Thoughts on Manchin-Toomey Amendment

[terryg]

I seriously doubt many actual criminals try to purchase firearms legitimately.

Agreed - not many. But I have no doubt that some do. (FWIW, I don't believe the 40% no background check bull that Obama pushes either).

There are many individuals who are on the no buy list that are not actual violent felons intent on actually killing someone in a crime.

There are many individuals on the no fly lists who have absolutely no ties to any terrorist organization whatsoever.

Anyone in their right mind will not grant the government authority to maintain a list of people who can be allowed to purchase something.

A swipe opf a pen makes us all criminals.

Aswipe of a pen puts us all on the no buy list.

A swipe of a pen makes all firearms illegal to own.

NOT. ONE. MORE. INCH.

Anygunanywhere

As I replied to MeMelYup ... I can understand that argument. But for it to be valid, one would have to advocate to abolish NISC altogether. Then there is at least consistency. As I stated in my initial rant ... either we support NICS background checks or we don't. I see no reason to insist they be conducted for FFL transactions but not other stranger-to-stranger transactions.

[RAM4171]

NOT. ONE. MORE. INCH.

Anygunanywhere

This

[terryg]

NOT. ONE. MORE. INCH.

Anygunanywhere

This

That's fine. I can respect that position. Just come out and say NICS checks, all of them, are an infringement and they don't work. The system costs too much money and we need to abolish it.

But don't imply that the bill, as written, would create a registry or that it would require checks on transfers between friends and family. Just be honest about it and about what you don't like about it.

Dishonesty and manipulation are tactics that the other side uses. I think we are, or at least should be, above that.

[Dave2]

But don't imply that the bill, as written, would create a registry or that it would require checks on transfers between friends and family.

As written, it wouldn't. But when was the last time a law was passed that nobody ever tried to twist? Stop trusting the government so much.

[K.Mooneyham]

NOT. ONE. MORE. INCH.

Anygunanywhere

This

That's fine. I can respect that position. Just come out and say NICS checks, all of them, are an infringement and they don't work. The system costs too much money and we need to abolish it.

But don't imply that the bill, as written, would create a registry or that it would require checks on transfers between friends and family. Just be honest about it and about what you don't like about it.

Dishonesty and manipulation are tactics that the other side uses. I think we are, or at least should be, above that.

The bill may indeed have been written as you say. But if you read about what happened to the FOPA of 1986, it was amended at the very last second by Hughes, Democrat, New Jersey, in an attempt to kill the bill with a "poison pill". It was an overall good bill, so Ronald Reagan made the tough choice and signed it anyway. However, this time it could have very well gone the other way, making a not-so-great bill MUCH worse with some last minute amendment that the current POTUS would happily have signed.

[terryg]

But don't imply that the bill, as written, would create a registry or that it would require checks on transfers between friends and family.

As written, it wouldn't. But when was the last time a law was passed that nobody ever tried to twist? Stop trusting the government so much.

I don't trust them. Current laws could also be twisted to allow create a registry. This amendment would actually make that harder.

[terryg]

The bill may indeed have been written as you say. But if you read about what happened to the FOPA of 1986, it was amended at the very last second by Hughes, Democrat, New Jersey, in an attempt to kill the bill with a "poison pill". It was an overall good bill, so Ronald Reagan made the tough choice and signed it anyway. However, this time it could have very well gone the other way, making a not-so-great bill MUCH worse with some last minute amendment that the current POTUS would happily have signed.

I can see that as a legitimate concern. Now if we had enough votes to kill it now, we should have enough to kill it later if the anit-registry language was gutted. And if not the Senate, surely in the House. But I can see concerns over the bill getting corrupted in the process.

[terryg]

Let me add ... when I say conflicted - I mean truly conflicted.

The part of me that is happy about the bill failure is ecstatic that it blew up on Obama's face. I couldn't be happier that Obama, Bloomberg and his cronies went home crying in their milk.

I just don't know that it was a bad bill - it actually made a few positive changes for gun owners. I don't know that we were on the right side of this one, I don't know that it won't come back to bite us, and I don't like disinformation campaigns.

[RAM4171]

NOT. ONE. MORE. INCH.

Anygunanywhere

This

That's fine. I can respect that position. Just come out and say NICS checks, all of them, are an infringement and they don't work. The system costs too much money and we need to abolish it.

But don't imply that the bill, as written, would create a registry or that it would require checks on transfers between friends and family. Just be honest about it and about what you don't like about it.

Dishonesty and manipulation are tactics that the other side uses. I think we are, or at least should be, above that.

Most all gun laws are an infringment on law abiding citizens. Most all of the laws currently on the books do absolutelty nothing to prevent violence. Therefore adding ANY new legislature to the the books will do exactly that NOTHING to prevent crime or violence. That being said, I say this to any and all legislators "STOP INFRINGING ON THE RIGHTTS OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS IN AN ATTEMPT TO CURTAIL THE ACTS OF CRIMINALS THAT ARE GOING TO DISREGARD YOUR LAWS NO MATTER WHAT SAID LAWS CONTAIN". This is the way I believe and nothing will change my wholehearted beleif in the entire Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.
It's late and I have meatloaf that needs eatin'. I love ya'll and thanks for coming.

[The Annoyed Man]

NOT. ONE. MORE. INCH.

Anygunanywhere

This

That's fine. I can respect that position. Just come out and say NICS checks, all of them, are an infringement and they don't work. The system costs too much money and we need to abolish it.

But don't imply that the bill, as written, would create a registry or that it would require checks on transfers between friends and family. Just be honest about it and about what you don't like about it.

Dishonesty and manipulation are tactics that the other side uses. I think we are, or at least should be, above that.

Actually, there's no cognitive dissonance here (I think that's the term you might have meant rather than intellectual dishonesty). I would like to get rid of NICS entirely. Make ALL sellers responsible for knowingly selling a firearm to a felon. Make all felons responsible for having tried to buy a gun.......from anybody. Get the government entirely out of the process except that of prosecuting criminals. I'm always about personal responsibility and getting government out of the process. And by the way, I'm not entirely convinced that nonviolent felons shouldn't have all their rights restored once they've served their sentences. Even so, the fact is that we have NICS, and its existence has to be acknowledged. But I am only in favor of changes which dismantle NICS and get government out of the process, even if only incrementally. So if a proposed law will expand the scope of NICS, then I'm agin' it.

[anygunanywhere]

There is not one piece of legislation that reduces crime. All legislation by its nature creates a new category of criminal.

The government never writes legislation intending to follow the exact letter of said law. The laws are vague to the degree that allows them to meneuver any way they determine. They write the law and they determine how it is applied. Or not applied.

The government is free to legalise or outlaw anything they desire for as of right now there are few ways to stop them. None of the ways are pretty.

If you trust the government to do what is right and fair and follow the laws then something is wrong.

Anygunanywhere

[terryg]

Actually, there's no cognitive dissonance here (I think that's the term you might have meant rather than intellectual dishonesty).

I didn't use intellectual dishonesty to refer to this. I used it in reference to us claiming the anti's always ask for an inch when they will want a mile later. It is intellectually dishonest if we don't admit that we desire the same thing and use the same tactic.

But you are right. Cognitive dissonance is the perfect term to describe support of NICS checks in some instances of stranger sales and not other instances.

I would like to get rid of NICS entirely. Make ALL sellers responsible for knowingly selling a firearm to a felon. Make all felons responsible for having tried to buy a gun.......from anybody. Get the government entirely out of the process except that of prosecuting criminals. I'm always about personal responsibility and getting government out of the process. And by the way, I'm not entirely convinced that nonviolent felons shouldn't have all their rights restored once they've served their sentences. Even so, the fact is that we have NICS, and its existence has to be acknowledged. But I am only in favor of changes which dismantle NICS and get government out of the process, even if only incrementally. So if a proposed law will expand the scope of NICS, then I'm agin' it.

So like I said, I can respect that position. My desire, then, would be for the people and groups that represent us to honestly articulate that position and not resort to disinformation campaigns like our opponents do.

Maybe they have to do it ... I don't know. Maybe I should close my eyes to how the sausage is made. I just don't like feeling like I need to take a shower afterwards.

[The Annoyed Man]

Maybe they have to do it ... I don't know. Maybe I should close my eyes to how the sausage is made. I just don't like feeling like I need to take a shower afterwards.

I totally agree, but it is a fact of life in our political landscape, and the only way to fix it is to scrape it all off and start over again. That's not likely to happen in the near future; and because people never surrender power willingly, when/if it ever does happen, it will be bloody.

Anygunanywhere alluded to "government doing what it wants." That's pretty much the case. I call it Leviathan, and it no longer serves US; rather, it serves itself. Any time politicians gather to consider alternatives that will either grow or shrink government, they ALWAYS choose to grow it, because that is what will perpetuate and increase their own power. They are able to do this because government schools have taught children to abdicate their duties of citizenship and to love government, and these children grow up to be voters. I forget which member of this board it was who said this a few months ago, but he said words to the effect of: "when I was in a Lutheran school, I heard about how great the Lutheran church is. Later, I attended a Catholic school and I learned all about how great the Catholic church is. Is it any wonder that government schools produce people who love government?" I've never forgotten the wisdom of that statement.

It will never get better, only worse, until such time as there is another reckoning between The People and THEIR government, and petty bureaucrats and career politicians receive a not so gentle reminder at the hands of The People of exactly who serves whom.