No. 2 Senate Republican proposing gun background check bill

[INPatriot]

Cornyn proposes new background check bill

 

[foszoe]

NRA is backing according to the article. Have to read more, but I saw grant money mentioned which really means it comes out of my pocket somehow.

 

[chipbennett]

I have no problem with ensuring the appropriate data get into the system. My problem is with the system at all. It does not and cannot work. It won't keep "prohibited persons" from getting firearms. It won't lead to arrest and conviction of "prohibited persons" who knowingly attempt to purchase firearms.

 

[GNRPowdeR]

I have no problem with ensuring the appropriate data get into the system. My problem is with the system at all. It does not and cannot work. It won't keep "prohibited persons" from getting firearms. It won't lead to arrest and conviction of "prohibited persons" who knowingly attempt to purchase firearms.

 

[LP1]

I have no problem with ensuring the appropriate data get into the system. My problem is with the system at all. It does not and cannot work. It won't keep "prohibited persons" from getting firearms. It won't lead to arrest and conviction of "prohibited persons" who knowingly attempt to purchase firearms.

No law, for any purpose, will completely eliminate whatever it seeks to address. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. This proposal is the first thing I've seen in a long time that might have a positive impact without having a further adverse effect on the law-abiding.

 

[jamil]

I have no problem with ensuring the appropriate data get into the system. My problem is with the system at all. It does not and cannot work. It won't keep "prohibited persons" from getting firearms. It won't lead to arrest and conviction of "prohibited persons" who knowingly attempt to purchase firearms.

(sorry, could only go with virtual rep)

Not only can't it keep "prohibited persons" from getting firearms, it can't predict the ones who actually are a danger.

The criteria used to determine "prohibited persons" is more arbitrary than not. Not all felons are violent. Not all people under a P.O. are violent. Not all mentally ill people are violent. Not all marijuana users are violent.

Of the people who've been denied, how many would actually have been a threat? Shootings happen by people who did and did not pass their background checks. Yet there are still shootings because the criteria is inadequate. And it will likely always be inadequate. This makes the background check system inadequate.

The background check system is just a social construct to make people think they're controlling violence. They're not. I think figuring out what makes people violent, and dealing with that, is much more fruitful than taking away people's ability to protect themselves from violence.

 

[Peter Potamus]

I have no problem with ensuring the appropriate data get into the system. My problem is with the system at all. It does not and cannot work. It won't keep "prohibited persons" from getting firearms. It won't lead to arrest and conviction of "prohibited persons" who knowingly attempt to purchase firearms.

No law, for any purpose, will completely eliminate whatever it seeks to address. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. This proposal is the first thing I've seen in a long time that might have a positive impact without having a further adverse effect on the law-abiding.

Exactly. Cornyn didn't say it would eliminate all of the problem. It just closes a hole that no one should have a problem with being closed.

 

[spec4]

Looks like we are foolishly giving an inch. What will this thing look like in it's final iteration?

 

[ATM]

Why is the federal government involved in gun sales or ownership?

 

[mrjarrell]

Why is the federal government involved in gun sales or ownership?

According to Kirk and Houghmade they are allowed to do it because of the commerce clause. Or some other such nonsense.

 

[Alamo]

According to [STRIKE]Kirk and Houghmade [/STRIKE]Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States they are allowed to do it because of the commerce clause. Or some other such nonsense.

Give credit where it is due, don't shoot the messenger.

And yes, this ranks right down there with Dred Scott, Miller, Kelo, Roe vs Wade, saving Obamacare, and Gay Marriage decisions as wildly craptastic decisions of SCOTUS.

 

[BogWalker]

Heck, we could make background checks 100% air tight and make them universal and violent felons could still get blackpowder and antique guns with which to kill people if they really wanted to. Eliminate that exemption and there's still nothing stopping somebody from making a slam fire shotgun or a zip gun of some sort. And there's also good old fashioned stealing guns and the black market.

The only way to stop violent people from getting guns would be to wave a magic wand and make all firearms and knowledge of them disappear.

At that point we would be reading news stories of mass stabbings and serial axe murderers.

 

[Alamo]

It seems the bill bribes states with grant money to do something that they are already supposed to be doing under federal law anyway, it's not expanding or adding actual background checks. Cornyn has been pretty good in opposing gun control nonsense in the past, I'm not going get panty-wadded about this just yet -- this is more apt to be him setting a small backfire to head off some Democratic background check bill that has actual teeth. I would prefer the feds stay out of it all together, but that's a different fight. Cornyn and the NRA have fight on the battlefield as it is, not as we wish it was.

 

[Dosproduction]

Anything that "infringe" is Unconstitutional. And the commerce clause was put in to stop different states from getting into a war over trade. Remember this country was founded on the idea that each state is separate and is joining the union. Not that each state is a subordinate to the union as a whole. The commerce clause was not there to let the federal government regulate everything. And if the only reason we need these infringements is cause of the commerce clause then we should legally be able to buy ANYTHING that is produced in Indiana. And I am all for supporting local businesses. Any tanks made 100 percent in Indiana. I think I need a tank.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

And yet, once again, "our side" is playing "their" game. Though calls for complete repeal of NFA and its progeny would probably be laughed out of congress, can we at least start floating bills to take silencers and SBRs off the NFA naughty list? The republicans keep tweaking their laws instead of working to repeal them.

 

[GIJEW]

I have no problem with ensuring the appropriate data get into the system. My problem is with the system at all. It does not and cannot work. It won't keep "prohibited persons" from getting firearms. It won't lead to arrest and conviction of "prohibited persons" who knowingly attempt to purchase firearms.

...especially since obeyme and the doj won't enforce federal gun laws

 

[actaeon277]

According to Kirk and Houghmade they are allowed to do it because of the commerce clause. Or some other such nonsense.

Actually, that is their justification.
That's why you can buy without a NICS in a person to person, within a state (that allows it).
The state's have been allowed to make more restrictions, but the Feds were restricted to "between states", which they've expanded to their FFLs.

Not to say they won't ignore that. People don't seem to care about the Feds following the law anymore.

 

[SirRealism]

Even without the 2am, the Constitution grants no federal authority over firearms.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

According to Kirk and Houghmade they are allowed to do it because of the commerce clause. Or some other such nonsense.

Is this where we play "pretend" on INGO? We are going to pretend that the Commerce Clause does not exist and and the Supreme Court said nothing like "plenary power"?

I saw this at the jail today. They can't get me for Robbery because I am going to pretend that the camera showing sticking up the liquor store and the station wagon full of nuns does not exist.

Healthy. Real healthy.

I don't think this delusional denial of reality is going to help things. We get out in front of it and limit the damage all the while showing that background checks are feckless.

 

[devious169]

We can sit here and bicker back and fourth for generations about gun control, background checks, mental status...... etc.. it's all rhetorical bull****! One party pandering to the other! when you have a bunch of ego maniacs that are hell bent on fame and money.They will stop at nothing to get what they want , like spoiled children! So we as believers in the Constitution, the bill of rights, the declaration of independence give into crap like this l. ask yourself a few questions . WHERE DOES IT STOP? WHEN DOES IT STOP? WHAT'S THEIR DEFINITION OF MENTAL STATUS? **** on em. I'm done with my rant.