Democrats begin filibuster for Universal Background Checks - Polidicks

I never got the second amendment argument They were talking about muskets, not assault rifles. and if it's violating the amendment, so what? You can make an amendment obsolete by covering them up with another one.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50528123]that isn't even really the point, the point is that these cracked people will still do fucked up shit and you can't stop them. depriving millions of law abiding citizens of billions of dollars in property because one person might do something bad once in a while is kind of heavy handed.[/QUOTE] Why isn't it the point? "Cracked people will still do fucked up shit" is a given, but "cracked people will do fucked up shit but less people will be killed" has been my point the whole time. [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TestECull;50528159]If all they want is background checks I am A OK with it. Banning guns will do nothing, but trying to ensure only law abiding, sane people who understand their dangers and respect them as appropriate own them will at the minimum slow down terrorists, plus it will drop the amount of careless gun owners letting their hardware fall into malicious hands.[/QUOTE] Many recent mass shootings have been perpetrated with legal firearms, so perhaps not all "law abiding" gun owners are as sane as you think?

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50528156]Calling a gun a "toy" is a bit dangerous imo, it's a highly efficient and lethal weapon that takes a fuckton of responsibility and maturity to even hold, much less operate and own. The whole handguns being useful for self defense thing is a hotly contested and debated issue, so it's hardly a fact.[/QUOTE] "range toy" is a common term, it doesn't mean you play with it like a hotwheels car. it just means that you use it to tear up paper on the shooting range and it's fun. as for uh [quote]Explain?[/quote] NYC created a registry, then used that registry to go door to door and confiscate guns they later deemed illegal. governments everywhere have proven they cannot be trusted with this - we give an inch, they take a mile. and a registry has never been shown to impact crime in any useful way. [quote]Seems like a very nonsensical likening to make but ok[/quote] my point is it doesn't do anything. a waiting period does nothing. the argument is that it will reduce hot blooded "I'm going to the store to buy a gun and murder this guy right now!" happenings, but those are rare anyway and waiting periods don't prevent them. [quote]No, I think that making it mandatory for every purchase would be necessary.[/quote] a psych eval is an invasive and time consuming process, not to mention expensive. requiring one for every purchase is really pushing it.

[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;50528168]I never got the second amendment argument They were talking about muskets, not assault rifles. and if it's violating the amendment, so what? You can make an amendment obsolete by covering them up with another one.[/QUOTE] They were talking about firearms that had the same ability their military had.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50528172]Why isn't it the point? "Cracked people will still do fucked up shit" is a given, but "cracked people will do fucked up shit but less people will be killed" has been my point the whole time. [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] Many recent mass shootings have been perpetrated with legal firearms, so perhaps not all "law abiding" gun owners are as sane as you think?[/QUOTE] to which my counter point is: depriving millions of people of billions of dollars in property that is not being misused in any way is a heavy handed and lazy solution bordering on tyrannical -- non-law abiding people managed to get guns through a legal system because that system sucks and isn't being used correctly law abiding gun owners means people who aren't running out and carrying out mass shootings unless you seriously mean to imply that all gun owners have a niggling urge to murder hundreds of people

[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;50528168]I never got the second amendment argument They were talking about muskets, not assault rifles. and if it's violating the amendment, so what? You can make an amendment obsolete by covering them up with another one.[/QUOTE] Yes they were talking about civilians owning muskets, but you have to remember the people they were fighting back then also had muskets. They based it on the fact that the enemies of the people would be as equally armed as they are no matter what arms they use.

[QUOTE=Duck M.]Explain[/QUOTE] If you register with the State or Government what firearms you own than when the ineffective legislation to ban scary guns fails again and there is another mass shooting and they decide the time has come to confiscate your guns for public safety than they have a list of every gun you have and will show up with that list like a "shopping list" Hence why almost no one registered their AR during the SafeAct.

[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;50528168]and if it's violating the amendment, so what? You can make an amendment obsolete by covering them up with another one.[/QUOTE] Then go through the proper channels and do it instead of trying undermine it by proposing or suggesting currently unconstitutional legislature.

There's no due process to get on the no fly list. I bet there's people on this forum that are on it and don't know it purely because they just share the same name as someone who's on it. You shouldn't have to petition the government for access to your constitutional rights Stronger background checks I'm for (And better REASONS as to why you're denied if you're denied). Waiting periods for ALL firearm purchases I'm for. Including mental health history in these background checks I'm for. But the problem is, people go crazy every day. This guy was squeaky clean as far as the law is concerned and did everything by the book and still went on a spree, so it's not going to really solve much. And banning the type of weapon that's used in about 2% of all gun related violence, maybe less, isn't going to do shit, either. Even though he was under two investigations and his parents had strong support for terrorist organizations, how can you then restrict his rights as a citizen without also violating them

[QUOTE=paul simon;50527607]I don't like how the constitutions seem to breed sovereign citizens who believe in that but not the rest of the law, as if they're religiously following the 10 amendments.[/QUOTE] Ha. Sovereign citizens don't even follow the constitution. They are the creationists of civil rights. They say whatever suits their current wishes and anything else is [del]satan[/del] the gubbinment oppressing them.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50528186]"range toy" is a common term, it doesn't mean you play with it like a hotwheels car. it just means that you use it to tear up paper on the shooting range and it's fun.[/QUOTE] Ah ok, was unaware. [QUOTE]NYC created a registry, then used that registry to go door to door and confiscate guns they later deemed illegal. governments everywhere have proven they cannot be trusted with this - we give an inch, they take a mile. and a registry has never been shown to impact crime in any useful way.[/QUOTE] Sources? What about Canada's registry did you object to? [QUOTE]a psych eval is an invasive and time consuming process, not to mention expensive. requiring one for every purchase is really pushing it.[/QUOTE] It being invasive isn't an argument against it. And although it's expensive and time consuming I consider it entirely necessary, at least for a majority of purchases.

[QUOTE=TheTalon;50528214]But the problem is, people go crazy every day. This guy was squeaky clean and did everything by the book and still went on a spree, so it's not going to really solve much. And banning the type of weapon that's used in about 2% of all gun related violence, maybe less, isn't going to do shit, either.[/QUOTE] he wasn't "squeaky clean" though he was literally flagged as a terror threat in 2013, was a known IS sympathizer and beat the shit out of his wife constantly. he talked openly about killing people and conducting terror attacks and still nothing was done about him.

Saying that the Second Amedment doesn't protect the right to own modern weapons is like saying the First Amendment doesn't protect the rights of modern day activists because when they wrote the Constitution there was no way they could've known that in the future the LGBT movement would exist and thus it's not protected and they're not allowed to voice their opinions freely.

[QUOTE=geel9;50528191]They were talking about firearms that had the same ability their military had.[/QUOTE] Keep in mind the guns then only had very slow and clunky guns that were obsolete if you ever wanted to murder or mass murder. We have established police forces that get guns from the government, and now we have fully advanced rifles that can do some pretty serious damage in a small amount of time. Now don't get me wrong, I do agree that the 2nd amendment should exist, but it needs some serious changes. [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;50528239]Saying that the Second Amedment doesn't protect the right to own modern weapons is like saying the First Amendment doesn't protect the rights of modern day activists because when they wrote the Constitution there was no way they could've known that in the future the LGBT movement would exist and thus it's not protected and they're not allowed to voice their opinions freely.[/QUOTE] Except these are things that are built to kill. Big difference.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50528235]he wasn't "squeaky clean" though he was literally flagged as a terror threat in 2013, was a known IS sympathizer and beat the shit out of his wife constantly. he talked openly about killing people and conducting terror attacks and still nothing was done about him.[/QUOTE] Squeaky clean as in he was never arrested or convicted of anything that would prevent him from owning a firearm. I could make a joke about wishing ISIS would burn down my ISP's office and that might be enough to flag me, should I then have certain rights stripped from that moment on? It's a very wobbly table Now a sort of hold while an investigation is conducted, sure. I can go with that

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50528199]to which my counter point is: depriving millions of people of billions of dollars in property that is not being misused in any way is a heavy handed and lazy solution bordering on tyrannical -- non-law abiding people managed to get guns through a legal system because that system sucks and isn't being used correctly law abiding gun owners means people who aren't running out and carrying out mass shootings unless you seriously mean to imply that all gun owners have a niggling urge to murder hundreds of people[/QUOTE] No that wasn't what I was implying at all, I dont see how you could construe that. And yes, I think we can definitely agree on the current system sucking, the problem is though that many gun owners, lobbyists, conservatives, etc. refuse to concede any changes or restrictions whatsoever under the flag of the second amendment, so the system cannot be improved.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50528232]Ah ok, was unaware. Sources? What about Canada's registry did you object to? It being invasive isn't an argument against it. And although it's expensive and time consuming I consider it entirely necessary, at least for a majority of purchases.[/QUOTE] when canada decides to ban a type of firearm the registry is used to find people who weren't doing anything wrong with that type of firearm and force them to comply or else they're suddenly criminals just for falling afoul of arbitrary legislation. best thing is when they later decide that type of firearm is OK again and the people they took them from get nothing for compensation. NYC's is the same. i'd dig up sources for you because i don't mind sourcing stuff but i'm about to go out for dinner and this will be my last post in here for a while- quick google search will get you what you need no comment on the last one, that's a matter of personal opinion as to how much/how frequently privacy invasion is acceptable [QUOTE=Duck M.;50528253]No that wasn't what I was implying at all, I dont see how you could construe that. And yes, I think we can definitely agree on the current system sucking, the problem is though that many gun owners, lobbyists, conservatives, etc. refuse to concede any changes or restrictions whatsoever under the flag of the second amendment, so the system cannot be improved.[/QUOTE] since i can answer this quickly- we refuse to give ground now because every time it was given in the past lawmakers have gone way overboard with it and gun owners in general no longer trust the government to legislate about guns

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527887][img]http://i.imgur.com/aGdDOJI.jpg[/img] look at this military style assault transport, i cant believe these are available to civilians[/QUOTE] The irony of this statement and the fact that people criticize the police for having military surplus vehicles

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527887][img]http://i.imgur.com/aGdDOJI.jpg[/img] look at this military style assault transport, i cant believe these are available to civilians[/QUOTE] Except that thing isn't built to kill things.

Neither is an MRAP I think police should have access to whatever the public has access to. If they can't be on an even playing field when it's needed, they can't police effectively in dire circumstances (North Hollywood Shootout, as an example) Who cares if it looks scary. You know what else is scary? Some dumb fuck firing randomly into crowds of helpless people.

It's a slow day at work so far but I actually got to get out of my office and try to do something. But I'll say this: Go ahead and try to ban them. If you're feeling really lucky than go ahead and try to confiscate them. Regardless what legislation you pass at the end of the day if you try to ban them we will not comply and if try to confiscate them than we will resist. I don't want to sound like a crazy person. But it's basically a fact, gun owners will resist mass confiscation if it ever came to that.

[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;50528168]I fucking love it when people pull the second amendment argument So what? You can make an amendment obsolete by covering them up with another one, and ffs, they were talking about muskets, not fucking assault rifles.[/QUOTE] Have you read any US history books? There were [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper-box"]a [/URL][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle"]good [/URL][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock"]few[/URL] non-musket firearms that were used around the time of the Constitution's creation by private citizens. To give any credibility to this ridiculous musket argument you'd have to accept that the Founding Fathers were so fucking stupid that they [I]never anticipated any kind of technological advancement whatsoever. [/I][editline]god bless america[/editline] [QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;50528168]So what? You can make an amendment obsolete by covering them up with another one[/QUOTE] This is why there is opposition to gun control laws, because no bill has been suggested to "cover up" the 2nd amendment. The Constitution thus takes precedence, rendering such laws unconstitutional.

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;50527670]Like I said, everyone knows that 'amending the constitution' is just a commie codespeak for 'change the constitution'. Anyone who thinks of taking our GUNS away is clearly anti-American if they don't believe in the 2ND amendment. [sp]I hope it's clear I am taking the piss and pointing out the hypocrisy of people who are against people changing the constitution on the subject of guns while citing the 2nd amendment which itself is a change.[/sp] For every person who obtains a gun illegally on the black market, there will be plenty who don't know how, or know how but are afraid of getting caught, who could otherwise just walk into a gun store and buy a handgun.[/QUOTE] you have to have absolutely zero knowledge of american history to think that the 2nd amendment was a change to the constitution when in reality it was written into it during the constitutional convention as one of the rights a human has.

[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;50528275]Except that thing isn't built to kill things.[/QUOTE] You're ignoring my valid points and responding to peoples analogies by saying "But they weren't meant to kill people." Is that your best argument?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527547]no new legislation short of a complete ban would've stopped the orlando shooting, the FBI failed to do its job and allowed for this to happen through inaction, full stop guns are already ridiculously heavily regulated - the amount of red tape is fucking stupid, it's a minefield of arbitrary feel good legislation that does nothing to stop a criminal from buying a gun off his bud but everything to discourage a law abiding citizen from enjoying a hobby i am all for controls and restrictions that actually keep guns out of criminal hands but nothing we have currently does that and nothing that's been proposed will as a fully legal gun owner i am up to my neck in red tape, tip toeing the line of legality any time i think about tweaking my own firearms and i was in a huge grey area for 3 years with my handguns until i turned 21. i couldn't buy ammo from stores for handguns that i bought legally and i couldn't handle or rent handguns in stores or on range. meanwhile for criminals operating outside of the law it's business as usual, they haven't been affected in the slightest. i am at the stage where i would rather have zero gun regulation than trust this corrupt ass knee jerk government to do anything fair for us. the law gets so fucking stupid that in some cases putting a foreign made magazine in an AK pattern rifle is a 922(r) violation that carries a 5 year prison sentence and a fat fine[/QUOTE] I'm sorry for my last post as it was incredibly vague. If anything I sympathize with you. Guns are an honest hobby for many, and regulation has made things difficult for hobbyists such as yourself for sure. I myself don't know what I mean by regulation. I don't have the solution to the crisis this country faces. All I know is that we cannot afford to sit around and wait for the trend to cease to exist. Action of some sort must be taken. If you have a better course of action, I'd be open to hearing it. [QUOTE=unrezt;50527579]trying to pass legislation by attaching it to unrelated shit is bad, period[/QUOTE] I completely agree. Riders are a sleazy part of our lawmaking. I hadn't considered that aspect before, so now I suppose I disagree with Democrats undertaking this approach. [QUOTE=soulharvester;50527588]seriously? Also the whole problem with gun regulation is that the only affect it has on actual criminals is that it disarms their potential victims. I don't see how gun regulation is the solution to people not following the law in the first place and killing other people with illegally obtained fire arms.[/QUOTE] [URL=http://www.cfr.org/society-and-culture/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735]Seriously[/URL]. I don't know why you thought that one word was an appropriate way to respond, but okay: I never meant to say that America was the only country with a problem like this. What I said was that no other country in the world has this problem as severe as we do. As for your claim, if you can cite examples of people who were wrongfully disarmed from having a self-defense weapon, please do. As I said, regulating is tricky. What regulation should do is make it harder for the criminal/unstable people to obtain guns, not make it difficult for honest/stable people to obtain guns rightful for their hobby or self-defense. Unfortunately you have to compromise to achieve this, and I don't think it's possible for our lawmakers to do this while there's terrible gridlock. I'm not suggesting anything when I say this, by the way. I'm trying to make clear that gun control is far from the perfect answer as it will never fully stop people from breaking the law. It'll just make it harder for them to do so. There's probably a combination of actions that we need to keep our people safe and satisfy the rights of our citizens.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527812][img]http://i.imgur.com/dlOj2y1.jpg[/img] this gun was made exclusively to shoot targets from a bench in marksmanship contests it's mechanically identical to the military style assault weapons that keep you up at night[/QUOTE] Haha no buddy. While I've never been deployed I've spent more time cuddling my rifle in the field then you likely will in your lifetime. While that rifle is used exclusively for marksmanship it still throws rounds down range at a high velocity and is still a rifle, primarily designed to kill things. Stop being obtuse.

[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;50528242] Now don't get me wrong, I do agree that the 2nd amendment should exist, but it needs some serious changes. Except these are things that are built to kill. [I]Big difference.[/I][/QUOTE] And an irrelevant one. Guess what? Firearms were built to kill when the second amendment was ratified, and using said firearm to commit murder was and still is against the law.

I don't think guns should be "banned" or "confiscated" but I think there should be more effective checks and stricter regulation when it comes to certain weapons with the capacity to cause massive damage with minimal effort and time.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50528381]I don't think guns should be "banned" or "confiscated" but I think there should be more effective checks and stricter regulation when it comes to certain weapons with the capacity to cause massive damage with minimal effort and time.[/QUOTE] I agree with this. I feel like if there was ever a situation where some sort of check should have prevented anyone from (legally) buying a gun, the Orlando shooting is one. There were plenty of warnings that the guy was off his rocker. Now, as a conservative, I actually couldn't give a shit if he was affiliated with ISIS, and as a conservative who owns guns I always wince whenever people start chiming in for gun control. However, I can concede that whatever numerous systems we have in place clearly aren't working effectively. I feel like situations like the Orlando shooting could have easily been prevented [I]without[/I] calling for anything as drastic as an assault weapons ban. And I don't think it's morally wrong to try to find ways to better enforce that people like Mateen do not get their hands on legal firearms. (I specify legal because you realistically can't do anything for illegal gun sales... they're already illegal.)

[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;50528275]Except that thing isn't built to kill things.[/QUOTE] Friendly reminder, these were manufactured: [t]http://www.diecast.org/data/sac_cars/aa74006_11.jpg[/t] [t]http://olive-drab.com/images/id_mb_w_rocket_full.jpg[/t] Pretty sure both of those have been built to kill things. [QUOTE=TheTalon;50528214]There's no due process to get on the no fly list. I bet there's people on this forum that are on it and don't know it purely because they just share the same name as someone who's on it. You shouldn't have to petition the government for access to your constitutional rights Stronger background checks I'm for (And better REASONS as to why you're denied if you're denied). Waiting periods for ALL firearm purchases I'm for. Including mental health history in these background checks I'm for. But the problem is, people go crazy every day. This guy was squeaky clean as far as the law is concerned and did everything by the book and still went on a spree, so it's not going to really solve much. And banning the type of weapon that's used in about 2% of all gun related violence, maybe less, isn't going to do shit, either. Even though he was under two investigations and his parents had strong support for terrorist organizations, how can you then restrict his rights as a citizen without also violating them[/QUOTE] Yeah my dad's on one of those lists (actually, pretty sure it is that one) because he has the same name as some other guy on it.