US Senate rejects universal (expanded) background checks - Polidicks

Assault weapons banned for people with mental disorders THIS JUST IN: Political dissidence now considered a mental disorder!

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;40318064]I'd say I'm pretty heavily pro-gun, but seriously, nothing bad can come out of background checks.[/QUOTE] Except I as a 19 year old would be fucked out of the only avenue I have to acquire a handgun.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;40338057]That is a ridiculous assertion. Asking a government that's strapped for cash and just hit automatic spending cuts while in a financial crisis while also creating an illegal de facto registration system has a high potential of not good happening as a result.[/QUOTE] Why is it illegal? And do you really think it would impact our budget? The only way to expand or contract the budget is through the military, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and taxes. Even a huge registry system would not impact the budget more than a few hundred million at most.

[QUOTE=person11;40342478]Why is it illegal? And do you really think it would impact our budget? The only way to expand or contract the budget is through the military, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and taxes. Even a huge registry system would not impact the budget more than a few hundred million at most.[/QUOTE] Canada's registry was supposed to cost only $2 million, so we were told. By the time it was scrapped, it had cost our country $2 BILLION, and accomplished nothing. A registry in America, where there are something like 30 times more guns than Canada, would quickly cost an assload, and again accomplish nothing.

Was it a registry of every Canadian or every Canadian with a gun?

oh hey we are talking about registries again even though this law made the creation of a registry a felony.

Making registries of anything, especially of people with guns, illegal is so stupid that I thought all the people who were talking about it being illegal were constitution worshipping gun nuts. The fact registries are a felony is even dumber than striking down expanded background checks.

[QUOTE=person11;40350972]Making registries of anything, especially of people with guns, illegal is so stupid that I thought all the people who were talking about it being illegal were constitution worshipping gun nuts. The fact registries are a felony is even dumber than striking down expanded background checks.[/QUOTE] Sorry, should have been more clear: It was already illegal to create a gun registry, but this new law would have doubled-down and made it a felony. This law didn't pass so that won't happen but it's still illegal.

That just seems counterintuitive though. I would understand there being resistance to creating one, but having it be a felony is ridiculous. What is the logic behind this? And not just people afraid of being on a list, or people being afraid of this turning into a registry of everyone in the country (both of which are a product of purely American cultural fear of the government that is not seen in many other places), but actual logic. Even the argument that it would cost too much would make sense, but would not be reason enough to make bad policy illegal.

fuck yeah son now to repeal the NFA and the Hughes and we're america again

[QUOTE=person11;40351517](both of which are a product of purely American cultural fear of the government that is not seen in many other places)[/QUOTE] excuse me? cultural fear of the government started and made its name primarily in france.

[QUOTE=person11;40344640]Was it a registry of every Canadian or every Canadian with a gun?[/QUOTE] It was of every gun in the country.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40351626]excuse me? cultural fear of the government started and made its name primarily in france.[/QUOTE] It may have started there, but French people do not have guns or want them, and they trust their government to have a lot more influence on society and their economy (60% of it) than any American. French people are fine with laws that would list any of them with lethal weapons, and are currently fine with laws that require them to be able to produce identification and/or papers at any moment if asked by an officer. It's a bit different.

[QUOTE=person11;40352348]It may have started there, but French people do not have guns or want them,[/QUOTE] [quote=gunpolicy.org] [B]The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in France is 19,000,000[/B] The rate of private gun ownership in France is 31.2 firearms per 100 people In a comparison of the [B]number of privately owned guns[/b] in 178 countries, [B]France ranked at No. 5[/B] In a comparison of the[B] rate[/B] of private gun ownership in 178 countries,[B] France ranked at No. 12[/B][/quote] [url]http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/france[/url] [quote=wikipedia] France: Rate per 100: 31.2 Rank: 12[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country[/url] You were saying? Also, you can get anything not automatic in France, as long as you're a sport shooter. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#France[/url] [url]http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/04/daniel-zimmerman/mon-dieu-a-review-of-french-gun-laws/[/url]

[QUOTE=person11;40352348]It may have started there, but French people do not have guns or want them, and they trust their government to have a lot more influence on society and their economy (60% of it) than any American. French people are fine with laws that would list any of them with lethal weapons, and are currently fine with laws that require them to be able to produce identification and/or papers at any moment if asked by an officer. It's a bit different.[/QUOTE] that's a joke. not only with what dacommie1 said but also because gun ownership is not the sole means of identifying trust in government or political ideology. iirc france still has a relatively strong group of leftist and libertarian movements.

The French don't use guns to get the government to back down anyways. The horribly subsidized farmers (who shouldn't even exist) do shit like drive tractors onto the motorways and force the government to give in.

I rescind what I said about French gun ownership, but I believe my point still stands. If I could be so bold to say it, many people outside the US see Americans as irrationally worried and distrustful of the government, but I do not want to assert that, seeing that I do not have the time to fetch statistics (shot myself in the foot assuming France as as gun free as most OECD countries). I do know that France's affection for government services and power is much higher than in the United States. Leftists in France perceive and use the government as a solution to any problem. They also love disruptive but non violent protest like the farmers as referenced by Sobotnik.

[QUOTE=person11;40352917]I rescind what I said about French gun ownership, but I believe my point still stands. If I could be so bold to say it, many people outside the US see Americans as irrationally worried and distrustful of the government, but I do not want to assert that, seeing that I do not have the time to fetch statistics (shot myself in the foot assuming France as as gun free as most OECD countries). I do know that France's affection for government services and power is much higher than in the United States. Leftists in France perceive and use the government as a solution to any problem. They also love disruptive but non violent protest like the farmers as referenced by Sobotnik.[/QUOTE] Why it matters what people outside the U.S. wrongly think is beyond me.

[QUOTE=person11;40352917](shot myself in the foot assuming France as as gun free as most OECD countries).[/QUOTE] Did it again assuming most other OECD countries are gun-free. Most of them have anywhere between 3.5 million and 30 million private guns, excluding the US.

Perspective, mostly. I just want to hear justification for outlawing registries that does not stem from American distrust of government. It is pretty unique in the OECD as far as I can tell [editline]19th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;40353032]Did it again assuming most other OECD countries are gun-free. Most of them have anywhere between 3.5 million and 30 million private guns, excluding the US.[/QUOTE] More countries than I expected, but not that many, and not even Finland, Switzerland, or Yemen, can compare to the USA.

[QUOTE=person11;40353063]Perspective, mostly. I just want to hear justification for outlawing registries that does not stem from American distrust of government. It is pretty unique in the OECD as far as I can tell[/QUOTE] Honestly I'd like to hear a justification for the creation of registries in the first place. You seem to be under the impression that a registry is needed or justified. I'd like to hear your reasoning.

[QUOTE=person11;40353063]Perspective, mostly. I just want to hear justification for outlawing registries that does not stem from American distrust of government. It is pretty unique in the OECD as far as I can tell [editline]19th April 2013[/editline] More countries than I expected, but not that many, and even Finland, Switzerland, or Yemen, can compare to the USA.[/QUOTE] One of the reasons for distrust of government in America (aside from the history) is because the social services in America is lacking. For example the welfare system is fairly weak and there isn't a NHS yet.

[QUOTE=Valnar;40353106]One of the reasons for distrust of government in America (aside from the history) is because the social services in America is lacking. For example the welfare system is fairly weak and there isn't a NHS yet.[/QUOTE] The creation of such services would probably create more distrust. Remember when Obama wanted Universal Healthcare?

[QUOTE=person11;40352917]I rescind what I said about French gun ownership, but I believe my point still stands. If I could be so bold to say it, many people outside the US see Americans as irrationally worried and distrustful of the government, but I do not want to assert that, seeing that I do not have the time to fetch statistics (shot myself in the foot assuming France as as gun free as most OECD countries).[/QUOTE] many people inside the us see americans as irrationally worried and distrustful of the government. many people in europe think americans are irrationally worried and distrustful of the government, but think we should be worried and distrustful of the government for different reasons. american libertarianism is imho, a big joke(no offense libertarians out there). to think they co-opted the word and the idea of government distrust to fit a somewhat irrational and frankly crazy ideal of free-market libertarianism is a bit sad. i mean i'm a libertarian, and just saying that will immediately associate me with people like ron paul(even though he's not even an american libertarian, go figure) or john stossel when really i fervently disagree with these people. government distrust is great, but you can't just say "lower the government's involvement in social programs but keep the military and police," i think if government has [i]any[/i] purpose, it is 100% to provide those social programs for the benefit of communities and societies. [editline]20th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=person11;40353116]The creation of such services would probably create more distrust. Remember when Obama wanted Universal Healthcare?[/QUOTE] you mean never? from what i can tell he never advocated a uhs, he did give token support for a public option but he or the democrats never really even pushed for it even though 80% of people supported the idea at the time.

[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40353096]Honestly I'd like to hear a justification for the creation of registries in the first place. You seem to be under the impression that a registry is needed or justified. I'd like to hear your reasoning.[/QUOTE] Having a list of every gun and every gun owner would be an invaluable tool for law enforcement, just like criminal records and DNA records, in case anything happens involving those guns and/or those owners. I am more concerned about the idea of what is called bad policy by Republicans and/or Libertarians being illegal. If people find that something is bad policy, they should just vote against it. [editline]19th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;40353141] you mean never? from what i can tell he never advocated a uhs, he did give token support for a public option but he or the democrats never really even pushed for it even though 80% of people supported the idea at the time.[/QUOTE] He did support it, and it would have happened if about 4 more Democratic Senators voted in favor of it instead of joining the filibustering Republicans. [editline]19th April 2013[/editline] And yes, I agree with you about American libertarianism, but I still get the impression that a large part of paranoia about the government is irrational. Obviously there area things that we really should worry about, like repeated drone strikes, or the fact that the president can declare war with no resistance, or Guantanamo bay... etc. I just have a hard time believing that having a(n incomplete, probably) list of every gun and gun owner fits into that worry about the government. This debating leads us to reality, however, and that reality is that nothing will be done by the government except a feel good bill involving improved mental health care (which I have nothing against, I just do not see it as a solution to out gun problem).

[QUOTE=person11;40353240]He did support it, and it would have happened if about 4 more Democratic Senators voted in favor of it instead of joining the filibustering Republicans.[/QUOTE] yea token support to make him look like he was championing healthcare reform before he let the insurance industry write the bill for him. [editline]20th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=person11;40353240] And yes, I agree with you about American libertarianism, but I still get the impression that a large part of paranoia about the government is irrational.[/QUOTE] i think most trust and support of the government is irrational tbh. the government can sometimes fulfill limited roles pretty well, but on the whole they are still a ruling class and still will exercise power that limit the liberty and safety of individuals. this goes beyond drone strikes and into the territory of things like government giving certain groups of people privilege, as you can see be done throughout the ages. whether it's simply corn farmers being given cash not to grow food, or as deep as having police squads that target minority groups, government always ends up screwing someone.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40353280]this goes beyond drone strikes and into the territory of things like government giving certain groups of people privilege, as you can see be done throughout the ages. whether it's simply corn farmers being given cash not to grow food, or as deep as having police squads that target minority groups, government always ends up screwing someone.[/QUOTE] However, in every instance of a society I can think of, some kind of hierarchy, and rules, and enforcement of those rules, ends up happening. I would only support anarchism if it was sustainable, and made people happier, wealthier and generally better off than the denizens of every state formed to date.

[QUOTE=person11;40353116]The creation of such services would probably create more distrust. Remember when Obama wanted Universal Healthcare?[/QUOTE] Yeah there would be initial distrust, but people would likely embrace it very soon after it gets implemented. I mean look at the social services the US provides, like Social Security or Medicade. If anyone so much as hints to removal of either of those people get in uproar.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40353349]However, in every instance of a society I can think of, some kind of hierarchy, and rules, and enforcement of those rules, ends up happening. I would only support anarchism if it was sustainable, and made people happier, wealthier and generally better off than the denizens of every state formed to date.[/QUOTE] well maybe i should just go off to the commune and show you :P i believe anarchism to be sustainable, but as long as people are agitated and conscious enough to actually participate and know their interests. that's the idea behind community action and community organization. it isn't an easy process, and maybe one i will never see realized in my lifetime, but god damnit it's what i believe is truly best and i'll be damned if i let stuff like "being realistic" get in my way. [editline]20th April 2013[/editline] and anarchism doesn't mean no rules or organization, only no rulers. people decide their own rules for the community and if a hierarchy is needed, it is decided by the people and is fully transparent to those people. it's a misconception that anarchy doesn't have rules.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40353377]well maybe i should just go off to the commune and show you :P i believe anarchism to be sustainable, but as long as people are agitated and conscious enough to actually participate and know their interests. that's the idea behind community action and community organization. it isn't an easy process, and maybe one i will never see realized in my lifetime, but god damnit it's what i believe is truly best and i'll be damned if i let stuff like "being realistic" get in my way.[/QUOTE] Anarchism might come about one day, or [insert ideal political philosophy here] but until it actually appears, we should be working within what reality is to bring about positive change (and I support the pragmatic type of utilitarianism that doesn't go to logical extremes).