it comes from the most right-wing member of the most right-wing Supreme Court of the last hundred years.

    Scalia, a card-carrying conservative and stalwart of the Court’s right-leaning majority, told “Fox News Sunday” that the Second Amendment’s language allowing citizens the right to own weapons doesn’t mean they can own any weapon they want.

    “There are some limitations that can be imposed,” Scalia said. “What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the (future) time.”

    In a controversial 2008 decision, the Supreme Court declared a handgun ban enacted by the District of Columbia unconstitutional, but the majority noted that, nonetheless, gun ownership was not an unlimited right, said Scalia, who wrote the opinion in that case.

    “It will have to be decided in future cases what limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible,” he added. “Some undoubtedly are.”

    Conclusion: The Gun Lobby position is far outside the mainstream, and even outside the bounds of a right-wing interpretation of the Constitution.

  11. #25 by Bob S. on April 10, 2013 - 5:35 pm

    Richard,

    Is that supposed to be authoritative source? It is an opinion piece that just restates your opinion.

    Come on, I used quotes and citations from the Heller Opinion itself to show why you are wrong.

    Remember, Miller didn’t hold that say that it was okay to ban sawed off shotguns, just that the government could tax them.

    So come on and cite some of his words to support it.

    Like they say in school. Show your work.

    I

    • #26 by Richard Warnick on April 10, 2013 - 5:56 pm

      I think it’s obvious that Justice Scalia believes Congress has the power to regulate what weaponry can be in the hands of the public. Sorry you don’t see it.

  12. #27 by Richard Warnick on April 10, 2013 - 6:09 pm

    Bob S.–

    Duly noted that the rising tide of gun violence doesn’t bother you at all. However, we have established that you are part of a tiny minority of a minority on this issue.

    Can you give me your opinion on the proposal from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA)? Will it make a difference or not?

    • #28 by Bob S. on April 10, 2013 - 6:19 pm

      Richard,

      Nice straw man argument but it doesn’t work. I do care about the ‘rising tide of gun violence”
      But passing more laws to make something more illegal isn’t going to solve that.

      Isn’t it already illegal for a prohibited person to purchase a firearm?
      Isn’t illegal to sell someone you know is a prohibited person a firearm?

      How is requiring a background check going to change that?
      As you stated earlier — most criminals are already getting their firearms through straw purchases. How is it going to change?

      That bill will not make a difference either.
      Why don’t you address the root causes of crimes instead of the tools used?

      • #29 by Richard Warnick on April 10, 2013 - 6:30 pm

        Manchin-Toomey proposal – a good idea or not, in your opinion?

        • #30 by Bob S. on April 10, 2013 - 7:03 pm

          I agree with the sentiments expressed here

          But aides on Capitol Hill admit that there is not a thing in the bill that would have prevented the killer, Adam Lanza, from killing 26 at the school in Newtown, Connecticut.

          “There’s nothing in this legislation that addresses the fact pattern at Sandy Hook,” a senior Senate aide told me on the phone.

          The aide explains that the bill expands on the background-check system already in place, but that the system doesn’t work properly.

          “They are expanding on a broken system that we know will fail,” says the aide.

          http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senate-aide-gun-law-wouldnt-have-stopped-newtown-massacre_716215.html

          • #31 by Richard Warnick on April 10, 2013 - 8:00 pm

            I agree. It’s an NRA-approved baby-step. Not enough. If it passes, they will play the same game of claiming the laws don’t work – when the Gun Lobby itself worked behind the scenes to make sure that the laws would not work!

  13. #32 by Bob S. on April 10, 2013 - 7:16 pm

    And this one is close to home for me.

    During his speech, a man who identified himself as “Texas George” walked back and forth in front of the crowd with a neon orange and white sign proclaiming “stop gun ban”. Several protesters in the crowd attempted to shield his sign from view with their own signs in support of new gun laws.

    Seeing the commotion in the crowd in front of him, Mr. Martinez said “someone needs to inform him that there is no gun ban currently…but we will make your sign legitimate shortly.” This comment received a loud cheer from the protesters. .

    http://www.examiner.com/article/rally-support-of-common-sense-gun-laws-draws-a-crowd-texas

    So are you going to keep lying by saying no one is calling for gun bans ?

    • #33 by Richard Warnick on April 10, 2013 - 8:10 pm

      I want to ban the sale of mass-murder weapons the same way we currently ban automatic weapons. Maybe that’s what Senator Martinez meant, I don’t know.

  14. #34 by Bob S. on April 11, 2013 - 6:26 am

    Still Waiting Richard!

    You’ve repeated your opinion that a ‘patrol rifle ban’ (Hey that is what they are called if the police carry them) would be Constitutional.

    You’ve linked to an opinion piece stating that a “patrol rifle ban” (see I can make up different names for one of the most commonly used rifles in America also) would be Constitutional.

    What you are doing is a logical fallacy called “proof by vigorous assertion” — you still haven’t show why or how.

    So, how about trying something different and actually making a case for your opinion?

    Lay it out. I did. I cited quotes from the Heller decision and explained my logic. Are you incapable of doing something that I did?

    Make your case please

    • #35 by Richard Warnick on April 11, 2013 - 7:05 am

      There already was a federal ban on mass-murder weapons for ten years. It should be reinstated. I really don’t think the constitutionality of such a ban is debatable.

      • #36 by Bob S. on April 11, 2013 - 8:16 am

        Richard,

        First, the Assault Weapon Ban was before the Supreme Court (TWICE) ruled there was an individual right to keep and bear arms.

        Second, It is ‘debatable’ because we are doing it.
        I’ll take your lack of willingness to lay out an argument as your inability to lay out an argument.

        Your repeated assertions does not make something true. I know you might be clicking your ruby red high tops three times as you chant “There is no place like a place with an Assault Weapon Ban”….but wishing doesn’t change reality.

        I thought you were OneUtah’s top notch researcher – surely you can do better then simply insisting your opinion is right.

        • #37 by Richard Warnick on April 11, 2013 - 9:08 am

          I’m tired of the right-wing tactic of re-opening settled issues. For example, the NRA is now vehemently against the universal background check program PROPOSED BY THE NRA. Same goes for the AWB. We had it before, the Gun Lobby agreed to it. Why not bring it back? It’s just ridiculous to have to re-fight old political battles.

          My reading of the polls suggests the vast majority of Americans agree with me. We’ve had enough right-wing crap.

          • #38 by Bob S. on April 11, 2013 - 9:51 am

            Richard,

            Tired of reopening settled issues — you mean like the Assault Weapon Ban that expired nearly 10 years ago?

            That is settled. It is over and done !

            Less then 400 murders were committed last year with rifles and shotguns. Far fewer with ‘assault weapons’

            The Assault Weapon Ban died in 2004 yet you want to bring it back while complaining about ‘re-opening settled issues”.

            So we can add hypocrite to the traits you exhibit in addition to ‘lying’.

            We’ve had enough right-wing crap.

            So what are we supposed to do?
            Just let you and people like you trample on our rights? Pass any law you want.

            I’m sorry standing up for my rights is in your opinion “right wing crap”.

            Now can I take your continual avoidance of the Constitutionality issue as your admission that you can not present a logical, reasonable argument to support your opinion?

  15. #39 by brewski on April 11, 2013 - 10:26 am

    “I’m tired of the right-wing tactic of re-opening settled issues.”

    For 200,000 years of human history marriage was a settled issue.

    I used to think public use was a settled issue. But then came Kelo.

    I used to think equal protection was a settled issue. But then came race-based preferences.

    I used to think there was any sort of limit on government power over individuals. But then came Obamacare.

    I’m tired of the lefty Statist central planner tactic of re-opening settled issues.

  16. #40 by Richard Warnick on April 11, 2013 - 11:31 am

    Bob S.– I’m not avoiding the constitutionality issue, because for me it’s not really an issue. It’s settled. Even the partisan right-wing Supreme Court re-writing the Second Amendment to include an individual right doesn’t prohibit Congress from legislating gun safety.

    brewski– Nice rant. Equal rights for other Americans does nothing to change the institution of marriage. I don’t understand your obsession with eminent domain. There are no “race-based preferences.” I agree the individual private insurance mandate, is wrong (but it’s perfectly constitutional).

    • #41 by Bob S. on April 11, 2013 - 11:39 am

      Richard,

      I’m not saying you are avoiding it. I’m saying you are avoiding laying out your reasoning.

      You are an expert at saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over again .

      How many times in this thread alone have you asserted without supporting your argument that a new Assault weapon ban would be constitutional? A Dozen?

      Lay out your argument; after all this is “Utah’s Favorite Public Square for Loud Political Debate”

      Let’s debate it…instead of you stomping your feet and yelling “Listen to me, I’m right. “

      • #42 by Richard Warnick on April 11, 2013 - 3:39 pm

        We are talking about a law that was already in the U.S. Code for ten years without being found unconstitutional. It’s entirely similar to the existing restrictions on automatic weapons, the so-called “machine gun ban.” So IMHO the burden of proof as to constitutionality is with the Gun Lobby.

        I’m honestly not interested. It’s not an issue for me. I’ve produced plenty of facts already that prove a mass-murder weapon ban does not violate any honest interpretation of the Second Amendment.

        • #43 by Bob S. on April 11, 2013 - 3:56 pm

          In What Reality have you produced facts?

          And don’t you think a Supreme Court Ruling that a.) states there is an individual right to keep and bears and b.) that right applies to the cities and states as well changes things?

          The truth of the matter Richard is you can not produce an intelligent, supported argument for the constitutionality of an Assault Weapon Ban.

          Own up to that fact and admit it. It is okay to be wrong.

          • #44 by Richard Warnick on April 11, 2013 - 4:31 pm

            The right of militias to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment may apply to individuals under the ruling of our right-wing partisan Supreme Court, however even Justice Scalia says it is not an unlimited right. That is a fact, one of many I have noted and you have ignored.

  17. #45 by brewski on April 11, 2013 - 1:03 pm

    “I don’t understand your obsession with eminent domain.”
    Government power over the individual.

    “There are no “race-based preferences.””
    Ha!
    http://www.sba.gov/content/minority-owned-businesses#Federal%20Programs%20and%20Resources

    “I agree the individual private insurance mandate, is wrong (but it’s perfectly constitutional).
    No.

  18. #46 by Bob S. on April 11, 2013 - 5:39 pm

    Richard,

    I am ignoring nothing.

    We have laws covering the right to keep and bear arms; laws against murder using them, against using one in a robbery, etc.

    We also have laws covering the sale of firearms under the Interstate commerce clause. I’m not denying any of those.

    Thanks for admitting finally that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

    Now answer the question that was the subject of debate

    How can a ban on semi-automatic rifles that look like military rifles be constitutional?

  19. #47 by Richard Warnick on April 11, 2013 - 8:42 pm

    Bob S.–

    I didn’t “admit” an individual right. I said our right-wing partisan Supreme Court has, in effect, rewritten the Second Amendment to claim that. But Justice Scalia has specifically stated that even this claimed right can be regulated.

    Therefore a federal mass-murder weapon ban would be constitutional. It was constitutional when it was the law of the land for ten years, and it would be constitutional now. I know you don’t believe it, but that was the majority opinion of the Court.

    BTW the subject of this post was a filibuster threat from Mitch McConnell. That’s old news now, because 22 NRA-backed senators voted today for cloture in order to let a fake background check bill get to the floor.

  20. #48 by Bob S. on April 12, 2013 - 6:59 am

    Richard,

    I love how you think repeating yourself with a couple extra words changes anything.

    You are still just a blowhard with an opinion repeating it over and over and over again

    Why not try something completely different and support your opinion with words from Scalia showing where you draw it from.

    I’ve already demolished your ‘long standing prohibitions” portion. Seems like you have nothing else.

    A fake background check bill — great another law that does nothing, won’t stop a criminal and will be used by you to say we need more laws.

    • #49 by Richard Warnick on April 12, 2013 - 9:46 am

      Bob S.–

      You are the voice of a tiny minority of a minority. Unlike you, the vast majority of Americans are not concerned with so-called Second Amendment rights to gun ownership. We’re just looking for ways to stop the bloodshed.

      • #50 by Bob S. on April 12, 2013 - 9:51 am

        So Richard?

        Are you saying the Bill of Rights doesn’t protect the right of the minority?

        No you aren’t looking for ways to stop the bloodshed. If you were you would focus on education, poverty, families, drug treatment programs, removal of ‘drug crimes’ etc.

        You know the ‘universal background check’ bill in front of Congress won’t stop crime…but I bet you’ll support it anyways, won’t you?

        Then you will come back with another law needed and another — until you achieve what many people like you want – a disarmed society.

        • #51 by Richard Warnick on April 12, 2013 - 10:15 am

          Hey, you forgot to blame the makers of video games. ;-)

          Look, we’re always fighting over policy when it comes to education, poverty, drugs, etc. Republicans want to privatize education, increase inequality, and fight the so-called “war on drugs.” Progressives are trying, with little success, to turn things around.

          However, the issue at hand is firearm background checks. The NRA-approved bill is full of loopholes – it’s almost as if the Gun Lobby was on the side of criminals and terrorists.

          You are already previewing for us what the Gun Lobby will say if this passes. That’s the reason not to settle for a token law – better have nothing, and then we can replace the politicians in the next election.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: