Senate rejects Background Check (for Firearm Purchase) Bill

[Creed of Heresy]

Min, I respect you a lot but this is one of those rare moments where I disagree with you entirely.

Simply put; how the fuck is any of this blood on my hands? No, I require a very clear, concise, and definitive explanation of how the fuck any blood is on my hands, because if that accusation is going to be made, I want some seriously hard-ass proof to show how. You've got one hell of an uphill battle here, chief; I didn't vote for the senators who rejected the bill, I am not a member of the NRA, I do not like the NRA, I do not donate to the NRA, my firearms have never been used to kill or injure in aggression, my firearms have never left my possession, and I am not any of the guys who went on these shooting sprees, and I donated to several groups trying to work to get people to support the background check amendment. So if you can just point out how "the blood is on [my] hands, too," that'd be great.

Good luck, Min, you're gonna need it, here.

---

Also no, the bill that just failed DID include all of that, what they are voting on now is what will replace that bill on a by-amendment basis, hence the Manchin-Toomey proposal. Unless I'm mistaken [quite possible; wading through legislation mumbo-jumbo is a fucking bitch], it sounds like they're voting on what will go into the next bill to vote upon. I think. This article isn't worded very well.

EDIT: Unless you meant the lunatics and not me, in which case disregard this entirely. Just, sounded like it was being directed at me and I get all defensive when people make accusations of me.

[Cinjin]

Obama told Americans to remember this at election time.

At 14:30 in Video

[Minimalist]

Simply put; how the fuck is any of this blood on my hands?

If you self-identify with the gun nuts then you'd best go wash your hands.

You claim to be a "responsible" gun owner. I maintain there is no such thing. Not really. I'm sure that deputy who watched a 4 year old kill his wife because of a moment's inattentiveness thought of himself as a "responsible" gun owner, too. Not only that, he was a trained peace officer which is another bit of horseshit the gun nuts throw about..."proper training."

Anyone who tries to maintain the Wild West fiction - and it is fiction - as still appropriate in the 21st century bears responsibility. I get that you don't like it. I wouldn't like it either. But there are far too many guns out there and far too many people who cannot be trusted to possess them.

I watched that demented old fuck, Charles Grassley repeat the stupid mantra that "criminals won't obey laws." The problem is that "criminals" don't walk into schools, malls or theaters and start shooting. They may knock over a gas station or something but the mass shootings are done by the mentally disturbed or the highly angry.
And those fuckers have no trouble getting guns right now because they are not "criminals" until they start shooting. In many cases, they take those guns from people who think they are "responsible."

I don't worry about criminals. I worry about psychopaths. Like Grassley.

[Creed of Heresy]

And I maintain that I know plenty of others who understand how serious a responsibility owning a firearm is and actually strive to maintain that level of responsibility.

There's a difference between believing you're responsible, and showing you're responsible. Believing you're responsible is saying "I take care of my guns!" while thinking that storing the ol' .22 in a shoebox in the closet while you have kids in the house is safely storing your gun. Showing you're responsible is locking those sumbitches in a thumbprint safe, with the safeties on and ammo NEVER stored in the gun.

That dumbass cop should never have had all of his guns out. He thought he was a responsible gun owner. Clearly he showed he wasn't.

Of course this then asks the question of "how do we determine who is responsible and who isn't?" That's a very damn good question. I'd personally like to add a measure into the bill where not only are background checks necessary but so are mandatory safety, maintenance, and responsibility classes that require testing that you must score perfect or damn-near perfect on before you can even get your license to own a firearm.

Of course the fucking NRA is just cockblocking any sense of reasonable discussion on this, so...fuck.

[The Grand Nudger]

A Recreational Hunting License in Florida requires that the applicant has completed a safety course with an accredited provider. Its a 12 hour classroom course followed by 3 hours at the range (this is more stringent than what I went through to get my drivers license...and it should be). So, something like this already exists and is on the books as law along the periphery of gun ownership. I've said it before, I'll say it again, we already have really good regulations, we just don't enforce them and they aren't uniform (case in point - apply this safety course requirement to firearm purchases). Even here though, infuriatingly, there are loopholes and exceptions.

If you choose not to do this, you won't be issued a license..and if you're wandering the woods with a gun - sans hunting license, you can be charged with a multitude of gun and game related crimes(infuriatingly, again, the game charges are more severe and have no loopholes).

[KichigaiNeko]

A Recreational Hunting License in Florida requires that the applicant has completed a safety course with an accredited provider. Its a 12 hour classroom course followed by 3 hours at the range (this is more stringent than what I went through to get my drivers license...and it should be). So, something like this already exists and is on the books as law along the periphery of gun ownership. I've said it before, I'll say it again, we already have really good regulations, we just don't enforce them and they aren't uniform (case in point - apply this safety course requirement to firearm purchases). Even here though, infuriatingly, there are loopholes and exceptions.

If you choose not to do this, you won't be issued a license..and if you're wandering the woods with a gun - sans hunting license, you can be charged with a multitude of gun and game related crimes(infuriatingly, again, the game charges are more severe and have no loopholes).

Ah, thanks for clearing that up Rhythm.

We have a similar situation here in Oz.

So just what was rejected? (sorry haven't red the entire thread)

[Minimalist]

A Recreational Hunting License in Florida requires that the applicant has completed a safety course with an accredited provider. Its a 12 hour classroom course followed by 3 hours at the range (this is more stringent than what I went through to get my drivers license...and it should be). So, something like this already exists and is on the books as law along the periphery of gun ownership. I've said it before, I'll say it again, we already have really good regulations, we just don't enforce them and they aren't uniform (case in point - apply this safety course requirement to firearm purchases). Even here though, infuriatingly, there are loopholes and exceptions.

If you choose not to do this, you won't be issued a license..and if you're wandering the woods with a gun - sans hunting license, you can be charged with a multitude of gun and game related crimes(infuriatingly, again, the game charges are more severe and have no loopholes).

So do you suppose the course forgot to cover this?

http://www.ohmidog.com/2011/12/12/florid...ot-by-dog/

Florida hunter shot by dog

You'd think a hunter safety course would stress the importance of not giving an animal a gun. Fuckers cannot be trusted with firearms.

[The Grand Nudger]

Dogs have long been known to shit all over everything we humans hold dear (which would include our laws). If anyone has a legitimate grievance and can be excused for shooting someone it;s probably the humble mutt.

You can't legislate stupid away anymore than you can legislate crazy away..those aren't bugs in the human machine - they're features. Some people, agreed, cannot be trusted. Identifying those people prior to their incidence of stupidity or batshit crazy is difficult. If they pass the course, if they pass the screen, on what grounds do we prevent them from exercising a right? Nevertheless, accidents happen. We don't revoke drivers licenses every time someone gets rear-ended (keep in mind traffic related deaths and gun related deaths are converging, traffic is losing it's previously heady lead). Perhaps it's time to get a little more strict with both eh?
(that convergent bit above probably has something to do with poverty and our shitty economy - people are shooting each other more often as a career choice in the absence of available work - to which they no longer need to drive....I bet the irony of this hypothesis and the legislative impetus behind it won't be lost on you min..lol. Tank the little man, and make sure he has plenty of access to firearms and no real economic options, then lean on a culture of fear to pass even more aggressive legislation. Just saying that's how I'd do it, not, necessarrily, how it's being done I think the only way to make the douchery more complete, again in my hypothetical, is to engineer a situation in which guns could be outlawed - furthering the grounds on which any given person might be a criminal - while simultaneously washing your hands of it so that later you can say "look at what my opponents did to you, here, vote me in, give me sweeping power, let me help". Fortunately, no one in our government is anywhere near this competent. )