US Senate rejects universal (expanded) background checks - Polidicks

what a fucking tool [img]http://puu.sh/2C650[/img]

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40320428]are you trying to be clever or something because that quote just reaffirms what i said so[/QUOTE] The fact of the matter is that you labeled those opposed to the law as sociopaths that want nothing more than a revolution to happen so they can have an excuse to shoot at the government. That is just plain wrong.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;40320481]The fact of the matter is that you labeled those opposed to the law as sociopaths that want nothing more than a revolution to happen so they can have an excuse to shoot at the government. That is just plain wrong.[/QUOTE] i labeled people who want to shoot down gun control for the sake of protecting their ability to start a violent revolution as people who want to shoot down gun control for the sake of protecting their ability to start a violent revolution

[QUOTE=Eltro102;40320199]so basically you don't need the second amendment to do this because the military will refuse to shoot[/QUOTE] There is zero way to predict what each individual would do. My point was, assuming that the majority, much less then entirety, of the military would stand against the citizens is nothing short of stupidity.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;40320445]what a fucking tool [img]http://puu.sh/2C650[/img][/QUOTE] CNN should fire this sack of shit, not just for this kinda crap, but because he insults his guests and doesn't know how to run a TV show.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40320671]CNN should fire this sack of shit, not just for this kinda crap, but because he insults his guests and doesn't know how to run a TV show.[/QUOTE] who cares if he pulls in money for cnn cnn is a for-profit company, they don't care about integrity if they can get eyes on screen.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;40320075]You're right we should just lay down and take it if anything bad happens. It's not like a bunch of guys with basic weaponry managed to stage a successful insurgency against us or anything.[/QUOTE] Except the Taliban and Al-Qaeda [i]haven't[/i] staged a successful insurgency. The fact that it's ongoing doesn't make it successful. We've already killed at least 75,000 of their members and a good lot of their key figureheads (bin Laden, Mullah Obaidullah, and Mullah Dadullah to name a few), we've broken their power over Afghanistan and have prevented them from reclaiming it, they've failed to take control over Iraq, they've lost the support of the majority of the Afghan people, and most everyone in the Middle East hates them now (the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Turks, the Lebanese...). All they're doing at this point is attempting (and failing) to fight an irregular war. Irregular wars have usually been the thing that have destroyed insurgencies in the past. It's happened that way... so many times in the 20th century alone that it's hard for me to pick particular place to start naming off examples. We could talk about how the IRA failed, how the ETA failed, how the Contras, the Huks, and the Boers all failed... I could produce a massive list of just Communist and Marxist insurgencies that all failed as well. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda might fight on for decades, it's happened that way before with other insurgencies-- but based off their performance thusfar and the way things have gone for similar insurgencies throughout history, their chances of succeeding are not good. Not good at all.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40320671]CNN should fire this sack of shit, not just for this kinda crap, but because he insults his guests and doesn't know how to run a TV show.[/QUOTE] Lets keep those redcoats from plaguing our television

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40320718]who cares if he pulls in money for cnn cnn is a for-profit company, they don't care about integrity if they can get eyes on screen.[/QUOTE] AFAIK, his ratings are plummeting. He may not be making them the money they want him to.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40320671]CNN should fire this sack of shit, not just for this kinda crap, but because he insults his guests and doesn't know how to run a TV show.[/QUOTE] I hate him, but he's basically CNN's version of Bill O'Reilly. He won't be going anywhere, I think.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;40320445]what a fucking tool [img]http://puu.sh/2C650[/img][/QUOTE] Buttdoctor verdict: buttmutilated

[QUOTE=Aman VII;40320445]what a fucking tool [img]http://puu.sh/2C650[/img][/QUOTE] Pro-gun, anti-gun, how does the second statement make any sense?

[IMG]http://puu.sh/2CbGC[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40319615]The Bill of Rights isn't a list of allowed rights by the state. It's a statement of fact of what human rights we have.[/QUOTE] for christ's sake human rights does not equal civil rights go find me the un declaration that gives you the right to a firearm it's ok, i'll wait

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;40322194]for christ's sake human rights does not equal civil rights go find me the [B]un declaration[/B] that gives you the right to a firearm it's ok, i'll wait[/QUOTE] lol, the UN, as if they really mean anything.

[url]http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml[/url] i don't see reference to a firearm anywhere so stop conflating hUMAN RIGHTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;40322194]for christ's sake human rights does not equal civil rights go find me the un declaration that gives you the right to a firearm it's ok, i'll wait[/QUOTE] lol why does the un have more authority than the constitution to outline human rights?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40322328]lol why does the un have more authority than the constitution to outline human rights?[/QUOTE] because the constitution only applies if you are in that country???? i don't expect to be bound by sweden's constitution when i live in murica, as they do not expect to be bound by ours. human rights are inherent traits all humans have civil rights are an agreement between you and a government

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;40322363] human rights are inherent traits all humans have civil rights are an agreement between you and a government[/QUOTE] both of those are subjective. Humans don't [I]really [/I]have rights.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;40322375]both of those are subjective. Humans don't [I]really [/I]have rights.[/QUOTE] technically i'll give you that humans don't [I]really[/I] have rights but basically human rights are a reflection of morals civil rights are higher level wants/needs

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40318082]I find it not stupid so much as pointless. How many deaths and mass shootings have resulted from the lack of a background check? The Sandy Hook shooter stole the guns. edit: I get dumbs for speaking the truth?[/QUOTE] i don't think the sandy hook shooter is a very good example seeing as his mother bought him guns and he had personal access to it which wasn't really theft

[QUOTE=LordCrypto;40322363]because the constitution only applies if you are in that country???? i don't expect to be bound by sweden's constitution when i live in murica, as they do not expect to be bound by ours. human rights are inherent traits all humans have civil rights are an agreement between you and a government[/QUOTE] but then all human rights are civil rights.

So yes I understand why we all disagree on major parts of the main issue of gun control and stuff, but expanded background checks are objectively perfectly fine unless you are paranoid about a government having a list of its citizens with weapons.

[QUOTE=person11;40322829]So yes I understand why we all disagree on major parts of the main issue of gun control and stuff, but expanded background checks are objectively perfectly fine unless you are paranoid about a government having a list of its citizens with weapons.[/QUOTE] The problem isn't that they want extended background checks, it's that the things they're proposing to 'fix' aren't issues in the first place, and their legislation is essentially little more than feel-good nonsense coupled with an unwarranted and needlessly expensive level of government control and record-keeping.

The only reason I could come up to not support universal background checks is that it could be the first step to forced registration. Am I missing something?

The tiny risk of forced registration is nothing compared to the idiocy of having someone own a lethal weapon without the government knowing about it. [editline]17th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;40322849]The problem isn't that they want extended background checks, it's that the things they're proposing to 'fix' aren't issues in the first place, and their legislation is essentially little more than feel-good nonsense coupled with an unwarranted and needlessly expensive level of government control and record-keeping.[/QUOTE] I agree that a weapons ban and/or clip restrictions would not do much, but what is wrong with expanding and empowering a background check system that is already in place with a registry and more regulatory power?

[QUOTE=person11;40322888]I agree that a weapons ban and/or clip restrictions would not do much, but what is wrong with expanding and empowering a background check system that is already in place with a registry and more regulatory power?[/QUOTE] Well, what would you add? The only kind of sale that doesn't already involve a federally-mandated background check is a private sale, and even if a law were passed that mandated background checks on private sale it could never be enforced. A national gun registry has never been shown to aid in preventing or punishing crime in any way, and only adds needless and significant expense.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;40322943] Background checks would do little to stop anyone wanting to use said weapon against other people until after the fact.[/QUOTE] not to mention it did nothing to stop Virginia Tech [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho[/url] [quote]Cho was able to pass both background checks and successfully complete both handgun purchases after he presented to the gun dealers his U.S. permanent residency card, his Virginia driver's permit to prove legal age and length of Virginia residence and a checkbook showing his Virginia address, in addition to waiting the required 30-day period between each gun purchase. He was successful at completing both handgun purchases because he did not disclose on the background questionnaire that a Virginia court had ordered him to undergo outpatient treatment at a mental health facility.[/quote]

[QUOTE=person11;40322888] I agree that a weapons ban and/or clip restrictions would not do much, but what is wrong with expanding and empowering a background check system that is already in place with a registry and more regulatory power?[/QUOTE] why is it necessary? wouldn't it be redundant?

[QUOTE=person11;40322888]I agree that a weapons ban and/or clip restrictions would not do much, but what is wrong with expanding and empowering a background check system that is already in place with a registry and more regulatory power?[/QUOTE] A registry would be a waste of government resources since there is really no way they can use it to prevent crime. Take a look at Canada, theirs was the perfect example. The only thing it would ever be good for would be confiscation, which is definitely not a good thing. I don't mind the [i]idea[/i] of beefing up NICS, but of the 27,000 denials last year only 44 were prosecuted. That tells me the system is partially working: It's keeping guns out of the wrong hands, but it isn't going the full nine yards and actually prosecuting them. NICS needs fixing, and I support that.