>>>foist

Yes, they are.

Um, "all commercial sales" are already subject to background check requirments.

WTF does this even mean???

Obama is stomping on this with his own rose garden speech about the budget.

Other than the fact that the man is a narcissist, anyone got any other reasons he might do this?

Step up on the auction block, kids.

You're about to be sold.

The law would not cover private transactions between individuals, unless there was advertising or an online service involved.

------------------------------

In other words for those who can read and aren't idiots (see Wash Post), yes in fact private sales are required to be reported to the government. How else are you supposed to sell a gun, hide behind a 7/11 like the illegal gun sellers?

Run around like Nic Cage in Vampire's Kiss yelling "I'M SELLING A GUN! I'M SELLING A GUN!"

9 -

Exactly.  So why are you letting yourself get all worked up over this?

You won.  Accept it. 

If you look for any consistency in a politician beyond his poll numbers you will look in vain.  And his poll numbers are in his state, not any other state or on this blog.

Other than that, carry on.

A bipartisan group of senators has struck a deal to expand gun
background checks to all commercial sales — whether at gun shows, via
the Internet or in any circumstance involving paid advertising,
according to Senate aides familiar with the talks.

=================

Hey, remember when the Newton, CT murderer bought his guns at a gun show that was advertised on the Internet?

Me too!

11 -

Because they figured out they lost? 

"A bipartisan group of senators has struck a deal to expand gun
background checks to all commercial sales — whether at gun shows, via
the Internet or in any circumstance involving paid advertising,
according to Senate aides familiar with the talks.

The law would not cover private transactions between individuals, unless there was advertising or an online service involved. "

What's the definition of any of that?  Commercial?  Is it commercial if I post a gun for sale FTF within my own state on a forum board?  If I sling it over my shoulder with a sign and walk thru a gun show?

You already have to do a 4473 with an FFL to buy on Gunbroker or from a dealer at a show.  WTF *is* this?

I liked Levin's rant about this   last night. He said what we   all know, that this is an unconstitutional power grab of epic proportions. We are being lied to while at the same time having our rights removed.

We are so screwed...

Posted by: mugiwara at April 10, 2013 11:15 AM (W7ffl)

THIS.

I recognize no law that is unconstitutional.  Molon Labe.

A coalition of Obama and reasonable, moderate Democrats are forging a bi-partisan deal with those few Republicans who understand the need for common sense measures designed to take a few steps toward preventing tragedies such as the Sandy Hook massacre. It won't prevent such tragedies, but it's an important first step.

Who could object to that other than knuckle dragging, right wing, gun nuts?

Sarc/off

22?  

Dead thread above...what the hell is going on this morning?

Posted by: Bigby's Shadow Puppet Hands at April 10, 2013 11:16 AM (3ZtZW)

most of my firearms, kit and ammo were lost in unfortunate fishing incident.  12 handguns and 4 rifles, optics and about 10K rounds of ammo.  Can't remember the name of the reservoir.  Damndest thing.

Did catch my limit, though.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Tea. at April 10, 2013 11:15 AM (VtjlW)

>>Did catch my limit, though.

Well, then that's a good day of fishing!

>>>I'm really getting to the
point where I no longer recognize their authority. Their authority is
only derived from the same document that they trash daily, so I really
see no reason why I have to abide by any laws they deem fit to pass.

That's the spirit. Know for a certainty that you have the power to affect change. Its really when a middle class gets pissed that shit gets done, not the rioting stupids in the cities but the great bulk of the people that make the everyday business of the nation move forward by dint of their hard work.

Posted by: thunderb at April 10, 2013 11:20 AM (+afNf)

Assault Knives!  with unreloadable "clips"

"I'm sure someone has promised Toomey something really really good for being the public point man on this. The only question is if it was the Ds or Rs."

Does it matter?  He's a Senator from Penna...like that  turncoat piece of rotting worm food Specter was.

36 -

I understand your point, but I do think in the long run the R party will benefit by not having the bloody shirts of kindergarteners waved around for the next two years. 

I don't have a problem with anyone who disagrees with me on this, but it's not unreasonable to conclude the Rs are doing this because it's good for them politically, with VERY LITTLE actual consequence. 

"Suddenly the skit in Family Guy where the gangsters are trying to sell guns in a pet store and speaking about the guns in code is prophetic.

We'll be selling rabbits online, along with rabbit feed."

Worked for procuring prosties on Craigslist with "roses".

Posted by: BurtTC at April 10, 2013 11:23 AM (TOk1P)


Define "good for them"  because I'm not seeing it.

Motto:  Hope for the best; prepare for the worst.

Do not trust these clowns.... Purchase every firearm you can right now.  Learn to reload your own ammo.   

>>48,Stillettos?

Sometimes a knife wielding man likes to feel pretty.

but it's not unreasonable to conclude the Rs are doing this because it's good for them politically, with VERY LITTLE actual consequence.

============================

You seem to think that somehow R's will get more votes than they would lose by doing this.

There is no evidence, anywhere at all, to support your contention.

I understand your point, but I do think in the long run the R party will benefit by not having the bloody shirts of kindergarteners waved around for the next two years.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 10, 2013 11:23 AM

Why do you say that?  Obama hasn't missed a chance to invoke dead kids yet on the subject.  How's his approval rating on the issue doing?

No surrender.  Holding firm on enforcing existing laws is a winning issue for us.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Tea. at April 10, 2013 11:22 AM (VtjlW)

The one that stands out to me is #5: suitable or fit for a wide, popular market

That encompasses everything. Literally everything.

And I was just talking about the $60mil Bald Eagle artwork the other day. They were blown away that I wasn't making it up.

Posted by: garrett at April 10, 2013 11:25 AM (nFBMz)<<

Does a potato ricer help with that too? 

Posted by: Serious Cat at April 10, 2013 11:26 AM (UypUQ)

You want to read the bill?

64 -

Not being tagged as people who like  having  6 year olds  being shot for starters.   

but I do think in the long run the R party will benefit by not having the bloody shirts of kindergarteners waved around for the next two years.

=======================

Uh: Forty-five percent approve of the president’s push to reform the nation’s gun laws in the wake of the Newtown, Conn. school shooting, while 52% say they disapprove.”

===============

They only people doing the "waving" are gun grabbing statists.

The popularity of such people is low.

71, there is no bill.  This is all in principle.

61 I say again, "Thank goodness that wicked cleaning lady stole all my late husband's guns and then lost them in that tragic kayaking incident on the Niagara River as she went over the Falls."

-----------------------

EXACTLY!  Those rascally 'undocumented citizens with halos' (or whatever we call them) always seem to lose our valuables.  I pay them way above minimum wage and THIS is what I get? All my firearms are, like, gone! 

For those of you too fucking stupid to understand what just happened...

We gave up nothing. 

We gained reciprocity of carry laws from state to state and eliminated onerous laws (like New York's) on guns being transported through the state.

All in all, it appears this bill will make it quicker and easier to purchase a gun.

Try to catch up.

Not being tagged as people who like having 6 year olds being shot for starters.

Posted by: BurtTC

=============

Instead of posting silly bullshit like this, why not just come out and say you're for more gun legislation?

Posted by: jwest

=============

Really, genius?

Can you point us to the section of the bill with this language?

I can't wait to read all about it.

So thanks in advance.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, FLLDFC Gangstette Wily Wench at April 10, 2013 11:23 AM (kXoT0)

helluva thing.  I can't count how many of my friends have lost rifles in south Georgia swamps, the Gulf of Mexico, the Beaverhead River in MT, Lake George, and all places in between.  Not to mention my buddies who are detectives, city LE, county deputies on the coasts who've gone out for some fishin' and dang it if that M1A, AR, AK, piles of Glocks, Sigs, HKs and Colts just slid over the side.  National tragedy.

You'd think we'd be more careful.

 >>>Drudge: "Can Weiner Rise Again?"

Pics or it didn't happen?

OK...check your Inbox.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at April 10, 2013 11:28 AM (3qQwW)

Actually, she was a scrawny blonde meth-head....with an unfortunate penchant for kayaking accompanied by arms too skinny for the paddle

Posted by: jwest at April 10, 2013 11:28 AM

Yeah, like reciprocity is going to pass the Senate.  And there's already established law on intrastate transport.

The mere fact that you're acting the bully by calling us fucking stupid is reason enough to consider this "compromise" a betrayal of first principles.

Posted by: tangonine at April 10, 2013 11:30 AM (x3YFz)

These lakes must be landfills by now.

We gained reciprocity of carry laws from state to state

=================

Complete & utter bullshit.

"Can you point us to the section of the bill with this language?I can't wait to read all about it.So thanks in advance."

You're right Jay, they just said that to fool people.  No one will go back on the videotape when the written details come out and none of that is in there.

"I understand your point, but I do think in the long run the R party will benefit by not having the bloody shirts of kindergarteners waved around for the next two years."

Not sure this still will not happen. If we've learned anything, one lesson should be is that we cannot out-Democrat Democrats.

This stuff creates self fulfilling prophecies. If gun control laws are passed, any shooting tragedy will be spun as proof that even though some important first baby steps were taken, IT IS NOT ENOUGH. We need more and stricter measures.

If there aren't any shooting incidents, Obama and the Democrats will get the credit for the lack thereof and for dragging a few decent right wingers into the 21st century.    

This is what happens when the media and the left frame the terms of the debate. We allow constant no win situations to evolve by accepting their terms and premises, and by fighting on the left's chosen battleground for any given issue.

According to jwest, Chuck Schumer just signed on for me to be able to legally carry concealed in Chicago & DC because I have a Florida Concealed Weapons Permit.

Raise your hand if you believe this absurd contention?

Read the link about the gentleman in New York who was required to give up his guns and must now petition a court to get them back because someone, somewhere reported that he had been prescribed psychotropic medication.  

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Tea. at April 10, 2013 11:30 AM (VtjlW)

Ashley Judd has surely been prescribed psychotropic medications in the past, and the Democrats were ready to push her into the senate.  She could do much more damage there than any legal gun owner.

But that's not on the point of your statement.

This whole legislative process is going to end up with someone getting hosed down by the business end of a rabbit.  If you know what I mean.

"By the way, has there been any progress at all on mental health reform out of congress?"

Mental Health and Congress? Heh.

Posted by: Serious Cat at April 10, 2013 11:32 AM (UypUQ)

DHS hired a bunch of retards, does that count?

You're right Jay, they just said that to fool people. No one will go back on the videotape when the written details come out and none of that is in there.

Posted by: jwest

===================

You've obviously never heard of the term "amendment"

You've obviously aren't familiar with "implementing regulations"

Do you believe everything you see on TV? Everything Obama says is totally true, right?

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Tea. at April 10, 2013 11:33 AM (VtjlW)

Yeah, if only we had a book full of moral teachings and sound precepts that said stuff like:

Thou shalt not kill.

It would be better to have a millstone around one's neck than to have harmed one of these little ones.

Posted by: EC at April 10, 2013 11:36 AM (GQ8sn)

Yeah, but, it is a bit pricey vis a vis oatmeal.

Et tu, Toomey?

Un fucking beliveable.

He must be posturing for re-electin in 2016 for some reason. He was barely elected in 2010 when the Dems didn't show up in the off-year. 2016 as we know is a Prezzy year, the fraud machine will be on full throttle. Hello Senator Rendell.

You're right Jay, they just said that to fool people. No one will go back on the videotape when the written details come out and none of that is in there.

Word!

Here is what the NYT is saying:

Under the terms of the agreement, background checks for gun buyers would expand to gun shows and online sales — a huge portion of gun sales that are made without the background checks used by gun stores — and will maintain record-keeping provisions that law enforcement officials find essential in tracking criminal gun use, but which gun rights groups find anathema

===================

um, "gun stores" don't sell any firearms without a background check since to operate a "gun store" you have to have an FFL. If you are an FFL and sell a gun without a background check you go to jail.

These whole spectacle is obscene.

You're right Jay, they just said that to fool people. No one will go back on the videotape when the written details come out and none of that is in there.

=====================

As Donald Sutherland said in JFK: "You are so naive."

When I think of "honest" I immediately think "Chuck Schumer" and "Democrats"

Don't you?

Posted by: rickb223 at April 10, 2013 11:37 AM (GFM2b)

Oh how nice:

The two senatorsÂ’ plan would mandate record-keeping of the background checks. That is a Democratic proposal opposed by the NRA, the nationÂ’s largest gun-rights lobby.

Law enforcement officials say records are needed to ensure that the rules are followed and to help trace weapons used in crimes.

===========================

No consequence to me, right burt?

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Tea. at April 10, 2013 11:18 AM (VtjlW)

========

It's kinda funny until they kick in your front door and say, "Fuck you, we have a warrant."

Because I'm sure we're all so very keen on burying our guns in the back yard under the bird bath.

69 and 70 -

Maybe, maybe not.  I don't know what the Senators are thinking, but if they believe it's to their advantage, that would explain why they're doing this.

The alterntive is, Senator Toomey woke up and said to himself: "holding fast on background checks is a  winning  issue,  but I'm going to give in anyway."

Does  THAT  make sense? 

Posted by: Low Information Voter at April 10, 2013 11:45 AM (vbh31)

Well done.

170

Word!

And just wait until some loony passes the background check in a private sale and goes on to shoot up a retirement home or something.

The seller will have his life destroyed, even though he would have done nothing wrong under the law.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 10, 2013 11:46 AM

Toomey doesn't have to believe it's to "our" advantage.  He has to believe it's to "his" advantage.

That's all you need to know to explain this betrayal.

Folks... your missing the 'deal' here...

This bill has in it that there will be a 'Panel' of unelected idiots, who will craft a bill, which MUST then get an up or down vote in the Senate...

THAT is the threat.... THAT bill will be written in days... and it WILL be the one which can destroy the Second Amendment...

And note... this took OUT the one part of the Bill which made sense.... ie. that all States had to abide by other States Concealed Carry Permits... (which, as States must recognized other states licenses, never should have been in question anyway...).

3) The final section of the bill creates a commission to study the causes of mass voilence, looking at guns, school safety, mental health and violent media or video 

Nope, don't see this eroding our 2nd Amendment Rights (Sarcasm dripping violently out of my pie hole)

BTW, Mindy & I Lurk, love the Tebow thread you provided last night on ONT. Hilarious.

Office of Sheriff is a dangerous position these days. What's up with the trend of shooting sheriffs?

Posted by: Mindy is about to be provoked into hosting a potluck at April 10, 2013 11:45 AM

I hate to think about it, but I wonder if some people have been reading that novel titled Unintended Consequences.

But it wouldn't be a registry...

It's  not a Registry, it's a  Tax.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at April 10, 2013 11:47 AM (mKNJE)

Link in sig

Smoke it Bob, smoke it.

Off, Rovian sockpuppet.

194...nothing is DOA with Weeping John at the helm.

Posted by: Romeo13 at April 10, 2013 11:53 AM

==============

Wait, what?

How can this be? jwest ASSURED us that concealed carry reciprocity is part of this bill!

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Tea. at April 10, 2013 11:43 AM (VtjlW)

No brainer.  Cookies and cream.

Posted by: Low Information Voter at April 10, 2013 11:54 AM (vbh31)

What's your address?

Posted by: mugiwara at April 10, 2013 11:15 AM (W7ffl)

This is where it's heading.

Posted by: toby928© Red Partisan at April 10, 2013 11:57 AM (QupBk)

It comes from the same Supreme court who said growing feed, to give to your OWN chickens, is INTERSTATE Commerce...

Fairfax, Va. - Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg's "universal" background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows. The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson. We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone. President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.

All *Sly Stallone* needs is a baseball bat and a kitchen knife.

me, on the other hand...

Posted by: elizabethe at April 10, 2013 12:00 PM (qPCAa)

Well.... of course thats all Sly needs... he has us after all...

"Online transactions don't require a background check? Don't the FFL holders have to do one to transfer the firearm to you?"

To do an online firearm sale, the buyer has to tell the seller the address of the FFL dealer to which he needs to ship the gun.  When the gun arrives at the FFL and the buyer goes to pick it up, the buyer has to fill out a 4473 for a NICS background check and pass it in order to take possession.  To skip these steps and/or not do them 100% to the ATF's liking is Big Fucking Trouble for the seller, the buyer, and the FFL intermediary.

This whole loophole discussion is based on bullshit.

Republicans are just doing "smart politics" by going along with gun control!!!

Soon after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced an assault weapons ban would not be part of a gun control bill, a new CBS News poll shows support for stricter gun control laws overall has dropped since the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Currently, support for stricter gun control laws stands at 47 percent today, down from a high of 57 percent just after the shootings. Thirty-nine percent want those laws kept as they are, and another 11 percent want them made less strict.

===================

right burt?

Posted by: Romeo13 at April 10, 2013 11:53 AM (lZBBB)

They can print a 20,000 page bill.  I don't give a fuck.  You come and take it.  The paper these assholes write on means 0 to me.  My land is my land.  Step on it without a a constitutionally-based warrant and you get a sucking chest wound about .308 in diameter.  Molon Labe and Semper Fi.

I read this as Toomey saying I do not intend to seek reelection.

Posted by: toby928© Red Partisan at April 10, 2013 11:45 AM (QupBk)

Nah. He first ran for Congress  as a pro-choice  moderate. With a self-imposed six-year term limit,  he re-invented himself as a passionate pro-life  conservative to challenge Arlen  Specter. He  came close, which set up his run six years later, which he barely won. So, time to swerve left again.

Posted by: elizabethe at April 10, 2013 12:00 PM (qPCAa)

Yeah, cause if they get through his armed bodyguards, over the electrified fence, through the Dobermans, and past the security system--they should be tenderized enough for a baseball bat and a kitchen knife to finish them.

This whole loophole discussion is based on bullshit.

============

They are doing it for the common good, wingnutz!

Mentally ill shooters totally buy guns on the Interwebs without a background check and shoot up skools all the time, dummy!!!

If the NRA didn't like the bill, they would have said so.

Looks like this puppy's going to sail through.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at April 10, 2013 12:01 PM (bb5+k)

Last time I checked we can't tackle the problem as the tackling procedure is illegal, such as murdering, kidnapping, mutilating, etc.....We are stuck with the MSM which sucks donkey dick. All we have left is our principled backbones which there is an accute shortage of in Washington DC and most state houses.

Fuck them, let it burn.

Posted by: jwest

==============

The NRA is opposed.

You fucking idiot.

Posted by: blindside at April 10, 2013 12:05 PM (x7g7t)

Exactly, well said and on point!

Posted by: Bigby's Shadow Puppet Hands at April 10, 2013 11:16 AM (3ZtZW)

Pat and Stu just said it would be illegal to sell one to a police officer??

Good thing you didn't do that.

If the NRA didn't like the bill, they would have said so.

==============

We are supposed to take seriously someone who says such stupid things as that.

No thanks.

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 10, 2013 12:06 PM (LRFds)

Yep, unless the candidate is a bona fide Conservative, they do not get a dime of this widow's mite.  I was generous in 2012 to Romney and all the Senate campaigns--NEVER AGAIN!  Some of those clowns still email me trying to retire their campaign debt from their losing campaigns--as if I would give them good money after bad.

{i]If the NRA didn't like the bill, they would have said so.

Looks like this puppy's going to sail through.

Posted by: jwest

================

From the NRA: Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg's "universal" background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows.

=================

You enjoy being a silly beclowner, don't you?

Well, they say they kind of don't like one thing about it, sort of. So... "Do it to Julia!"

There's been a shift in the NRA's rhetorical emphasis lately, going way light on pro-2nd Amendment stuff (icky!) and way heavy on anti-1st Amendment, anti-federalist, and lock-up-the-precriminals stuff.

Donate today!

Posted by: Javems at April 10, 2013 12:13 PM (nTgAI)

Yesterday someone posted somewhere that it took them 11 years to answer some guys FOIA request.  So you have to assume, forever.

Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at April 10, 2013 12:16 PM (jSJyH)

Posted by: The littl shyning man at April 10, 2013 12:13 PM (eqd07)

AKA, Gay Paree and straight Paree for that matter have surrendered entire Arrondissements to unemployed Ethnic Muslim Males who are also in France illegally.

We here in Amurrica are more diverse, we have surrendered chunks of our cities to Asian gangs or tongs, Hispanic Gangs, Italian Gangs, Black Gangs, Russian Gangs, Ukrainian Gangs, and even, the Aryan Brotherhood.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at April 10, 2013 12:19 PM (F3G1y)
I don't understand why that happened up there.  Can you explain it.  I posted like I always post.

"In a key concession to Manchin, the agreement establishes a bipartisan commission to study incidents of mass violence"

Boy! Are they going to be busy!

Under  this  law  you  will  be  required  to  report  a  lost  or  stolen  firearm  within  24  hours  or  face  5  years  in  prison.

So  no  more  of  the  "I  lost  them  in  the  lake"  ploy. 

232 -

I get it just fine.  They won't stop, and you aren't going to budge.  Which means  we carry on JUST LIKE THIS for another two years.

Some people have decided that does not help them politically.  Which does matter, if you forgot what happened last November.  You disagree with them.  Fine.  My ONLY point is, I understand why some Republicans would prefer to  take the gun control issue off the table RIGHT NOW. 

Posted by: Sean Bannion at April 10, 2013 12:18 PM (F3G1y)

Yeah, it is always amusing to watch the little reporterette's face when some unreconstructed and uncouth guy blurts out, "Yup, he was a big sumbitch, Black as the Ace of Spades." or "He was a scrawny little Messican."  They always run it over and over because it is so deliciously awful and forbidden to talk like that any more.

Then we switch to the interview with his Grandmother who raised him, "JacQuan was just getting his life together.  He was only 17.  He was going to the AME with me to try and become a better Daddy to his six kids.  He was thinking about getting his GED."

Same interview with Hispanic grandma...

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 10, 2013 12:25 PM (LRFds)

Good thing Romeo14 is a good swimmer.... (stationed there, USN, but he does a LOT of TAD, and is off the grid, so doubt he's even there now...).

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at April 10, 2013 12:28 PM (/kI1Q)

Hmmm.... so If I leave for a Weekend.... and my guns are stolen on Friday... 5 years in Jail for me?

Yeah and I was about to type 'ex post facto much?'

but I'm tired of laughing.....

gonna hand the feds clumps of metal for each gun

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 10, 2013 12:29 P

Nothing  like  turning  the  victim  of  the  crime  into  a  criminal. 

Posted by: Soona at April 10, 2013 12:25 PM (01pgO)

___________

It will pass the house easily. Boner already has his cave speech ready to go.

308 -

No. 

Well done Senators. Well done.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 10, 2013 12:30 PM (HDgX3)

But... Something MUST be DONE!!! Harumph... harumph....

And we're Legislators!  so lets Legislate!

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at April 10, 2013 12:28 PM (/kI1Q)

Ugh.  Probably nothing sweet about it. 

Here's your new class of criminal from this law, that jwest and BurtTC seem to think is awesome:

A 85 year old widow who sold her husband's old gun via a classified ad and misplaced the background check paperwork three years later.

Dude killed his mom - against the law
Stole her guns - against the law
Brought guns to 'gun-free school zone' - against the law

===============

Yes, all of which happened in a state with an Assault Weapons Ban, gun background checks, gun registration, and gun purchase waiting periods.

A federal database would have stopped him.

Really.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Tea. at April 10, 2013 12:34 PM (VtjlW)

That's just crazy talk!  You're one of those lizard-people Area 51, black helicopter crowd, aren't you?

Posted by: BurtTC at April 10, 2013 12:25 PM (TOk1P)

--------------------------------------------

Oh.  So that's it.  Let's do what's politically expedient.  Don't want to ruin the chances of any incumbant, do we?  This ole 2d Amendment just isn't the hill to die on.  Not politically prudent. 

Fuck you and all the politicians who have this attitude.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Tea. at April 10, 2013 12:36 PM

=============

He's a fucking pathetic intellectual coward.

"Are there any good beginner sets/kits/books/dvds on getting into reloading?"

The "Ammosmith" channel on YouTube is a pretty good starting point.

Which private sales aren't exempt?

I'm guessing it's sales at those oh so horrible gun shows, because as we all know, when criminals want a gun they go to public gun shows full of law abiding citizens trying to get top dollar for their guns, i mean, whoever heard of criminals going to some shady asshole who just wants to get rid of an old gun so he can buy some more meth? No one that's who.

@338 - yep.

I can't wait to hear Boner's dissembling and lies for going along with this lunacy...

Whoops! Sorry - the EPA just banned consumer purchases of black powder because of, let's see - a possible link to skin cancer and the danger of dust inhalation.

Foxfire 5 has instructions on how to make it...

"The power of Microsoft Excel."

Excel has a long and distinguished record  of destroying common sense, crushing  productivity, and strangling  initiative in the private sector.  Sounds perfect for gummint work.

Posted by: Romeo13 at April 10, 2013 12:28 PM (lZBBB)---  Please thank your son for his service.

Foxfire 5 has instructions on how to make it...

Posted by: Grey Fox at April 10, 2013 12:40 PM

Eff that, I learned how to make it when Captain Kirk shot that fucking Gorn.

Winner, winner, chicking fucking dinner! Isn't that what The Ace had last night for dinner?

Reading comments on HuffPo....libs are as pissed as cons over this bill since it doesn't do anything. It's a rare accomplishment to equally piss off everyone.


Well done Senators. Well done.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 10, 2013 12:30 PM (HDgX3)

Posted by: The Jackhole at April 10, 2013 12:45 PM (nTgAI)

Yeah, it's his turn to be mayor of NYC

331 -

I can support my position just fine.  What I'm not going to do though is be lawyered in the comments section of a blog.  By you or anyone else. 

Posted by: Caustic at April 10, 2013 12:46 PM (/b8+5)

  Why not Gov.? He's got all the prerequisites for public office being as he is a Dhimmi. He's earned it because of his exemplary behavior....

Posted by: Jaws at April 10, 2013 11:22 AM (4I3Uo)

Maybe you figured out why he is doing this?  PA isn't a bright red state and he is elected state-wide, not from a safe district.  He's looking out for his self-interest.

Now, some politicians may have causes and principles beyond their naked self-interest, but those politicians are darn few in number.

335 -

I understand it just fine.  Democrats don't give up.  So 50 years from now, when the Democrats are trying to institute gun control, we can have this argument then as well. 

Let them pass a stupid meaningless bill to get them to shut up, or keep acting like it's the end of the world as we know it. 

Choose. 

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at April 10, 2013 12:30 PM (/kI1Q)

Hangs my head in shame and waits for turn in barrel....

Afternoon, all!

This is a frustration I did not need today.  Pardon me while I go chant curses over a picture of Pat Toomey and Munchkin.

BBL.

Jerry in Chi-Town, "There is no registration of guns, just as there is no registration of guns bought at a dealer. There is only a background check - the record of which must, by law, be destroyed within 24 hours."

Yeah and I got some great developemental wet lands for you to buy. Yeah Baby you can belive that all you want. I do not buy guns from any one who has a FFL. Cuz of boneheaded beliefs such as yours.

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 10, 2013 12:40 PM (LRFds)

I could have won in 2008, but I was too polite. My loss also strengthened my relationship with the media, which is a great comfort to me.

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 10, 2013 12:50 PM (LRFds)

45-70 assault rifle ! heh

Posted by: BurtTC

=======

Yeah, it is just a mere coincidence you spend all this time talking about what you won't do.

Coward.

When is the vote on this POS?

There is only a background check - the record of which must, by law, be destroyed within 24 hours.

=========================

Really?

Cite the section of the bill saying that.

I can't wait to read all about it.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 10, 2013 12:45 PM

There is a registry created.  Sellers have to keep the sales records indefinitely.  It's fraudulent to say that just because the background check must be destroyed within 24 hours (and incidentally, there's no enforcement mechanism for that on the seller side...) there is no registry. 

It's there.  It's created as a consequence of the background check requirement.  And if you doubt this, go into any FFL and ask them about their bound book.

We are cordoned off from the hypocrites, liars, degenerates, and power hungry in DC.

Just to be a tad more accurate, they've cordoned themselves off from us. They no longer represent the will of the people, and haven't for quite   a while now. They promise all sorts of things to get themselves elected, and then proceed to ignore every one of them and the Constitution, too.

I'm not sure what it's going to take for us to regain control of our own   federal government. It's becoming increasingly apparent that they are operating by their own rules, those being the ends justify the means, and the ends are more power for them  and less freedom for us.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 10, 2013 12:50 PM (HVff2)

They keep the DROS ( dealer record of sale ) at the gun shops in California on file. The cops go looking for them all the time.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 10, 2013 12:45 PM

===============

Here, let me help you with an objection.

You could not, if your life depended on it, tell us how many guns are sold through "classified ads"

Further, you could not, if your life depended on it, tell us how many guns  sold through "classified ads" are used to commit murders.

So in other words, you're droning on about a solution in search of a problem.

Drudge Headline: Can Weiner rise again ?

"NYC Libs Reach Bottom of Barrel in Search for Mayoralty Candidate, Keep Digging"

Posted by: Jaws at April 10, 2013 12:43 PM (4I3Uo)

Ah, but, you have not truly lived until the old timer (without a clue about computers) who built an Access database to handle certain functions in their jobs retires and then a critical function grinds to a halt because no one knew that db existed or what it does or how to run the squirrelly reports it generates.  An Access 97 database on a version of Windows no longer supported...on a PC that the company was days away from wiping clean and junking and they have already thrown away the notes left by the retiree.  Ah, good times.

395 -

Which  might work in some situations, but generally doesn't in politics. 

I know this is an emotional issue for a lot of people, and I don't discout that, but this looks to me like the Rs got the Ds to punt.  It doesn't crush the Ds, it doesn't drive them before you, and you won't hear the lamentations of their women, but they lost this one. 

WTF is there to object to in that?

=====================

You don't know what in the hell you're talking about.

For starters.

401 -

If that's true, then you can gather up some of these smart lawyers we have here,  take it to court and have it declared so.

Problem solved. 

Posted by: Andrew at April 10, 2013 12:51 PM (HS3dy)

---------------------------------------------

THIS is the crux of the problem with all of this.  The feds don't give a shit  about the Constitution.  Unfortunately, through their ignorance and/or stupidity, people like BurtC, jwest and others are joyfully allowing our rights to be usurped.   This  should  NOT be a congressional issue at all.

407 -

What  you're doing right there, that's lawyering. 

Hate to disagree with you BurtTC. It was more like the Dems got the Reps to punt. Dems blocked the punt and recovered on the 20. 1st and 10 in the red zone. Time clock doesn't matter cuz they change the rules constantly mid game. Sooner than later they will score and once again US takes a big hit to "freedom" Cuz we all know doing something is better than nothing, right?

Posted by: BurtTC

***

Oh yes, because the courts always do what's right. You f*ckwit.

jwest and chitownjerry have taken to the Internet to lie about what is in this bill.

BurtTC is suggesting the R's are doing a political calculation. He's not exactly lying, there is just no reason to believe that the R's will gain any votes by doing this.

424 -

Then  be a man about it and take to the streets with the revolution. 

Or did you just want to complain on a blog? 

If so, don't let me stop you. 

Posted by: Jay at April 10, 2013 01:02 PM (3LaGb)

______________________

Toomey is up for re-election in a state that voted for Obama by 10% in 2012. He won his seat in 2010 by 1%.

You do the math on whether or not being "bipartisan" will hurt or help him in 2014.

Posted by: sven10077@sven10077 at April 10, 2013 01:04 PM (LRFds)

____

I realize you are drunk. But try to read my question again and answer it for me if you can.

Thanks

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 10, 2013 01:02 PM (HDgX3)  Its called incrementalism you fucking surviving aborted piece of shit.

Mr. Moo Moo:

"Bi Partisan" doesn't help Republicans.

Ever.

For Toomey to have any chance what so ever, he needs a strong turnout from his base.

He just flushed that down the toilet.

I'd add, Toomey could have sat in the back on this issue and said the gun control bills being considered were too radical.

I'd also add PA has the 2nd largest number of licensed hunters in America (behind TX)

There are a shit load of guns in PA.

Gun control is not popular in PA and Obama's gun control proposal is underwater nationally.

Again, there is no reason to believe this will help Toomey in any manner, shape or form.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at April 10, 2013 01:06 PM (HVff2)

________

Posted by: Jean at April 10, 2013 01:07 PM (z6Elp)

Coffee shot through an orifice on a worthless pos computer, thanks!!!

CTJ:  "The only thing that changes is that ALL private sales at gun shows and through classified ads must now go through a registered dealer. Think about it. WTF is there to object to in that?"

How about it's none of the government's business with whom  I  buy/sell private, legally-held property?  Especially private property with specific constitutional protections.  Especially Face-to-Face.  Especially within my own fucking state.  That's my call and my responsibility and it's why I only buy and sell with friends and people who have a valid and matching DL and CCW card.  For my own personal peace of mind.  

It's already illegal to sell to known felons.   This crap won't stop transfers between criminals.  This only makes more criminals.  Get it through your head already.

  "There is no registration of guns, just as there is no registration of guns bought at a dealer. There is only a background check - the record of which must, by law, be destroyed within 24 hours."

I'll bet you've sent a lot of money to various Nigerian princes.

By the way, I fully expect it to come out that Toomey did this for some future promise of a budget amendment vote which Dingy Harry will pretend never happened.

Maybe at that point Toomey will understand that Democrats are the enemy every time, all the time.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 10, 2013 01:02 PM

You aren't being sincere in your question but I'll address it anyway.

Back when the NICS system was set up, yes, the legitimate gripes were mentioned.  The liberals originally wanted every single sale to go through NICS but the compromise agreed to was to limit it to FFLs.  So yeah, we already agreed to a compromise.  I see no reason to compromise again.

Incidentally, the requirement there was also that records inre instant background checks be destroyed by the government within 24 hours, yet when John Ashcroft became AG he found that Janet Reno wasn't destroying any of them.  At all.

439 -

Look, you have access to legislators, you have access to the courts.  Your home state has laws, and the federal government is supposed to abide by them,  and when they conflict, the states and the feds can take to the courts.

Either it works or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, then fine.  Let's get ready for blood in the streets.  I'm armed.  And unlike a  lot of blowhards around here, I'm sure, I am trained. 

For now though, I  would prefer  to see if it's possible to keep this peaceful. 

Posted by: Jay at April 10, 2013 01:06 PM (3LaGb)

__________________

He won by 1% in 2010 at the height of the Republican/Tea Party surge. A Republican that wins by 1% in a mid term will not win in 2016 during a general election in a state that hasn't gone Republican since 1988, by running as a conservative. His only chance is to run as a moderate.

Oh Moo Moo how do you disprove a negative, such as you like coke with pubic hairs on them.

Look at Fast and Furious for an example.............

It's been 20 years since the background checks were instituted. You and the rest of the sky is falling types were screaming then about confiscation.

===================

It was the NRA that led the charge in codifying that there would not be a national database regarding fireams sale transactions.

The "screams of confiscation" were spot on.

They still are.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo

==================

How long have you lived in Pennsylvania, again?

You must be drunk like sven since you too are incapable of answering my question.

Try again.

It's been 20 years since the background checks were instituted. You and the rest of the sky is falling types were screaming then about confiscation. Has that happened. At all? No.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 10, 2013 01:09 PM (HDgX3)

Not even twenty years ago, we were assured by "Gay Rights" proponents that marriage was an icky, middle-class custom, and who needed a piece of paper to justify your love.  Now, we are on the verge of federally-mandated gay marriage.

Incrementalism, motherfucker!  Do you speak it?

A Republican that wins by 1% in a mid term will not win in 2016 during a general election in a state that hasn't gone Republican since 1988, by running as a conservative.

===================

By the way, nothing shows deep thinking like taking current trends and projecting them into the future as a straight line.

Hey, remember how Santorum ran as a moderate in 2000 and won?

Me too!

Posted by: @JohnTant at April 10, 2013 01:11 PM (tVWQB)

____

Thank you for the response.

Look, I'm not a fan of this bill. But I also don't see it as the sky is falling. Go back to the days immediately following Sandy Hook. There was talk of the AWB, limiting magazines to 10 rounds and all sorts of other shit. And had the Democrats moved quickly, they probably could have gotten most of it through. The fact that the worst thing that happens now is a backgrond check between 2 private parties at a gun show, is a pretty good outcome considering what the alternatives were.

Santorum won his 1994 Senate race by a smaller margin than Toomey won his.

Santorum won in 2000 despite being a certified bigot, homophobe, and welfare slasher.

I'm not going to be lectured on PA politics by someone who doesn't live here.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 10, 2013 01:11 PM

Oh, so for it to "count" as a registry it must be in a centralized database?

What are you, seven?

Just what do you think happens to those records if/when a FFL goes out of business or gets its license yanked?  They must, by law, be sent to the ATF.  Where they are, indeed, entered into a centralized database.

How many FFLs have lost their licenses for one reason or another over the last twenty years because of a hostile ATF?

And the information is there if the government wants to track the sales records from manufacturer to FFL to buyer, pretty much any time they feel like it, Tiahrt amendment be damned.  In fact, liberals have been trying to gut the Tiahrt amendment for years now to do precisely this..improve the ability to, at a whim, make accessing records easier.

The reality is when the data exists, it's just a short step to collecting it.  That's why I don't want people to have to give up the data to begin with, as opposed to settling for some toothless law that supposedly prevents the government from going on fishing expeditions.  The latter doesn't work.  Ever.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 10, 2013 01:15 PM

Sorry, I don't see the logic in supporting a bad law because the government could have asked for much worse.

Posted by: Jay at April 10, 2013 01:14 PM (3LaGb)

______________

PA has trended much more Democrat since 2012. But let;s pretend it hasn't and see what happens.

Posted by: @JohnTant at April 10, 2013 01:18 PM (tVWQB)

_________

Did I say I support it? I said exactly the opposite that I don't.

I also said it could have been much, much worse and nobody seems to recognize that.

And if you sell a gun to someone who cannot pass a background check, and that asshole goes and kills someone... Then I will gladly stand with law enforcement and cheer as they hunt you down and put you in jail as well when the perp gives you up as the seller.

===================

It is already illegal to sell a gun to someone you should have known would not pass a background check. It is a federal felony.

The entirety of your political beliefs are formed by ignorance.

Here's a fun thought experiment for you folks who are trying to say these background checks have nothing to do with creating any kind of registry...

When you purchase a gun from a FFL you are required to fill out a government form that lists the make, model, and serial number of the firearm.  Why is that information necessary if all the government is interested in is whether you are a "prohibited person?"

Because this isn't about background checks.  It's about being able to trace guns to their owners.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at April 10, 2013 01:20 PM

If you don't stand fully and vocally against this, you are for it.  If you are apathetic as to whether it will pass or not, you are for it.  End of story.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Tea. at April 10, 2013 01:20 PM (VtjlW)

Alex I was not trying to be a jerk, I've posted thus in style at times and I know when we were nuking trolls at a brick clip the numbers were WAY off anyway.

I'll try to conform ma'am....

Oreos, Oreos for the queen!

Hope I haven't been breaking protocol here either. During the day on an old fashioned pc. At night with the little lady's IPod. Me and my dithering fingers don't always do the best.

PA has trended much more Democrat since 2000.

=================

You may want to look up that 2 of the last 3 Govs have been R's and at the current makeup of the PA general assembly and revisit this premise.

I'd again add, gun control is not popular in PA. Never has been.

Ever.

Let me add to that, there is a vast difference between say supporting a cloture vote, or final 'yea' vote on a bill, and holding a press conference with Democrats and writing the legislation as Toomey is doing.

One need not hold a press conference with Democrats to be a "moderate"

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 10, 2013 01:28 PM (kdS6q

these things often are...

still can't ampersand on the rig to save my life.....&

"At a gun show, same things. Two guys meet there, one wants to buy the
other's gun. They exchange phone numbers. Next day they meet in a
parking lot, have gay sex, and then do the deal.

Fixed it, so the DoJ will approve"

Smokin' pole = Smokin' deal.

Just back from lunch and I see sven, Jay and few others still babbling about something I settled hours ago.

Learn to admit when you're full of shit and move on to the next subject, where I'll tell you what to think.

Once the gun grabbers get a bill, they will wait a bit and bide their time. Then, when no one is looking, insert language in another bill with the infamous 'and for other purposes' addendum on it. And that bill will change the gun grabbers first bill, making that now law do things they swore it would never do.

Do not give them an inch. Give them nothing. Or you will live to regret it.

Posted by: jwest at April 10, 2013 01:34 PM (u2a4R)

A ledgend in his own hemroid.

Posted by: jwest at April 10, 2013 01:34 PM

=====================

What, exactly, is that supposed to be?

Posted by: jwest

***

Project much?

PS, dum-dum: Federal law states it is illegal for anyone to sell a gun to someone they "know" or "have reasonable cause to believe" is a prohibited purchaser, such as a fugitive or felon. This includes any buyer who could not pass a background check.

So what, exactly, did you "settle" you idiot, liar?

It was my fault.  All my fault.  I didn't realize it would turn out this way.  "One gin-and-tonic in Georgetown can't hurt," I thought.  But when we got there it was already getting wild.  Mort Kondracke was putting the moves on Barabara Walters, Peggy Noonan was hanging with Chris Matthews, and then Karl Rove brought over that perfect cocktail.  Toomey took one sip, smiled, and said "I think Juan Williams has some good ideas."

And I knew he was lost.

Cocktails.  Nothing they can't destroy.

Burt and Chi-town, in an alternate universe of some sort your political analysis is OK (Chi-town, substantively you are way off).  But in this world?

WTF?

The politics of this are unambiguously bad for the Dems, esp. Senate Dems, esp. their 2008 class in non-deep-blue states.  This is a gigantic club lying on the table, ready to be used - ON THE Dems.  Why do you think that the hysteria of recent months yielded ..... a mouse?  Exactly.  The GOP shouldn't "get this off the table" - they should use aggressively to attack their opponents for what they are:  constitution-shredding, clueless irresponsible dimwits who have no idea how to govern and who are beneath contempt for their efforts to dance on children's graves to justify further destroying liberty and common sense.   To the pathetic drones of blue cities and states, there is little appeal in this, but that's the point.  They don't matter, and they are not the target.

Burt, if you're afraid of being called callous about child slaughter, uh, well - why should there really be any political process at all?  Just acquiesce to any proposal, no matter how outrageous or counter-productive or dangerous or unlawful, if the country's least American, worthy, or respectable elements (media, political class, academia) bother to slander you. 

The "bloody shirt" of Newtown should be crammed down the throats of the Dems, the press, Toomey, and the victims' relatives who somehow think their loss gives them magical hitlerian powers of governance over their fellow (actually, far superior) citizens. 

It's almost certainly too late to make the public square even minimally rational or intelligent any more.  But in this case, doing so happens to be politically easy, and advantageous.

Just back from lunch and I see sven, Jay and few others still babbling about something I settled hours ago.

Posted by: jwest at April 10, 2013 01:34 PM

===================

You mean the "settled" part where you lied in saying the bill contains concealed carry reciprocity, or the part where you lied in saying the NRA doesn't oppose this bill?

GMan covered it, Jerry.

You cram the bloody shirt down their throats by aggressively, vituperatively shaming them (the public figures) for trying to exploit a tragedy to do nothing useful and much harmful to liberty.  And guess what?  If you knew anything about the country formerly known as America - outside the benighted shitholes of the blue cities - there is no political downside.

The hysteria over Newtown has faded exactly on schedule.  On the federal level, nothing will be "done" (this, according to our resident political geniuses who nonetheless claim that it is vital to be seen as acceding to this "nothing" being done - nice logic, that).   Duh. 

There's a reason nothing will be done.  It's the same reason, politically, that this "issue" is actually a club to use on the Dems (and any GOPers needing to be obliterated) in many political markets.  Not all.  But Boston and Berkeley and Chicago aren't of any interest or concern to Americans, other than to contain and someday neuter.  But western Senate Dems up for re-election are justifiably terrified of having to "do something on gun control".

Jerry, no genius is required.  It's rather obvious.  As I said, the last apparent remaining "live" third rail in American politics (racism, economic calamity, fiscal disarray, lawlessness, international disaster, etc. no longer seeming to have any bearing on national elections) is "gun control" (outside abandoned blue deserts).  Build a larger rail.  Increase the current across it.  Help the Dems (and anyone else who wants to) grasp it firmly. 

Not sure that it matters though.  Even with a gun control-based electoral reversal for the Dems, the country seems beyond hope and beyond reach.  But common sense, not genius, to take their bloody shirt and cram it down their electoral throats.  And ignorance to not recognize this.

As for the victims' families, it's in the category of "rescue the country from idiocy" to put them in their place.  It's such a cretinized, idiotic, disastrous public square at the moment - why look, the country is a mess and an absurdly unfit and failed president got easily re-elected.  If there is any hope for the country, part of the road back WILL be reclaiming some intelligence, logic, and fact in public discussions of "issues".  So long as the country is doing the equivalent of arguing over small details of the Nuremberg Laws, we are off the rails.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Tea. at April 10, 2013 11:43 AM (VtjlW)

Blueberry Cheesecake. Cook-Out has excellent blueberry cheesecake hate-shakes.