Senate Rejects Expanded Gun Background Checks

because why even have a vote on something that 90% of the country agrees with? Just filibuster the whole thing. Anyone have a link letting us know the names the cowards who filibustered? Particularly the democrats?

edit: ah here's a link to at least the names of the democrats.

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] They can if properly enforced. The Feds don't even properly enforce the checks that are already law. And on top of that something like only 1% of those who lie on the checks even get prosecuted. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

What I don't understand is the disconnect between the popularity of significant background checks, which seems to be high, and the number of Senators supporting it, which is barely a majority.

It suggests to me that Senators aren't properly representing their substituents.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Where did I mention felons? LJS9502_basic

And the mexican cartels get hooked up by the Feds in gun running scandels already.

Mitch McConnell posted this to his Facebook page, I guess because he wants to come off as a cartoonish movie villain 

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/17324_552665124756002_385013817_n.jpg

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Any economic activity that goes under the table in order to avoid the state and deals in cash...is part of the black market. And of course it goes towards the underground economy....that dealer isn't putting that info in his books and won't report anything. That cash goes in his pocket...no taxing it.KC_Hokie

FYI a straw purchase is when someone who can legally buy a specific widget  for themself buys it for someone else who can't legally make that same purchase.  

I don't have the exact facts on me but the majority of gun sales that happen in the US often go through background checks or are sold through a retailer who keeps a record of sales (to cover themselves). It's very rare a gun that is used in a crime is bought at a gun show. Most online purchases require a background check already.

I doubt the legislation would have done much anyways.

A real huge issue right now is our current laws are not being enforced properly. We should increase the funding to properly enforce those laws. That will go a lot farther than just increased laws that aren't really enforced well.

What I find interesting is how we are always trying to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals with these bills but the majority of mass shootings happen from law abiding citizens who snap. Those are the only ones people care about becuase something like 60-70% of all gun violence in this country happens criminal on criminal (again don't have the exact stats on me but that was the last I read, I would love to hear some contraditory info if possible).

Even moreso in most mass shootings the most used weapons are rarely assault weapons but rather shotguns and pistols. At point blank it doens't really matter the size, accuracy, and power of the gun. A little .22 pistol with a 5 round magazine could still kill a lot of people at close range.

I'm sure the republicans will be moving forward with your suggestions soon.

Serraph105

That's of course never enough. In these situations you gotta ban something for the illusion that it will actually help. In the minds of the ignorant banning something makes it go away. A lot of this is just a mentality anyways. Most people who want more gun laws are completely unaffected by it. They support them because they believe by supporting new laws they are making the world better without actually sacrificing anything themselves. This isn't just for guns, mind you. Anything that can be harmful always has a group of people behind it trying to get it banned. 

I'm personally for harsher penalities for straw purchases and selling to a criminal (even unknowningly). I feel that we also should have an easier way to do background checks so that people can do them if they choose. With the increased penalties and an easier, more comprehensive background check system in place, people will naturally use it more often. 

People who are going to sell to criminals knowingly weren't going to do background checks anyways. 

Unless you require every gun sale to be registered with the federal government and every firearm in the nation to be registered, there was no real good way of forcing this system.

Good. Maybe they should enforce the current laws first before enacting a load of new bullshit.

Will be celebrating this weekend at the gun range, hopefully with a few new firearms after I go to the Syracuse gun show.

(WASHINGTON)  Senate Republicans, backed by rural-state Democrats, blocked legislation Wednesday to tighten restrictions on the sale of firearms, rejecting personal pleas made by families of the victims of last winters mass elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

Attempts to ban assault-style rifles and high capacity ammunition magazines also faced certain defeat in a series of showdown votes four months after a gunman killed 20 elementary school children and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary.

The background check measure commanded a majority of senators, 54-46, but that was well short of the 60 votes needed to advance. Forty-one Republicans and five Democrats sided together to scuttle the plan.

Sad.

It was pretty pointless anyways, maybe they are going to something that would help prevent stuff like what happened at Newtown, and look at mental health.

What a disgrace, shame on the senators who voted against it.  :evil:

This had zero shot at passing the House even if the Senate did go along with it.DroidPhysX

because why even have a vote on something that 90% of the country agrees with? Just filibuster the whole thing. Anyone have a link letting us know the names the cowards who filibustered? Particularly the democrats?

Serraph105

I don't see how background checks prevents gun crime. Fightingfan

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]I don't see how background checks prevents gun crime. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Fightingfan"]I don't see how background checks prevents gun crime. Fightingfan

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]If you sell it legally you would have to go through Feds. But, yea, that's the thing none of these bills address the black market.KC_Hokie

Good.  

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Fightingfan"] Why would I sell a gun legally? Who the hell would purposely pay taxes? Fightingfan

So they should start with enforcing existing laws properly before passing more 'checks' that won't be properly enforced.

Surprising, considering 90% of the country supported them. On second thought, not surprising at all. Maniacc1

90% of people in Newtown, maybe.  90% of people in blue states, possibly.  90% of Americans.. absolutely not.  Obama pulled that one out of his @ss, as usual.  

What I don't understand is the disconnect between the popularity of significant background checks, which seems to be high, and the number of Senators supporting it, which is barely a majority.

It suggests to me that Senators aren't properly representing their substituents.

because why even have a vote on something that 90% of the country agrees with? Just filibuster the whole thing. Anyone have a link letting us know the names the cowards who filibustered? Particularly the democrats?

edit: ah here's a link to at least the names of the democrats.

Serraph105

The 90% number was a farse anyways.  

What I don't understand is the disconnect between the popularity of significant background checks, which seems to be high, and the number of Senators supporting it, which is barely a majority.

It suggests to me that Senators aren't properly representing their substituents.

jimkabrhel

[QUOTE="Maniacc1"]Surprising, considering 90% of the country supported them. On second thought, not surprising at all. hartsickdiscipl

90% of people in Newtown, maybe.  90% of people in blue states, possibly.  90% of Americans.. absolutely not.  Obama pulled that one out of his @ss, as usual.  

Yeah, no.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

because why even have a vote on something that 90% of the country agrees with? Just filibuster the whole thing. Anyone have a link letting us know the names the cowards who filibustered? Particularly the democrats?

nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="Kamekazi_69"]

Great news.

I just hope this forceful debate stops already.

Mithrandir50

Bill wouldn't have prevented the Newtown shooting. Obama just wanted something to pass regardless of what it was.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Maniacc1"]Surprising, considering 90% of the country supported them. On second thought, not surprising at all. DroidPhysX

90% of people in Newtown, maybe.  90% of people in blue states, possibly.  90% of Americans.. absolutely not.  Obama pulled that one out of his @ss, as usual.  

Yeah, no.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Bill wouldn't have prevented the Newtown shooting. Obama just wanted something to pass regardless of what it was.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Bill wouldn't have prevented the Newtown shooting. Obama just wanted something to pass regardless of what it was.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

What I don't understand is the disconnect between the popularity of significant background checks, which seems to be high, and the number of Senators supporting it, which is barely a majority.

It suggests to me that Senators aren't properly representing their substituents.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Because we already have background checks. They aren't properly enforced as it is.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Nothing wrong with background checks....LJS9502_basic

But they don't even properly enforce existing background checks and gun laws.

What I don't understand is the disconnect between the popularity of significant background checks, which seems to be high, and the number of Senators supporting it, which is barely a majority.

It suggests to me that Senators aren't properly representing their substituents.

jimkabrhel

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

90% of people in Newtown, maybe.  90% of people in blue states, possibly.  90% of Americans.. absolutely not.  Obama pulled that one out of his @ss, as usual.  

KC_Hokie

Yeah, no.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Not at (all) gun shows....LJS9502_basic