Senate Republicans and Democrats reach background checks deal

[Sopranos Republican]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Washington Post

[Keystone Phil]

Senator Toomey continues to be at the center of another major bipartisan agreement. A true leader.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Hopefully Manchin's involvement in this will lock up the support it needs from conservadems.  Good deal.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yeah, okay, fine. But let's not treat this as a dramatic step forward.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yeah, okay, fine. But let's not treat this as a dramatic step forward.

It's barely a baby step.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yeah, okay, fine. But let's not treat this as a dramatic step forward.

It's barely a baby step.

Though it's the sort of thing the beltway press would praise as a dramatic breakthrough for bipartisanship or some other crock.

[Old Man Svensson]

No matter how little, it's still progress, which is more than I expected of the useless twits in Washington on this issue. I would have preferred to see background checks universally extended - all they are is a minor inconvenience to a good person, after all - but I'll take what I can get.

[Mehmentum]

Good, but how will it fare in the House?

[traininthedistance]

Better than nothing.  Which is about all we can ask for nowadays.

[TNF]

Better than nothing.  Which is about all we can ask for nowadays.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yeah, okay, fine. But let's not treat this as a dramatic step forward.

It's barely a baby step.

Though it's the sort of thing the beltway press would praise as a dramatic breakthrough for bipartisanship or some other crock.

Munchkin and Toomey seem of the same ilk to me.....it's 'bipartisan' in name only.

[Franzl]

Better than nothing.  Which is about all we can ask for nowadays.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Better than nothing.  Which is about all we can ask for nowadays.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Better than nothing.  Which is about all we can ask for nowadays.

[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.

[Likely Voter]

what's the big deal on private exchanges or sales. I bought my car from my brother but I didn't complain about my freedom being destroyed when I had to go down to the DMV. I know cars aren't in the Constitution but seriously its just filling out some forms and a little burden isn't a big deal. We are talking about things that are built to kill people and animals.

I just hope this private sale loophole doesn't end up just being the place where everyone goes including straw purchasers for gangmembers

[badgate]

Hopefully a magazine amendment can be added.

[AkSaber]

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?

[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.

[minionofmidas]

I just hope this private sale loophole doesn't end up just being the place where everyone goes including straw purchasers for gangmembers

That would be a change from current reality how?

[AkSaber]

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.

[Beet]

Hopefully a magazine amendment can be added.

Hopefully it'll pass the House.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Do you think criminals will obey the law?" No strawman there. Do you think murderers will obey laws against murder? No? Let's just repeal all laws against murder, then. Let's repeal all laws against terrorism, theft, rape, etc.

Anything that makes it harder for someone who shouldn't have a gun to have a gun will make us safer. People, even criminals, often commit crimes because of opportunity. The higher the costs associated, the less likely they'll do it. The easier it is, the more likely. Hence, laws that make it harder for irresponsible people to get weapons will deter some of them from getting them, yes.

[Franzl]

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.

Why do we even bother to limit access to nuclear weapons?

[AkSaber]

If this is about preventing violence, then why is Obama getting a free pass to do whatever he wants.

Who knows how many innocent people he's murdered in the Middle East with completely unnecessary drone strikes.

[Beet]

Gun extremists love argumentation by label. Will "black market" types obey the law? With the definition of "black market" being a market outside the law. Hence the argument really comes down to "people who don't obey the law, won't obey the law." This is hardly even a coherent thought, let alone the decisive argument against life-saving laws.