Senate Republicans and Democrats reach background checks deal

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's a step in the right direction.  There is no legitimate reason to oppose this deal.  Background checks are a common sense way (and the only way) to enforce the laws on the books.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's a step in the right direction.  There is no legitimate reason to oppose this deal.  Background checks are a common sense way (and the only way) to enforce the laws on the books.

So you think the black market types will obey this law?

No - of course not.  I never said it would solve all gun violence problems.  But that doesn't make this a bad law.  Just because a law doesn't solve every problem doesn't mean you shouldn't pass it.  Will voter ID laws stop all voter fraud?  Of course not--but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No - of course not.  I never said it would solve all gun violence problems.  But that doesn't make this a bad law.  Just because a law doesn't solve every problem doesn't mean you shouldn't pass it.  Will voter ID laws stop all voter fraud?  Of course not--but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

And just because a law is a feel good response to nanny-staters doesn't mean it's a good idea, or it'll work.

Then explain to me why it's a bad idea.  Do felons try to buy guns through "legitimate" means (non-black market)?  Yes.  Would requiring background checks reduce the amount of guns that felons get?  Yes.

Will it end gun violence?  No; of course not.  But that's not what I'm arguing.

I'm saying that we have laws on the books that say felons can't own firearms.  This is the best way to ensure that felons don't get firearms, other than random searches of felons, which I'm guessing wouldn't fly with SCOTUS.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AkSaber, that's not addressing my question.  What about this proposed bill is bad?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm now in a war on Twitter being called a liberal for saying that it's ridiculous to think the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted 100% literally... what a bunch of wackjobs.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm now in a war on Twitter being called a liberal for saying that it's ridiculous to think the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted 100% literally... what a bunch of wackjobs.

I'm assuming their twitter picture was either a bald eagle, a Benghazi 4 ribbon, or both.

No... mostly something involving a gun.  So then I bring up the argument, If it's 100% literal, Bureau of Prison regulations against prisoners with guns are unconstitutional... yet that argument is called "absurd".  No... that's just the logical conclusion of a 100% literal interpretation.  The 100% literal argument is the absurd argument, pointed out by the fact that it would be absurd to say BOP can't ban guns in prison.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm now in a war on Twitter being called a liberal for saying that it's ridiculous to think the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted 100% literally... what a bunch of wackjobs.

I think it's time for someone to switch parties. The Right is getting far too absurd for you.

88% of Republicans support background checks.  (I was also challenged on that figure, provided 3 polls, and then never heard from the nutcase again.)  I'm not in the minority here.  The ultra-right wingers are.... and a very small minority at that.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So the guy tweets back: I understand "the right of the 'people'" to mean "free people."

My response: But that's not a 100% literal interpretation.  You are inferring.  If you have to infer, then it's not literal.

It's like these people don't know what "literal" means when they're saying it.

In other news... I've been in the library for 3 hours and I've read 4 sentences of my property reading.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And no response after my last tweet...