Senate Republicans and Democrats reach background checks deal

[Franzl]

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.

That's a discussion we could certainly have, but irrelevant to the issue of reducing domestic gun violence.

[Maxwell]

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]

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?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

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.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

[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.

[Likely Voter]

Being against this is a political loser. You can talk about burdens and lawbreakers dont care about laws but in the end you are voting to protect the rights of people who shouldnt get guns to get guns. Want to see women come out and vote in the midterms? Then wait for the ads about your local Senator/congressman voting to protect the rights of wifebeaters who arent allowed to buy guns to get guns.

FFS the GOP won. they stopped the AWB and even stopped extended clips (to protect the rights of mass killers to not have to reload I guess?). Fillibustering and fighting background checks is getting greedy and yet another example of GOP over-reach.

[AkSaber]

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.

It won't stop the illegal firearms market. It's just easier and less dangerous to leave criminals alone and go after those who willingly submit to the government.

That's a discussion we could certainly have, but irrelevant to the issue of reducing domestic gun violence.

I don't disagree. I just roll my eyes everytime Obama or Boehner weep in front of a camera yet casually end or maim the lives of the innocent.

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?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

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.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

Don't you find it strange to be lectured about violence by people who hold no regard for what consequences their actions take?

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.

Preventing violence doesn't start with shifting more power to the government. There was a time, before the National Firearms Act of 1934, when you could walk into a hardware store and walk out with a Thompson submachine gun. The country didn't shoot itself to death then. So what happened between then and now? More gun laws and increased violence.

It's not the weapons. The character of the people has changed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

[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.

It won't stop the illegal firearms market. It's just easier and less dangerous to leave criminals alone and go after those who willingly submit to the government.

There you go again. An illegal firearms market is by definition illegal. You labelled it yourself as illegal. Every law ever written is subject to the same criticism that it doesn't stop illegal disobedience of it.

There is nothing voluntary about this law, otherwise it wouldn't be a law. If you don't follow it, there will be punishment. Hence it's not about people who "willingly" submit, it's about all people, whether they're willing or not. They'll all have to go through a background check as enforced to the best of the law's ability. It's amazing when the gun extremists claim that the solution to gun crime is to better enforce existing laws, and then argue against measures like this which are designed precisely to better enforce existing laws.

[Franzl]

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.

It won't stop the illegal firearms market. It's just easier and less dangerous to leave criminals alone and go after those who willingly submit to the government.

There you go again. An illegal firearms market is by definition illegal. You labelled it yourself as illegal. Every law ever written is subject to the same criticism that it doesn't stop illegal disobedience of it.

There is nothing voluntary about this law, otherwise it wouldn't be a law. If you don't follow it, there will be punishment. Hence it's not about people who "willingly" submit, it's about all people, whether they're willing or not. They'll all have to go through a background check as enforced to the best of the law's ability. It's amazing when the gun extremists claim that the solution to gun crime is to better enforce existing laws, and then argue against measures like this which are designed precisely to better enforce existing laws.

Well to be fair, he's arguing (I think) that there shouldn't be any regulations on guns, not that existing ones should be enforced.

It's insane, but isn't contradictory.

[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.

It won't stop the illegal firearms market. It's just easier and less dangerous to leave criminals alone and go after those who willingly submit to the government.

There you go again. An illegal firearms market is by definition illegal. You labelled it yourself as illegal. Every law ever written is subject to the same criticism that it doesn't stop illegal disobedience of it.

There is nothing voluntary about this law, otherwise it wouldn't be a law. If you don't follow it, there will be punishment. Hence it's not about people who "willingly" submit, it's about all people, whether they're willing or not. They'll all have to go through a background check as enforced to the best of the law's ability. It's amazing when the gun extremists claim that the solution to gun crime is to better enforce existing laws, and then argue against measures like this which are designed precisely to better enforce existing laws.

Well to be fair, he's arguing (I think) that there shouldn't be any regulations on guns, not that existing ones should be enforced.

What's the difference? The logic of his argument is that there shouldn't be any laws at all, because by definition, people who successfully evade a particular law aren't obeying it. Calling it an argument is charitable because it's really a tautological statement disguised as an argument.

[Old Man Svensson]

AkSaber, tell me something: what reason at all is there to oppose this measure when it does literally nothing to keep good people from owning firearms? And I don't mean the stock bulls**t "RAR UNLIMITED FREEDOM RAAAAAR" argument libertarians use in response to literally everything that would never, under any circumstances, actually work in real life. I'm talking a legitimate, thought-out reason.

[Vosem]

A pretty good deal -- certainly background checks of gun sales are necessary, though easing gun laws in the various states is obviously a more pressing concern.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

A pretty good deal -- certainly background checks of gun sales are necessary, though easing gun laws in the various states is obviously a more pressing concern.

Moar gunz. MOAR.

[Supersonic]

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

[Sopranos Republican]

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.

[All Along The Watchtower]

A pretty good deal -- certainly background checks of gun sales are necessary, though easing gun laws in the various states is obviously a more pressing concern.

....

[Goldwater]

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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

NRA opposes the deal, continues to be a joke.

[Old Man Svensson]

NRA opposes the deal, continues to be a joke.

Dickless lunatics, just as Carlin put on the records in years past.

[Antonio the Sixth]

NRA opposes the deal, continues to be a joke.

Remember they nominally support background checks...

I mean seriously, these guys don't actually give a crap about gun owners. The only people they actually strive to defend are gun sellers - and they want to make sure they are able to sell to any criminal.

[Marokai Backbeat]

NRA opposes the deal, continues to be a joke.

Remember they nominally support background checks...

I mean seriously, these guys don't actually give a crap about gun owners. The only people they actually strive to defend are gun sellers - and they want to make sure they are able to sell to any criminal.

So far as I've read, the deal also closes the gun show loophole, which I'm sure is what the NRA can't stand, and is also the best thing in this half-baby step. The NRA doesn't care about how many dead kids we have, so long as we keep selling more, more, more guns.

[dead0man]

I've got no problems with this.  It will actually reduce crime a bit (unlike AWB2 or magazine restrictions) without hurting gun owners much (like the AWB2 and magazine restrictions would).

Now we should go after straw purchases.

[Franzl]

NRA opposes the deal, continues to be a joke.

Remember they nominally support background checks...

I mean seriously, these guys don't actually give a crap about gun owners. The only people they actually strive to defend are gun sellers - and they want to make sure they are able to sell to any criminal.

So far as I've read, the deal also closes the gun show loophole, which I'm sure is what the NRA can't stand, and is also the best thing in this half-baby step. The NRA doesn't care about how many dead kids we have, so long as we keep selling more, more, more guns.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people!

[Old Man Svensson]

NRA opposes the deal, continues to be a joke.

Remember they nominally support background checks...

I mean seriously, these guys don't actually give a crap about gun owners. The only people they actually strive to defend are gun sellers - and they want to make sure they are able to sell to any criminal.

So far as I've read, the deal also closes the gun show loophole, which I'm sure is what the NRA can't stand, and is also the best thing in this half-baby step. The NRA doesn't care about how many dead kids we have, so long as we keep selling more, more, more guns.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people!

Well, in fairness, that is what it all comes down to in the end. The NRA just happens to be completely deluded when it comes to how they want to deal with the issue.