Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

[Major Robert Dump]

Mass Murder Pills

[Lemur]

Piers Morgan

Avoid all cable news. Seriously.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You're interested in chemistry? You do feel to be more well red on the subject than most. Most biological amines are neurotransmitters so it was tricky to get a decent list. I was thinking about the Chinese milk scandal as the big one for melamine though, even if it's getting a bit old.

FYI I did some modifications in that Head & Shoulder schampoo. They're fairly easy ones to spot and makes the product unsellable. But it's not hard to create a schampoo that sells better than the original, but is long term lethal.

I am interested in chemistry. My major was in chemistry until I switched to chemical engineering. Just finishing up my year of organic chemistry classes right now actually. I was just lucky with this example because it was something in the news I payed close attention to. I will take a look to see if I can spot the modifications. But the only reason I spotted the sodium lauryl sulfate in the first place is because I like reading and wikipedia searching ingredients to products I use often.

[Papewaio]

See that is why I need a waterproof touchscreen in the shower so I can check my shampoo ingredients in the shower.

It might come into some additional recreational use...

[Ironside]

See that is why I need a waterproof touchscreen in the shower so I can check my shampoo ingredients in the shower.

It might come into some additional recreational use...

Seeing training videos on how to entertain yourself in the shower?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well there are IP57 rated phones with touchscreen out there.

[Ibrahim]

sorry for not replying sooner. been busy.

More clearly then. By restricting the amount of acccepted violence to a minimum, like you do with the monopoly of violence, you're reducing violence in total.

how?

how does in effect, decreeing that only the state should have a monopoly on force/violence, actually solve the problem we are facing? how does it take the crime (and guns) off the streets, and into honest hands (which according to you, would be Government)?

and what about wars? or when the government turns on the people? then how does your "solution" work?

you see why I have a problem with the concept? yes, in practice it is true, but it doesn't mean I have to philosophically agree with it. The implications are, as I told HoreTore, very disturbing, at least to me. I can at least say that he was consistent.

By accepting a certain use of violence, you'll also get more violent criminals, because they reflect their own culture. That the US has surrendered the idea of the monopoly of violence for now, is a loss, even if it might be an adaptation for the current situation.

How? OK, so people here (ideally) have the right to defend themselves with a firearm (just to be clear here: you do realize the difference between that and a blanket "gun" culture, right?), if they wish. how does that make the same people more violent? It's the same argument I hear about video games, from those at the capitol. I'm dead serious, let me paraphrase:

"by accepting the presence of violent video games in our homes for our children to play, we are increasing violence among children, because it is in their culture". yes, this does get said in the US too. And to demonstrate the absurdity of this, let me ask you a question: are you any more violent, for playing a game (I assume, this place being what it is, a total war one), that involves the simulated mass murder of people? unless you have some inability to distinguish reality from fantasy, I think not.

similarly by analogy/Qiyaas, most human beings, not being "satan's spawn", aren't going to go around shooting people, just because they can own a gun and defend themselves with it--certainly no more than I would go around bludgeoning people with my crow's beak, just because I have one for rock beds, and can use it: and don't give me this guff about video games not being real while guns are, because again, most normal people never use their guns to kill people with (or even necessarily for defense), nor do they encourage it: not in America, not in Sweden, or anywhere else. Point is, most people--certainly more than one might expect--know sufficient difference between right and wrong.

of course, all this raises a question, which has yet been answered, having been raised before: "if you can't trust people to own firearms as they wish within the framework of the law, why should you trust the state, when it's staffed by the very same people?"

And again, this doesn't actually address why the crime rate is high here in the US, but higher still in Mexico, where some of the proposals made by the gun control camp are part of the law already. It also doesn't address the fact that again, the greatest concentration of gun violence (in fact, all types of violence) in the US And Mexico occurs regardless of the level of regulation on guns.

I've already pointed out my position on the US, allow more research to get decent laws on the issue. But don't pretend for a minute that the mentality to guns among criminals isn't influenced by the gun mentality among the population.

well, I guess we agree on that position: we do need better laws (which, I did state earlier). we also need to get rid of some bad laws. some that actually fuel the violence.

And of course there is cultural influence on the criminals (here and elsewhere), but it doesn't necessarily explain why they start killing, when there is hardly a culture out there that glorifies cold blooded murder (outside the military, but I digress). it may explain the method of killing, but not necessarily why it's done.

Reputation here refers to regions where the legal control has lapsed a bit, say ghettos. And it's about appearing scary. Usually it's solved by that, but in some cases it ends up in violence. Our version of animal territory aggression and defense.
Escalation is when both parties have access to guns. Sure not all conflicts ends up with shooting (if nothing else, because robbery is a lesser crime than murder), but the odds of a conflict ending in killing increases.

there is a group, called LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), that talks about this inner city trouble a lot: you can find them on youtube and they can easily be googled. they will tell you why their crime rate (and especially murder), has gone up since the "war" started. And again, most of the ones I heard about, are by criminal gangs, not by the local Average joe....the criminal gangs will often attempt to intimidate people, as will those with a criminal bent to them.

also, a bit off topic, but you know who else engages in such behavior? the part about territory aggression and defense? governments do. again, raises that nagging question no one has answered: why do you think they'd do a better job?

The alternative uses are almost entirely squished in between in this debate.

which again, should not even have to matter anyways: if people want weapons to hunt with, fine. if they want it because they feel it makes them safer, fine too. all this fear-mongering isn't going to help one way or another. I don't see why one group should be punished over the fear of the other.

Wallets? You're in the life insurance buissness?

the point I was making was that my attitude on gun control has little to do with American attitudes as a whole--be they the actual opinions, or what you think they are yourself. the "cost in their wallets" was a reference to the waste of money people commit by buying a weapon they have no need of, and will never use. That should have been clear in the context of the part I was replying to: I cannot see how you could have misunderstood that. I'll save the second half--your question, and its insinuation--till the end.

Timothy McVeigh is in another category than the shooters. The shooters would not simply replace it with bombs, since the act of shooting (aka directly taking lives) is a major part of why they do it.

first off, No he isn't--not in terms of his actions: motives, yes, scale? sure, but action, no. I mean, he's a mass murderer, isn't he? so are the people who do the mass shootings/mass murders: both are initiating force against many innocent civilians. OK, so the motive does indeed dictate the method, but again, and this is where the second point comes in:

how does banning or severely restricting firearms in the manner some politicians here in the US intend address the issues these people have, that motivate people like Lanza to go forward with this? especially as, when they don't have guns, they can use other weapons, like knives, or axes, or any variety of personal weapons? the Bath School disaster is case in point (which I did mention): the guy in question had similar motives to Lanza or that Aurora shooter (personal/psychological grievances), as did that one guy who tried to carve people in China this last year. yet neither he nor that guy in China used a firearm. Look, don't get me wrong, you are right that some of these people want the personal experience in all likely hood: but you are wrong in saying that it is preventable by the restriction on guns, or that it even requires the use of firearms, as a personal experience of taking life can be gained with a knife--heck, it's a "better" one in terms of how personal it is. same with swords, axes, hammers, etc.The only thing firearms have over the others really, is that it's the easiest and most convenient thing to use--a point that I made earlier. after-all, you can easily teach an idiot to use a firearm.

And again, you didn't address the fact that if such people want to use a firearm for its sake, they'll inevitably find a way, either legally, or not. Breivik did it, so can anyone else.

Well actual research is forbidden. But existing research does imply that common sense works here. Legal citizens and criminals does share a lot of cultural attitudes.

doesn't mean they share the motivation to commit murder: why conflate the two? unless again, you're implying humans are all psychopaths (which they aren't, and I don't think you mean it: I wish I could say the same about that line up there you made). Which again begs that question I asked about the state's right to monopolize on force. the one I raised repeatedly...and no one has answered.

Not that much kills in the border states. I do wonder why Georgia is such a cop killer state though.

really? and it's hardly unique for the border region either. And even if you mean just the cops, so? doesn't change the fact that yes, cops do die there a lot (Mexican and American), and yes, it's largely related to the local cartel.

it's clear to me you didn't even bother to look this part up, or if you did, you misunderstood--otherwise, you wouldn't have said something this...wrong...and yes, it's wrong, sorry, but there's no other way of putting it.

and yes, Georgia is a "cop-killer"...and? Texas has more lax gun laws, and it has a lower rate. See, I can play the correlation-causation fallacy game too....Also, not all the deaths listed in the main sources are from shootings: many die of illness, auto-accidents, and the like. shootings are still the main cause, yes, but the statistics I've seen don't say who has the highest rate because of shootings proper. For all I know, it's because Georgians can't drive squat, and all the murders are in California! they aren't obviously, but without further info, you can't just blame the death rate in Georgia on the guns. And again, you're ignoring the fact that murders are committed by use of guns, simply because it's the most convenient way to do it throughout the Americas--regardless of policy.

Also, one thing that is missing but cogent to what I said: where in the states? if it's in the cities or along the border, I'm not terribly surprised: Atlanta and Savannah are hubs of transportation, so I can see the crime there being high--including against cops. Helps Georgia is dirt poor, so there is a greater incentive to turn to crime.

So you say that it's the gun attitude that is the underlying problem (with gun regulation as a patching, unless it influences the attitude).

no, I'm not saying that--that you'd confuse a physical, legal, and economic factors with a cultural/mental one (the attitude people here supposedly have), is a mystery (and yes, there is a subtle difference). In fact, you should have known this, as I showed how it can potentially happen in Britain, should it have similar circumstances to those in the US (which it doesn't have).

In fact, I explicitly stated why there are so many criminals here doing what they do, and the way they do it: our laws here create a black market for various things (notably drugs), which encourages the rise of a black market (with gangs). the fact that guns are available (through legal means or the black market, means that they will use them to repel rivals, or (as the police have guns) to get the police out of the way. We also happen to be next to the source of the "illicit" drugs. note that this has little to do with cultural attitudes: Latin America has a different attitude to Gun control than the US, and yet we see the same exact problem (the gangs), using the same methods (shooting each other, among other things). It certainly doesn't help that the US is the number 1 source of demand.

So how do you handle the underlying problem? Personally I would give the monpoly of violence as an example.

well, in case you missed what I was implying, for starters, I would end drug prohibition--all of it: we need to put the trade in the hands of the free market--let legal businesses and vendors deal in the drugs. that would eliminate a good deal of many of these gang's "raison d'etre". similarly--and God forgive me for this, for I wish only to save lives--I'd end bans on prostitution, "illegal" gambling, and just about anything that has created a black market here where gangs and other criminals have a toe-hold in, which involve violence. basically, do what was done in 1933 vis a vis alcohol.

I'd also change the jail system (which acts as a uni for crime really over here), fix the immigration policy, legalize research into violence as a whole (not just "gun violence"). I'd also implement (or repeal) policies regarding conditions in the inner cities (which of the options depending on what the effects are), so that they can be more self-sufficient, and less crime ridden. that would involve changes in the economic policy, such as to encourage investments in the crime-ridden regions. the end of these prohibitions would of course create more openings and job opportunities--only it won't require a pistol. These can be done starting at the municipal level too, with little input from the Federal government, which frankly, should keep it's involvement to a minimum: it's not like some guy in Washington DC is going to know the goings on of downtown Seattle or Houston in sufficient Detail to make all the decisions themselves.

that alone could undercut the crime rate more than you realize--including violence by firearm. you know, considering that many or most crimes here are tied to the above?

Now, if the crime rate is enormously high even afterwards (considering that the effects will naturally take time to fully materialize, one way or another), then we an see about regulating guns in a manner as strict as some people are suggestion.

as to the mass shooters like Lanza and the Aurora shooter? again, we need a better understanding of what drives them to this: it's clear that they have or had pent issues even before the shootings, and understanding them would help us identify warning signs (at least potentially).


*where for example, dosages can be monitored, addicts can be spotted, and treated--not thrown in jail.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As to that other part--that "question of yours' that I saved till now, as it has little bearing to the argument itself: frankly, I don't appreciate the implication of what you say, and I find it extremely inappropriate--especially as I said nothing to you or anyone here to warrant this.

no, I don't want an apology, nor expect one: I can take an insult anyways.

[Beskar]

how does in effect, decreeing that only the state should have a monopoly on force/violence, actually solve the problem we are facing? how does it take the crime (and guns) off the streets, and into honest hands (which according to you, would be Government)?

and what about wars? or when the government turns on the people? then how does your "solution" work?

you see why I have a problem with the concept? yes, in practice it is true, but it doesn't mean I have to philosophically agree with it. The implications are, as I told HoreTore, very disturbing, at least to me. I can at least say that he was consistent.

I have to be perfectly honest here. In order to have state sanctioned violence, you need to be in an environment where such violence is fostered or even supported. People who would be wielding the weapons would not simply be drones. They are people as well, they would be having their weapons targeted at their friends and family. Could you easily say if you were ordered, you would shoot upon your friends?

The issue is not a question of "evil governments!" it is more about the people upholding the system and the principles they enshire. The time America ends up shipping people to NWO detention centres is not the time they take away your guns, it is the time for when there is popular support for them to put people in detention centres.

The problem with these scenarios is that they dehumanise the 'other'. You are apparently in a minority where only the select few care and the rest are going to impose their tyranical will upon you the moment you lock your gun away in its cabinet.

[Ironside]

how does in effect, decreeing that only the state should have a monopoly on force/violence, actually solve the problem we are facing? how does it take the crime (and guns) off the streets, and into honest hands (which according to you, would be Government)?

and what about wars? or when the government turns on the people? then how does your "solution" work?

you see why I have a problem with the concept? yes, in practice it is true, but it doesn't mean I have to philosophically agree with it. The implications are, as I told HoreTore, very disturbing, at least to me. I can at least say that he was consistent.

It's a concept that needs practical applications. Mexico is an example on a state losing the monopoly on violence (the older, mostly redundant in the west version even).

If very few criminals have guns, then the police doesn't need to be defending themselves against guns often, further reducing the risk of gun violence.

Wars and forceful goverment oppression are rather outside the scope. Which can be seen by the effictiveness of the handgun/shotgun militia. They are not good tools for war. So that is needing a different approach.

How? OK, so people here (ideally) have the right to defend themselves with a firearm (just to be clear here: you do realize the difference between that and a blanket "gun" culture, right?), if they wish. how does that make the same people more violent? It's the same argument I hear about video games, from those at the capitol. I'm dead serious, let me paraphrase:

Population A has 1% gun users -> 1% gun using criminals.

Population B has 15% gun users -> 15% gun using criminals.

If they behave exactly the same, population B will have much higher gun use (good and bad). In video game terms: If more people own shooter games and have exactly the same behavior as the smaller group, the total number of people shot in games will increase. If more people play Black Ops II MP, more players will die, unless the larger playerbase would cause a huge shift in behavior.

So the question isn't that I say that people with guns become devils, it's why you expect them to become angels. I expect them to stay mostly the same. The big difference is the number of people willing to use guns for self defense/offense.

of course, all this raises a question, which has yet been answered, having been raised before: "if you can't trust people to own firearms as they wish within the framework of the law, why should you trust the state, when it's staffed by the very same people?"

If lethal mistakes are made, do you prefer 100 or 10.000 people to have the abillity to make those mistakes?

And again, this doesn't actually address why the crime rate is high here in the US, but higher still in Mexico, where some of the proposals made by the gun control camp are part of the law already. It also doesn't address the fact that again, the greatest concentration of gun violence (in fact, all types of violence) in the US And Mexico occurs regardless of the level of regulation on guns.

I might be needing to point this out more clearly. I've been more focused on the consequences of embracing guns for self-defense, compared to treating it as a borderline anathema (as most of the west do). Roughly it gives less gun crimes and gun incidents at the cost of less defense during more extreme events (like Brevik).
Gun regulation (or lack of it) then becomes more on it's influence to cause an attitude shift between these positions rather than it's practical applications in a specfic situation. To put it this way. There's four questions:

Do you prefer gun for self defense or not?
Which way does the above question affect gun crime and gun use?
Does gun regulations have an influence on gun attitude?
What are the best practical applications to reduce gun crimes in the US?

I've got extremely low focus on the last question in this debate, but question 2 and 4 do have overlapping themes, so it's easy to confuse.

which again, should not even have to matter anyways: if people want weapons to hunt with, fine. if they want it because they feel it makes them safer, fine too. all this fear-mongering isn't going to help one way or another. I don't see why one group should be punished over the fear of the other.

It's a normal problem when a smaller question is heavily influenced by a larger one. For example, one very big issue for hunting is the fear of "teh goverment is going to take our guns", since it makes it harder to regulate hunting weapons on the issue of hunting.

the point I was making was that my attitude on gun control has little to do with American attitudes as a whole--be they the actual opinions, or what you think they are yourself. the "cost in their wallets" was a reference to the waste of money people commit by buying a weapon they have no need of, and will never use. That should have been clear in the context of the part I was replying to: I cannot see how you could have misunderstood that. I'll save the second half--your question, and its insinuation--till the end.

I said "no matter the cost" a term usually associated with paying a high price in say blood, rather than the financial cost. I've never talked about how much a gun cost in money. So basically I say it's a cost in blood. You respond by entering an entirely new subject, saying it's a wallet cost, as the only response on that argument.

I say "blood", you respond with "money". No black joke situation there.

The only thing firearms have over the others really, is that it's the easiest and most convenient thing to use--a point that I made earlier. after-all, you can easily teach an idiot to use a firearm.

While not solving the core issue, when the maniacs does use less lethal weapons, they do get less dangerous. I agree that school shootings are by themselves poor issues to form a gun policy from. Frequency might be relevant, although I haven't studied that data enough there (outside that it's unusually common in the US, but I would need data on if guns affect frequency in any way or only lethality).

And again, you didn't address the fact that if such people want to use a firearm for its sake, they'll inevitably find a way, either legally, or not. Breivik did it, so can anyone else.

Has the accessabillity to copyrighted material on the net ever influenced if you downloaded that material or not? I can say yes on this personally, in case you wonder.

Yes, the really extreme hardcore ones will find a way (unless detected) and will be more dangerous by not using guns for self defense, but the vast majority of the criminals won't belong to that category.

really? and it's hardly unique for the border region either. And even if you mean just the cops, so? doesn't change the fact that yes, cops do die there a lot (Mexican and American), and yes, it's largely related to the local cartel.

it's clear to me you didn't even bother to look this part up, or if you did, you misunderstood--otherwise, you wouldn't have said something this...wrong...and yes, it's wrong, sorry, but there's no other way of putting it.

Border regions in the US, not Mexico. The problems in Mexico has reached an entirely different scale.

and yes, Georgia is a "cop-killer"...and?

That was actually an honest question, no hidden motives outside curiousity, although hard to see it from context. Poor+transit cities might be enough.

that alone could undercut the crime rate more than you realize--including violence by firearm. you know, considering that many or most crimes here are tied to the above?

Now, if the crime rate is enormously high even afterwards (considering that the effects will naturally take time to fully materialize, one way or another), then we an see about regulating guns in a manner as strict as some people are suggestion.

I'm well aware that the prime crime drivers aren't at all related to gun laws. I agree on some of your points, some are more complex compared how you framed them (like fix immigration) and it's legal to research into violent crimes, as long as it doesn't have anything to do with guns (it's because of some court case the NRA-side won).

We're talking about two different questions though.

Yours is: What would drive down crime in the US (among those are gun crimes)? That is most pragmatic and effective.

Mine is: Would a different view on guns for self defense in the US drive down gun violence and would the crime rate change? Which are a more idealistic question and given that it can give than more guns drives up gun violence, but reduces crime (crime reduction is a common gun proponent suggestion after all), has an idealistic answer rather than a pragmatic one.

[HoreTore]

In order to have state sanctioned violence

"Violence" can be a misleading term here. A prison sentence would be an example of state violence. It's not just about what one normally considers "violence", ie. actual fighting(which is something a civilized state really shouldn't be doing).

[ICantSpellDawg]

I approve of the 3 tiered safe communities act with the Manchin-Toomey amendment attached. I am in favor of background checks which assist sellers in determining whether they are selling to a felon or the seriously mentally I'll. Anyone selling or giving a gun to someone who doesn't know the person well should be required to run the check. I also like the state carry reciprocity component for permit holders who undergo background checks every 5 years.

I hope the bill skates by, as is with no further amendments. Eternal turd, Mike Bloomberg is probably also on board. We are ready for compromise, let's vote.

Background checks are an abridgement of our second amendment rights, the AWB and mag bans are an infringement. Guess which ones are not allowed?

[Papewaio]

I don't understand how it is an abridgement?

Surely mental health forms part of the security of a state.

I'd add a checky amendment to this law. Anyone who fails a mental health check gets free access to medical treatment... Along the lines of "if you can't afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you".

Best to not only remove some of the tools but to treat the root cause.

[Montmorency]

Surely mental health forms part of the security of a state.

Excellent: it is inevitable that states shall act successfully to modify the character of the "mental" to further their own security.

[HopAlongBunny]

Excellent: it is inevitable that states shall act successfully to modify the character of the "mental" to further their own security.

The distribution of Valium and Prozac to the populace ought to be the first order of business then; guns are unnecessary.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Abridgements are not prohibited unless they become infringements. Since the purpose of the amendment is to preserve the right of the people to defend themselves from foreign and domestic threats or an abusive federal government and is implied to be related to the "militia", it would be an infringement to ban arms in the common use. This would extend to the magazines as well. It is merely an abridgement to regulate who is capable to keep and bear arms, and a necessary one in my opinion that should only exclude a small portion of prospective buyers for their inability to safely or lawfully use them.

[Papewaio]

A mentally ill person with a firearm is a threat to safety both general and their own.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It depends on how you describe mentally I'll. Some would like to consider Republicans and people who are religious as mentally I'll. Others would take the approach that people who are gay or liberal are mentally I'll. If you leave it to DSM only, people who at one time suffered from depression or have ocd have or had a mental illness.

Serious mental illness should be adjudicated and be able to be appealed prior to or shortly thereafter the elimination of a basic civil right.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm super excited by this result. Although I am a casualty in this war against bad laws as I live in NY, I feel like a 40/60 vote against assault weapon bans and a 46/54 vote against magazine bans is a real leap forward. I'm not happy that background checks for all commercial transactions failed, but the House will construct something short and sweet to cover themselves and bring this sensible evolution into law, I hope. One casualty of the cloture motion was the vote against reciprocity, but this was a compromise defeat.

Bloomberg can feel free to clobber democrats in swing states over this. They will lose their primaries to harder left democrats and than lose in the general to Republicans. I've heard some crazy vitriol from Democrats on this issue, wishing that the Senator's who vote against this bill have their own children killed in the next attack. That is horrible, not simply because these bills would not have done anything to eliminate the weapons used by the Sandy Hook shooter. His mother would have still been a lawful owner of the firearms, he still would have been able to kill her for them and run his insane rampage. To wish death on people who don't believe that without gun control all of our children our dead meat is insane.

[Lemur]

So the Congress couldn't pass an expansion of background checks. Which 90% of the public supports.

And ICSD is "super excited by this result."

And to think just a month ago there were people on this board who seemed to seriously believe that if we didn't fight super-duper-hard, massive gun control would occur. And freedom would perish, and Glenn Beck would take the chosen people to the promised land.

[Papewaio]

His mother was supplying him with weapons. Not something I would classify as smart when you are the nominated caregiver of someone who has a mental disorder.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So the Congress couldn't pass an expansion of background checks. Which 90% of the public supports.

And ICSD is "super excited by this result."

And to think just a month ago there were people on this board who seemed to seriously believe that if we didn't fight super-duper-hard, massive gun control would occur. And freedom would perish, and Glenn Beck would take the chosen people to the promised land.

Remember, I'm part of the 90% who supports background checks for ALL sales of firearms. I just don't want to be a felon if I lose the paperwork. The ToomeyManchin bill went down because people want short. That amendment was longer than the bill. I supported it, but warily

BTW, try buying a gun online. If it comes from anywhere out of your state it MUST first be transferred to an ffl and, while you've already paid, you must pass the NICs check. By all means, though, close any sales loopholes

[drone]

So the Congress couldn't pass an expansion of background checks. Which 90% of the public supports.

Not Congress, the (D)Senate. While the AWB deserved to die, universal background checks should have at least gotten to the House.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Once again, Democrats waste their political clout with gun control.

[Major Robert Dump]

I love how towards the end there the argument against closing the gun show loophole suddenly became "criminals don't go to gun shows to by guns" which is practically unprovable if not patently false. If these morons would simply present simple, straightforward legislation things might get done. Instead we get these monstrosity bills with pet laws for every tom dick and harry.....

[ICantSpellDawg]

Coburn offered them a route to 60 votes, they refused. Most people would back background checks. If you are not related to someone by blood or in law - mandatory background check, sale or gift. They could advise you to keep the records, but no felony or misdemeanor conviction if you failed to keep the records. Spot checked in event of a report of illegal transfer. Throw in carry reciprocity (which received the most votes of any amendment) and it is a done deal.

This could have gotten through and failed due to entrenched democratic interests. Rand Paul would have voted for it and wed be in a better place than we are now.

[Lemur]

This could have gotten through and failed due to entrenched democratic interests.

Yes, if there's one thing we have learned in the last four years, it's that the "entrenched democratic interests" prevent all forms of compromise. Damn those dirty Dems and their inability to meet anyone halfway! Damn them all to heck!

I bet the NRA was all, "We'd love to meet people halfway and do something sensible," and then the dirty hippie Dems slapped them across the face. I just BET that's what happened.

-edit-

Below is what Sen. Mitch McConnell posted on his FB page this morning. SO YOU SEE? He was all about compromise and common-sense improvement of gun law, and the Dems were all evil and nasty and inflexible. That's really what happened, no, for reals.

[drone]

Yes, if there's one thing we have learned in the last four years, it's that the "entrenched democratic interests" prevent all forms of compromise. Damn those dirty Dems and their inability to meet anyone halfway! Damn them all to heck!

If there's one thing we've learned in the last twelve years, it's that Democrats in Congress are spineless cowards more worried about keeping their seats than doing the right thing.

[Lemur]

If there's one thing we've learned in the last twelve years, it's that Democrats in Congress are spineless cowards more worried about keeping their seats than doing the right thing.

Sorry man, I don't see the logic of spinning this as the fault of the Dems. 90%+ of the Dems voted in favor of the background check expansion; 90%+ of the Repubs sided with the filibuster. So ... clearly it's the spineless Dems' fault? Explain, please.

[drone]

Sorry man, I don't see the logic of spinning this as the fault of the Dems. 90%+ of the Dems voted in favor of the background check expansion; 90%+ of the Repubs sided with the filibuster. So ... clearly it's the spineless Dems' fault? Explain, please.

The bills weren't going to pass the House anyway, so I'm not really placing specific "fault" here on the Senate. But once it became obvious that the GOP senators were going to block everything out of spite (and it should have been obvious by 2011), they should have gone nuclear and eliminated the silent filibuster. The spinelessness of the Dems in both houses goes back to the Bush years, and they still act as though they are the minority.

And GC is right about the Republican vote. You can't really blame them, it's just their nature.

[Beskar]

Sorry man, I don't see the logic of spinning this as the fault of the Dems. 90%+ of the Dems voted in favor of the background check expansion; 90%+ of the Repubs sided with the filibuster. So ... clearly it's the spineless Dems' fault? Explain, please.

And this is why Republicans should lose all their seats for timewasting. Either vote for the measure, vote against the measure, or abstain. Not hold up government till the end of time with filibusters.