Levin was more apoplectic than usual last night about Thursday's senate vote that will casually take away our 2nd Amendment rights without discussion, state input or citizen input.  Worth a listen on your 'puter or iPod.

http://bit.ly/rxDvRL

With the complicity that Linseed and McLame are showing in this traitorous act, I'll ask all those who defend Juan to the death:  Is he still considered a hero even though he has betrayed his country for the last 20 years?

Good morning, ‘rons and ‘ronettes.  Thanks (I guess)  for the morning briefing, Gabe.  Hope everything went well at the sawbones, Vic.

IÂ’m afraid IÂ’m in a foul mood today (a long story and you wouldnÂ’t be interested anyway), so IÂ’ll probably not be back until tomorrow.  I was working on a story idea yesterday and completely skipped any reading about Clara Bow, so I do apologize.  In the meantime, IÂ’ll tell you a story about one of the most famous stars of the 1920s – Pola Negri.

The Polish-born Negri – born Barbara Apollonia Chalupiec – was the incarnation of what people think of as “a silent movie queen.”  She was tempestuous, exotic and demanding; a living definition of “high maintenance.”  She did make a few talking pictures, but, like Theda Bara, her high-octane vamping was out of place in the 1930s and her career slowly faded, though she never quit movies entirely – her last role was in the 1964 Disney film The Moon-Spinners, playing (what else?) an exotic jewel collector.

But anyway, hereÂ’s the story:  Negri had a “no visitors” policy on her sets.  One day, while shooting a particularly passionate scene, she happened to see one of the studio bigwigs escorting a man behind the cameras.  Immediately, she stopped.

“Who is that?” she demanded.  “Who dares to interrupt me?”

Her co-star recognized the visitor.  “ThatÂ’s Ring Lardner,” he told her.  “HeÂ’s a writer.”*

“A writer?”  Pola instantly came to attention.  Drawing herself up to her full height, she purred, “Introduce him to me.  I will inspire him to write a beautiful sonnet!”

Here is Negri at the height of her career:  http://tinyurl.com/cp5k8nq

Well, itÂ’s not much of a story.  But then, IÂ’m not in much of a mood today.  IÂ’ll be better tomorrow.

I hope you all have a wonderful day.

*for those of you who don’t know, Lardner was a very popular sportswriter and short story author in the ‘teens and ‘twenties.

Let me go out on a limb and predict the "compromise" will be repubs caving to virtually everything the democrats want, which WILL lead to registration and, eventually, confiscation.

And despite all the talk about resisting tyranny, nothing will happen.  We're dead in the water.

On the morning radio, there was a story about a suspicious vehicle near the WH.  I really hope to God it's a tactical nuke.

Delete that if you want, Gabe.  I told you I was in a foul mood.

See y'all later.

"I don't have a problem with letting these people have some kind of "compromise" win on gun control, if it's relatively minor, like making background checks more complete."

I have to disagree.  These "minor" compromises add up over time.  They NEVER go away and are built on by the next "minor" compromise.

No more!

Posted by: BurtTC at April 10, 2013 07:15 AM (BeSEI)

--No.  Keep it ON the table.  Fuck if the leftoids don;t have enough wedge issues to employ against us; it's high time to array some against those fuckers.

We may or may not let you have guns... we will see.

Meanwhile after Houston, the great knife debate.

Also good weather in Philly brought out the black wilding teens for a great punchout just off Chesnut St. downtown. Just had lunch there last week.

Let's hope our side doesn't go over the edge opposing common sense background checks on guns.

I want gun dealers to check if someone is a criminal and stop the sale.  Of course, this isn't going to stop every thug from getting a gun, but it's something and it doesn't hurt legitimate buyers.

More importantly, I want a dealer to be able to check if the person trying to buy a gun is a fucking mental defective.  Liberals tried (successfully) to pretend these people were normal for decades and a lot of people died because of it.  There needs to be a registry where mental health professionals can put the names of people who have no business with a firearm.

We can't knee jerk this.  This was our issue for decades.  Keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies.  The democrats have conflated it around to their benefit.  Time to bring it back home.

"Let's hope our side doesn't go over the edge opposing common sense background checks on guns."

Really?

Let's hope our side doesn't go over the edge opposing common sense background checks on guns.

We already have this. Dumbass. ><

EC,

Thanks for the info.

And despite all the talk about resisting tyranny, nothing will happen. We're dead in the water.

--- This is why Jefferson wanted the 2nd amendment. It is about the ability to resist tyranny. J.J. says he wants 2/3 of the states and 66 senators. Their side says fuck you. What to do?

Now that everyone has had a moment to vent, let's discuss this.

It was the position of the NRA and republicans for decades to have an instant check for criminal background.  What has changed?  Personally, I don't think this is such a bad position.

A criminal loses his right to keep and bear arms, so dealers should have a way of checking - instantly - if the purchaser is in the database. 

For mental illness, there needs to be a national database of people who have been judged incompetent or violent.  I fairly sure we can accomplish this without reporting sven's viagra perscription to the feds.

This isn't adopting a liberal position.  It's reaffirming a conservative position that's been in place for 50 years.

About 20 years ago, I was quite the C-SPAN junkie, having acquired one of those C-band satellite dishes at my place out in the country.  One day they aired a recording of a meeting held at the editorial offices of "Mother Jones", the well-known leftist front rag.  This meeting had representatives of every gun confiscation group in the country present, and they laid out their entire plan for the disarming of the American public.  Stage one was the original Brady bill.  Stage two was "Brady 2", which never passed.  But they laid it all out, step by step.  First those nasty "assault rifles", then semi-auto handguns.  Then bolt action rifles, shotguns, revolver handguns and finally ammunition, step by step, all would be outlawed.  And then there we would all be, serfs before our Marxist overlords.

Their rationale was that since at that time the Dims controlled the government, all this would be easy to do.  But thanks to the usual Commiecrat overreach, the Repubs captured the House in '94, and their plans died...for a while.  But they have never given up on disarming America, and thanks to the actions of a couple of psychos, here we go again.

And WHAT "loopholes" in the background check process?  The cockholsters are lying about this.  It does not matter if you buy a gun at any kind of store, at a gun show, or on the 'Net, EVERY transaction has to go through a FFL holder, who runs all the mandated background checks and paperwork.  Doesn't matter if you are buying a Bushmaster AR or a Savage single shot .22, it's all the same. 

"which WILL lead to registration and, eventually, confiscation."

Except, of course, for that idiot Mike and those unfortunate boating accidents...

"And who determines mentally defective? A doctor? The government?"

A court. 

Posted by: zsasz at April 10, 2013 07:29 AM (MMC8r)

Don't get me started on that ego-laden pile of shit, who stiffed lots of small businesses for goods and services provided for his quixotic Presidential runs where people finally saw through the "hero" cloud at what a fucking dumbass he is.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ eating cookies at April 10, 2013 07:43 AM (hO8IJ)

Yeah that's the huge elephant in the room of any "mental illness database" argument.  It's a good way to dispense with people inconvenient to the state.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 10, 2013 06:59 AM (uhAkr)

You mean that everyone doesn't like to get a windshield was with spit?

For mental illness, there needs to be a national database of people who have been judged incompetent or violent. I fairly sure we can accomplish this without reporting sven's viagra perscription to the feds.

Incompetent is a legal term of art, nothing more.

So the only way you would get that is for cases that have already bubbled up through the court system.  Which is to say not many anyway.  And judges are fairly loathe to drop the "incompetent" hammer as it creates a ton of downstream effects (said person now needs a legal guardian.  As a good comparison, a child is automatically incompetent as a matter of law.)

So this is a useless thing to add to the law.

But *capacity* this is a different concept by far and a much more malleable one.  As is often remarked by my professors and colleagues "someone lacks capacity when the doctor disagrees with them."  That's a snarky way of saying it's little more than an (unfair) assertion of the authority of the medical field.  Trust me, we don't want the NICS to show every time a doctor's considered you to lack capacity (even if it were possible.)

43
Let's hope our side doesn't go over the edge opposing common sense background checks on guns.

Interesting use of the progressive buzz phrase 'common sense'.  In  progressiv-ese,  'common sense' is code for 'what we can get away with this time'.  I do appreciate your concern though. 

Posted by: Sean Bannion at April 10, 2013 07:50 AM (F3G1y)

Yeah Sean, that's exactly the plan.  From now on, all judges will have to have an MD and a PhD and they will go through the phone book, one person at a time, evaluate their medical records and enter a judgment on whether or not they can have a gun.

They're scraping the old system of having family, police or mental health officials petitioning the court when they believe someone might hurt themselves or others.  This new system you've outlined is far more thorough.

Posted by: Miss Marple at April 10, 2013 07:41 AM (GoIUi)

Power is a siren song.

'common sense' is code for 'what we can get away with this time'

Or....  "common sense" could mean something that everyone but an idiot can see immediately.

There's a lot of meanings for "common sense".

Posted by: Jay at April 10, 2013 07:51 AM (WSgyE)

**********

I made this comment yesterday on the 'stabby' thread, but I think it bears repeating. 

When a mental health professional declares confidently that "So-and-so is not deemed to be a threat to himself or others..."  they are silently adding in their minds, "...we hope!"

"And who determines mentally defective? A doctor? The government?"

A court.

Posted by: jwest at April 10, 2013 07:42 AM

Yes... A "court". *cuts eyes right and left*

********

Exactly my point.  Glad you agree.

"...you see no room for abuse in a legal system that brett Kimberlin is using to swat people I guess?"

Assuming you're not tripping on mushrooms this morning, now you're saying that because there are isolated instances in the entire legal system when an injustice occurs, it will bring the constitution down if we check if a gun buyer is a criminal or court designated crazy.

I'm willing to take that risk.

"Aside from the irony, I will point out that they are transferring her to "serious" issues from fluff"

Not really. This "gun control" gibberish is fluff of the first order - a quintessential "red herring" to avoid the real issues of the day.

"What about people who were hospitalized for something like a suicide attempt/depression, but are well-controlled now?"

It would depend on how they ended up in court originally to be judged incompetent.  Most people treated for depression or even a suicide attempt don't end up in front of a judge.

I don't have a problem with letting these people have some kind of "compromise" win on gun control, if it's relatively minor, like making background checks more complete.

If you are trying to hold onto some notion that we're on a slippery slope, I urge you to recall the effects of the 1994 bill, which were essentially, nothing.

I want this issue off the table.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 10, 2013 07:15 AM

The failure in that argument is twofold.  The reason the effects of the 1994 bill were "essentially nothing" is because:

1)  The law didn't do what it said it would do, namely that it focused on scary-looking features of firearms coupled with the standard-cap mag grandfather clause.

2)  It had a sunset clause which meant the law had a limited shelf life.

This proposed bill will not sunset and will focus on much more important things than barrel shrouds.  It will serve to create a federal gun registry, in fact if not in name, and punish millions of law-abiding, peaceful Americans.  It will enable the government to not only deny Americans their rights (by definition, since you're asking the government's permission before exercising a right...which doesn't sound like a right to me) but to confiscate guns it can later outlaw.  Meanwhile, it will not do one single thing to prevent people from committing violent crimes with guns.  Criminals don't purchase guns - they steal them.

You have this all exactly backwards.  It's the liberals who should be trying to take this issue off the table by, well, ceasing to stand on the graves of dead kids to pass something they've been trying to pass for 30 years, not conservatives surrendering (again).

Hell, the entire existence of the NICS check for FFLs in the first place WAS THE COMPROMISE!  No retreat!  No surrender!

Posted by: jwest at April 10, 2013 07:59 AM (u2a4R)

"Common sense" is actually usually more code word for "something I assert will work without any logical thought backing it up."

Background checks are the perfect example.  They sound good.  Who could be against background checks?!  I mean it's such a simple solution to the problem right?

Except we have background checks already for any gun purchased from an FFL dealer.

Ok then we need to expand them to EVERY GUN PURCHASED ANYWHERE. 

Great.

But how does that even work without a central gun registry? (Hell even with a central gun registry?)  It's entirely unenforceable.  People who want to bypass the background check simply will.  Where's the oversight for a sale between private citizens?  There can be none.  Are you going to have the police track down every classified add for a Colt .45 (and even if you did, people who wanted to bypass it would just start masking their ads.)

All you've done this is create an unenforceable law (at best) at worst you accidently criminalized me buying a Ruger 10/22 for my kid (because I just made a straw purchase or something and your law is written like crap.)

Currently (I'm told and it sounds about right) it's illegal in the state of MO to sell a used mattress (or just to sell a mattress you never used, second hand mattress sales are simply illegal.)  Yet you see them all the time at garage sales.  Hell every mattress in my house came from someone else (the mattress in the Guest Bedroom came from my wife's grandmother's house and even the mattress in our master we bought from my parents because they had an extra bedroom set they didn't need after my sister moved out.)

The Government couldn't stop these simple action how do you stop people actually determined to break the law?

"the rubes in WV, though self-proclaimed 2nd Amendment fans, will still elect Manchin from now 'till he's as old as the mummified Robert Byrd. A lost cause"

Call WV voters what you will, but always call them what they are - aredent statist Democrats. The idea that they are/were ever on the "right" side of any issue is laughable in the extreme.

And since we're talking background checks, let's also talk about the concept of GIGO. 

If states aren't reporting mental health issues to the NICS system, and I'd suggest a majority of them aren't because of "privacy issues," then a background check isn't going to really do a lot of good anyway.  The NICS is only as good as the data going in. 

For fuck's sake, that cocksucker who shot up Virginia Tech passed a background check and he was a loon. 

If anyone is serious about "taking this issue off the table," then the best way to do it is to point out that it doesn't do fuckshit about stopping mentally deranged people from getting guns since they either aren't in the NICS system to begin with or they'll just steal the guns they need.  Lanza tried to buy a gun but didn't pass the background check - so he stole the gun.  How does making me run a background check before I sell a gun to a good friend of mine stop the next Lanza?

It doesn't. 

#188,

Don't worry. I'm neither very nice (generally speaking about today's limpwristed "don'toffendanyone" nausea) nor quiet. Hasn't been a problem.

"More importantly, I want a dealer to be able to check if the person trying to buy a gun is a fucking mental defective. Liberals tried (successfully) to pretend these people were normal for decades and a lot of people died because of it. There needs to be a registry where mental health professionals can put the names of people who have no business with a firearm.

We can't knee jerk this. This was our issue for decades. Keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies. The democrats have conflated it around to their benefit. Time to bring it back home."

Ever heard of a NICS check?  A Form 4473?  Dealers already do them ON EVERY FUCKING PURCHASE.  PERIOD.   To say they don't is bullshit and/or ignorance on the process.

That info is called into the NICS system for a yea/nea on the purchase.  If their dbase lets defectives buy guns (which is rare), it's on them, the government.  Keep the fucking system maintained.   The ATF is fucking militant about going over a dealer's books as well to the point where dealers have to emplore applicants to use a certain ink pen, don't abbreviate anything including the Yes/No questions about your mental and criminal status.

I've seen people get denied.  I've seen gunstores refuse to sell even before the check because they sniffed out a straw purchase.  Either way, all the store can do is send the would-be buyer away.  The cops don't   come charging in.  The Feds don't fastrope down.  Nothing happens.  Because Government.

There is no goddamn loophole.  If it's a dealer sale, it goes through NICS.  If it doesn't, it's a big boy felony *already*.  The law is in place.  What they're seeking and the IGNORANT are enabling is to make a private civilian sale illegal.  They want to make me a felon for selling a gun to a friend or for  gifting one to my wife and family.  You want to go down that fucking road?

From Garrett's piece talking about Teh SCOAMT's "budget":

- $744 billion deficit

- $210 billion in savings from lower interest payments.

In other words, it's a $954 billion deficit.

Re: comments about stolen guns, note that a fair number of guns used in a variety of crimes are stolen from Police:

http://tinyurl.com/c27ejv2

But hey, let's lock up those "irresponsible gun owners", 'kay?

Feh.

Meanwhile, as all flutter about this, Rome continues to burn.

I think the part you are missing is that the liberals ARE trying to take the issue off the table. They want to pass a meaningless reform, without ANY of the big "scary" stuff that went into the 1994 bill, BECAUSE they only want a cosmetic victory.

They're giving you a chance to not have any real changes in the way this stuff works. Why not take it?

Posted by: BurtTC at April 10, 2013 08:14 AM

Creating a universal background check requirement is not a meaningless reform.  It's creating a requirement for a universal background check and therefore a federal gun registry.  This is not a meaningless compromise.  It's been a key item on the Liberal Wish List for years and years now.  This is not something that will fail to have any real change in the way this stuff works.  It is yet one more thing that will fundamentally alter the relationship between the individual, the government, and the very concept of exercising a right.

We already compromised with creating the NICS checks for FFLs.  Expanding that requirement to the millions and millions of legal gun owners to buy, sell, or trade a legal item is not meaningless.  It's a violation of our rights.  This won't be a cosmetic victory for liberals - it will be a very real one for them in their quest to outlaw private gun ownership by whatever means they can.

Posted by: EC at April 10, 2013 07:48 AM (doBIb)

It's not my stream, EC, so I don't know.

"There is no goddamn loophole. If it's a dealer sale, it goes through NICS. If it doesn't, it's a big boy felony *already*. The law is in place. What they're seeking and the IGNORANT are enabling is to make a private civilian sale illegal. They want to make me a felon for selling a gun to a friend or for gifting one to my wife and family. You want to go down that fucking road?"

Post this on every site you visit this week...

*stares SW towards phoenixgirl*

Be quiet you.

It is actually 35 degrees here in the SE corner of AZ this morn. Last gasp of winter, and all that.

And what part of  "shall not be infringed" do these compromisers not understand?

Posted by: Muad'dib at April 10, 2013 08:22 AM (SCTXH)

So is Ohio

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 74% more DOOM! at April 10, 2013 08:26 AM (FsUAO)

They're also Puuuuurrrrttttyyyyy.

But yeah, that's about it.

Someone will come in here and say "they're also useful for manufacturing "x" or "y"." and yet I don't see people hording copper (selling it for scrap yes, hording no.) and it's far more useful as a metal.

Posted by: Suppressed Flasher at April 10, 2013 07:47 AM (X+nFp

I`m 55 and I`ve been "freaking out" since 1 AR (after Reagan).

Another question that I have is this:

This 'universal background check' imposes restrictions on private transactions that occur entirely in one state. Upon what authority does Congress have to regulate non-interstate trade? The 'good and plenty' clause, again?

221  Many  times  this.  

Okay? Let's not do this, folks.

Tremble and obey.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at April 10, 2013 08:17 AM (vo/Tv)

Sorry, Gabe, and apologies to all the Horde.

You know what?  I think I'm going off-line for the rest of the week.  I'm really not in a good place right now.

My deepest apologies again, Gabe.  And to Ace, as well.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Tea. at April 10, 2013 08:33 AM (VtjlW)

You forgot to call for the box before engaging in a rant.

"Forfend".

Excellent usage of an obscure word.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Tea. at April 10, 2013 08:33 AM (VtjlW)

That  is  why  bitcoins  is  a  scam  because  the  moment  it  impacts  the  revenue  stream  the  Fed  flying  monkeys  will  shut  it  down  and  charge  people  with  money  laundering  and  tax  evasion. 

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Tea. at April 10, 2013 08:33 AM (VtjlW)

Why should government have to do with only the money it takes in? That's so 20th century.

Seriously though.  I'd love to be able just to "reclaim" my lost income.  Especially considering I've got about 6 weeks left of this job.

Maybe I should just go out and levy a tax on people to make up for it.  I'm just learning from my betters in government.  Don't cut my spending, "find" money elsewhere.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at April 10, 2013 08:36 AM (zF6Iw)

Woah woah woah. I don't know what's going on MP4, but let's not get hasty.

We don't apologize to Gabe. Ever. And most assuredly not to the Horde.

On a serious note, I hope you're ok man. Don't be doing anything stupid. Take care of yourself. We'd all miss you if you took the time off, but if you need to, DO IT.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 10, 2013 08:36 AM (/WLC3)

As I stated above, even with a registry it's pretty much impossible.  But perhaps I should show my work on that one.

Take a car, there actually is a registry of cars, and yet if I just went out and sold my car today there's really no way the government would possibly know at the very least until my plates came due again (and in that case there'd really be nothing stopping me from renewing my plates, I don't actually have to bring the car to the DMV to do it.)

And this is something that's out on the road in public, readily visible and the only way the government could really tell I passed it off is by a) random chance (a cop pulling over the new owner and seeing an expired registration) or b) through the complex mechanism of insurance and license plates that just isn't going to happen for guns.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at April 10, 2013 08:43 AM (da5Wo)

didn't we decide yesterday that other people children our not our responsibility?

259

232 -

And if the states don't take what the feds are offering, then what?

It has no teeth, it doesn't force states to do anything different from what they already are doing.

So the problem here is President Golfshirt wants to claim victory. Some of you want to deny him that opportunity. I get that, but other than that, I don't see any advantage in having us talk about gun control from now until November 2014.

Posted by: BurtTC at April 10, 2013 08:33 AM

So now you're trying to argue that we should let it pass because it won't do anything anyway?  You're OK with government passing meaningless laws?  The spectre of, even if that were true in this case, a government twisting a meaningless law to its own benefit doesn't concern you...and this is the case here at the very least?

There's lots of advantages of us talking gun control.  It's a winning issue for conservatives.  But even that isn't where I'm coming from.

You're trying to take the tack that this is a meaningless bill (it isn't), conservatives are at a disadvantage when we talk about gun rights (we aren't) and polluting the books with feel-good laws we judge to be ineffective is harmless (it isn't). 

The fact remains the liberals are trying to make it a crime for you to sell a gun to your best friend without asking permission first, and in order to enforce that a de facto registry must be created.  That isn't meaningless.  It's an intrusion into yet another area of our lives where government has no business being.  If you are only looking at this through a political lens, that's part of the problem.  Instead of surrendering, I suggest the GOP lay out exactly what "universal background checks" entail and why they don't do anything to address the issue of a mental defective going on a shooting spree. 

But it does criminalize a vast swath of law-abiding people.  I don't consider that meaningless at all.  And I'm more than a little concerned that someone is willing to ignore that in the name of political expediency.

Posted by: tsrblke at April 10, 2013 08:44 AM (GaqMa)

Just so you know, the lady with the Raptors at her beck and call? She likes me. Sometimes. So tread carefully.

Jean  see  220. 

There  has  to  be  a  permanent  record  of  the  bit  and  every  transaction  it's  used  in  for  this  to  work.  Records  that  never  disappear.  The  IRS  will  pursue  this  like  the  hounds  of  hell  if  it  actually  works.  

Posted by: Icedog at April 10, 2013 08:48 AM (9ScGj)

That's a lie. Nobody around here thinks.

Unless it involves boobs.

Posted by: @JohnTant at April 10, 2013 08:44 AM (tVWQB)

the only real counter I have on this one is: "well we failed."

We kidna didn't make our point very well and suddenly 90% of people thing "universal background checks" are necessary based on some polls I've seen.

I had to sit through a Crisis management seminar yesterday and the guy said something about politics that was like "after an election the losing party always says 'we didn't get our message out' well maybe you did and it wasn't selling what people wanted."

I think that sometimes this is true (people wanted free shit this election.)  But also he's a far too focused on crisis management (which politics shouldn't be.)  This is clearly a case of us not getting our message out.  We failed to explain what makes these laws moronic and now we can't shake loose the public opinion.

"I want gun dealers to check if someone is a criminal and stop the sale."

A 'criminal' or 'ex-criminal'? Criminals belong in jail. The rest of us demand 100% of our constitutional rights. Can't be trusted with a weapon in public? Then u need to be institutionalized.

Period. End of discussion.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Tea. at April 10, 2013 08:51 AM (VtjlW)

You know where nature won't bother you? Alexandria, VA on June 21.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 10, 2013 08:51 AM (/WLC3)

*thump*

Arrrggh....how the fuck do I keep ending up passed out on the floor??

Hey, what's this tab open on my compu..... *THUMP*

"You know where nature won't bother you? Alexandria, VA on June 21"

??? A friday in June here should be fairly humid & hot. Good weather, in other words...

Posted by: Cicero Kid will not go quietly into that good night at April 10, 2013 08:54 AM (PQs9U)

Eh, I'd soften that a bit. I think if you can't be trusted to determine for yourself if you should have a weapon in public you probably need to be institutionalized.

As I've said before given my skittish nature (and my poor coordination) I'm not exactly sure a CCW is really a good thing for me.  But the fact that I self select for that is what's important.

Most people are perfectly capable of determining their abilities with regards to this.

I just went out and sold my car today there's really no way the government would possibly know at the very least until my plates came due again (and in that case there'd really be nothing stopping me from renewing my plates, I don't actually have to bring the car to the DMV to do it.)And this is something that's out on the road in public, readily visible and the only way the government could really tell I passed it off is by a) random chance (a cop pulling over the new owner and seeing an expired registration) or b) through the complex mechanism of insurance and license plates that just isn't going to happen for guns.

Posted by: tsrblke at April 10, 2013 08:42 AM (GaqMa)

Your own self-interest would stop you from doing this.  As  still registered owner of said car you'd be held legally liable for any injuries or damages caused by it, as if you had given permission to the "driver" to use it.  You'd  also be legally liable for any tickets or citations.  Try another example, one that works.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at April 10, 2013 08:56 AM (F3G1y)

I prefer a clear liquid made from potatoes (being Irish) or a brown liquor made from wheat (because more Irish).

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at April 10, 2013 08:58 AM (/WLC3)

Really? I've always found her kinda "meh."

Good enough looking I guess, but no where near knockout.

Posted by: GnuBreed at April 10, 2013 08:43 AM (ccXZP)

I've become more convinced that if the conservative party is going to survive, I've got to take control.  It appears most people on the right are too emotional to think critically and make obvious decisions.

Democrats are out bashing the right now on a simple issue.  They say they don't want to sell guns to criminals and the mentally ill.  Forget everything else, all the straw men and crazy imaginary scenarios tossed out there and focus on that issue.

Democrats don't want to sell guns to criminals and mentally ill people.

Are you for that or against it?

If you use more that one word - "for" - you lose the argument.  Apparently, there are a number of people here who just can't understand that.

Let's hope Toomey has written a bill that will put republicans into the position of saying: "Our bill prevents criminals and the mentally ill from buying guns".  Everything else the left wants to tack on can then be characterized as something that will kill the simple bill that will stop all gun violence once and for all (in the minds of low information voters).

At some point, we need to start moving away from being the "stupid" party.

"you would think the GOP would not get fooled like this once more."

You're making the fatally incorrect assumption that the GOP opposes more legislation.

"As still registered owner of said car you'd be held legally liable for any injuries or damages caused by it,"

What did I just read? Er, no.

Posted by: tsrblke at April 10, 2013 09:00 AM (GaqMa)

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at April 10, 2013 08:26 AM (tqLft)

=========

If you remember when beer came in steel cans...

#385...

Do I have to say it?

*elbows*

 Â“First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future.”

“… no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away.”

Barack Obama

“No way that Uncle Sam can go find out whether you own a gun because we’re about to really take away all your rights and you’re not going to be able to defend yourself and we’re going to swoop down with Special Forces, folks, and gather up every gun in America,”

Joe Biden

394,

Exactly so.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at April 10, 2013 09:01 AM (F3G1y)

Tempting, but I'm pretty certain Mrs 1981 would be opposed.

383373 Jwest,

sorry I can't hear you over the euthanasia.

I'm due to become the Chief Death Panel member for Indiana.

That and I'm keeping a list of people who say mean things about me.

#407,

Layers and layers there, obviously.

Posted by: Count de Monet at April 10, 2013 08:59 AM (BAS5M)

Fair enough.

But look at the incredible system of crazy we've put in place to ensure that we can track the registration of cars.

Also I've never tried just not renewing my plates?  What happens then? (I've only ever bought 1 car, and not sold it, so I'm actually a little blurry on this procedure.)  I don't think they send over cops to check on me.  Most expired registrations as I understand it are caught incidentally to something else.

Now extrapolate, how do we even begin to do this with something that is not exactly trotted around in public (like a car.)

And frankly even the system of registering cars is far from perfect.  Set aside the license plate for a moment (since there's no analogy for guns even possible), VIN numbers can be ground off (just like you could for a gun if you really wanted to obscure its history.)

It's a law that's remarkably easily circumvented (unless you go the route the suggested in WA where police get to check your gun collection every year.)

As far as self-interest goes.  Arguably it's already in my self interest to make sure all my gun sales go through a FFL anyway (to create said paper trail), so based on that, we don't need any other laws right?

Posted by: jwest at April 10, 2013 09:01 AM

Playing the game on the other side's terms is "stupid." 

It's very easy to simply point out that Schumer's bill does not stop criminals or the mentally ill from getting guns.  It's further a valid argument to say that the measures needed for government to stop criminals or the mentally ill from getting guns are measures that are abhorrent to the very concept of liberty.  Hell, throw in the argument that the question isn't whether the government out to restrain criminals or the mentally ill from getting guns, but to prevent them from the ability to wreak violence at all.

Your hypothetical insists that conservatives allows the liberals to choose the battlefield.  We don't have to do that. 

So yeah, I can definitely go out there and say "I agree that criminals and the mentally ill should not get guns, which is why I oppose this bill that would not prevent that from happening."

"Only you are smart enough do this. "

Sean,  if you were a little smarter I'd share the power. 

Really. 

So yeah, I can definitely go out there and say "I agree that criminals and the mentally ill should not get guns, which is why I oppose this bill that would not prevent that from happening."

Posted by: @JohnTant at April 10, 2013 09:11 AM (tVWQB)

That is a fine argument, if you can draw up a bill that would prevent it from happening.

Liberals are smart enough to know that it doesn't matter what the law actually does.  It only matters what the intention is. 

Why do you hate children and old people?

"But look at the incredible system of crazy we've put in place to ensure that we can track the registration of cars."

This, X 10,000 if the move to "register" guns continues. We've got vehicle identification numbers, registration numbers, title numbers, license plate numbers, yet amazingly enough, I need not notify nor check with anyone if I choose to sell a vehicle to another person.

In simpler terms, there's an amazingly huge money sucking monolith out there that can't track that, but we're somehow going to see a "streamlined" "common sense" system that's going to "solve our ongoing national gun crisis"?

Really?

(bangs head on desk)

@BChochran1981,

Specifically nothing really.

But there's a lot of work that went in to making her look decent.  You have to go out and find pictures of her in a sexy pose.  Anything of her not staged to the nines makes me think "meh."

Every time I see her in a movie I think "she's not a good actor she's not pretty how does she keep getting roles?"

Great example was the remake of Total Recall.  I kept thinking "man kate beckinsale looks so much better than her."

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Tea. at April 10, 2013 09:10 AM (VtjlW)

It took me a good 30 secs to figure out what the hell you were talking about.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Mmmm. Tea. at April 10, 2013 09:14 AM (VtjlW)

No autocorrect on the pc. Although, you'd think that the squiggly red line would've grabbed my attention.

You'd be wrong.

Posted by: jwest at April 10, 2013 09:15 AM (u2a4R)

Wait what?  Howsthatagain?

Because Liberals recognize that passing bad laws may make good political theater we should all engage in passing bad laws to get elected?

We've redefined everything! ObamaCare was a great political move that should be repeated over and over because it's intentions were good!

I've got an idea for a law that makes it illegal to be poor!  My intentions are good so let me call up Harry Reid.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at April 10, 2013 09:19 AM (da5Wo)

Not true! IE10 has autocorrect now! (It autocorrects all my Italics flags to capital I's)

Posted by: tsrblke at April 10, 2013 09:17 AM (GaqMa)

Posted by: BCochran1981 at April 10, 2013 09:23 AM (da5Wo)

Eh not my thing.

Generic Beauty if you well.  She's thin, has breasts, and hips, I'm supposed to go gaga over that?

I'm not saying she's ugly, I'm just saying there's nothing that that drops my jaw.

459 Posted by: tsrblke at April 10, 2013 09:20 AM (GaqMa)

If you can go around to the 150 million people and slowly explain why you're opposed to a bill that would prevent criminals and mentally ill people from buying guns, I would be with you.

However, since that isn't going to happen, opposing this bill by Toomey is just political suicide. 

Watch the reaction after the news conference and see how reliable TEA party people embrace it.  This is politics.  Sometimes it takes thinking a few moves into the future to see the right path.

Posted by: tsrblke at April 10, 2013 09:08 AM (GaqMa)

TX Dept of Pub Safety (DMV in the 56 lesser states) had  numerous warnings to sellers of cars in private sales to make sure the buyer transfers the registration (and pays the sales tax!) on  pain of potential bad ju-ju coming back to bite you in the ass.  Your "protection" is to document the sale (the state has appropriate forms) and have the buyer sign them before handing over the keys.  Even to the point of taking off the tags if you think the buyer is squirrely.  Buyer can take the sale paperwork to the DPS office, get new tags, then come back and put on the car and drive legally.

But until the state provides public  use   gun ranges (equivalent to public roadways) IMO the state has no business inserting itself into private gun sales between individuals.  No "work arounds" either that will have as a byproduct a registry of all gun sales or all gun ownership  or ammo buyers.  Just NO!

As a commentor said earlier, if they want to do this, the  ONLY way is through the amendment process to the Constitution.  Otherwise it is a  clear and direct   infringement upon  our 2 Amendment rights and that is something  up with which I will not put.

That is a fine argument, if you can draw up a bill that would prevent it from happening.Liberals are smart enough to know that it doesn't matter what the law actually does. It only matters what the intention is. Why do you hate children and old people?

Posted by: jwest at April 10, 2013 09:15 AM

And then the argument becomes "hey, you know what?  There are some things that government simply cannot do, at least if we still want to consider ourselves free people.  Oftentimes government creates more problems than it solves."

That was a pretty winning argument back in 1979 as I recall.  It won again in 1994.  Furthermore, it goes to the core of being a conservative.  If you're not willing to make that argument, but rather abandon that core principle instead of being called names, then that's kind of a problem. 

If you can go around to the 150 million people and slowly explain why you're opposed to a bill that would prevent criminals and mentally ill people from buying guns, I would be with you.

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

Section 922(g) of the Gun Control Act prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:

18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (1)
Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year

18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (2)
Is a fugitive from justice

18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (3)
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance

18, U.S.C. §922 (g) (4)
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution

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

I like how you're pretending this is some super-duper hard conversation to have.

opposing this bill by Toomey is just political suicide.

==========

How does one reach this level of blinkered self-delusion, anyway?

Posted by: Count de Monet at April 10, 2013 09:28 AM (BAS5M)

Uhh your missing my point.  In fact I think we're more or less on the same page.

I'm not saying "car registration is good! let's do the same thing for guns."

I'm saying "car registration barely works as it is requires massive punitive threats and still is somewhat reliant on luck to catch violators, it's moronic to apply a similar schema to guns and think it will work."

Or "you simply can't regulate to people who simply don't want to comply for whatever reason so let's just stop trying it's a waste of time and money."

Cars were my "best case scenario" (since they have layers of checks, multiple ways of tracking and are meant to be brought out into public.)  Base case scenario only barely passes (and by some counts fails) the sniff test, so people suggesting we try to move to a "model and sale tracking" of guns are morons.

Side note: Missouri actually has public ranges, run by our conservation department.  There's a small fee ($3/hour target or $3/round trap).

"on pain of potential" - which isn't a legal term nor issue. It's the DMV wanting more papers.

"He *enjoys* licking their hands and calling them master."

Then let posterity forget that he was our countryman.

Posted by: @JohnTant at April 10, 2013 09:32 AM (tVWQB)

This 1000 times this.

What's wrong with my bill to make being poor illegal Jwest?  Do you not want to get rid of poverty?

If we have to concede that bills must have the right optics, and that's all that matters then lets just pack up and go home this republic is over (and our fighting here is useless.)

Welcome the new overlords! Our betters! The Progressives!

If you can go around to the 150 million people and slowly explain why you're opposed to a bill that would prevent criminals and mentally ill people from buying guns, I would be with you.
==================

Here you go, silly goose.

Individuals can also be added to the NICS index outside of potential gun sales, on the recommendation of psychiatrists, mental health institutions and family members.

Under the current NICS system, buyers may be denied the purchase of a firearm for reasons such as being indicted or convicted of a felony, admitting to being addicted to a controlled substances, having been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, being subject to a restraining order, as well as other regulations.

==========

It is already illegal for someone adjudicated to be mentally ill from owning a firearm.

Totally complicated and not explainable at a press conference.

Really. Too hard.

And no, you would not be "with us" at all.

Posted by: Ed Anger at April 10, 2013 09:34 AM (tOkJB)

Did not know that.  Learn something (or three) new everyday here at the HQ.  But why the eff is the state providing public use gun ranges?  Oh wait, doesn't the Keystone state also provide  the liquor stores (state package or ABC stores)?  Does the state provide public dog parks too?

I agree with your point though.

Posted by: toby928© Red Partisan at April 10, 2013 09:35 AM (QupBk)

You magnificent bastard!  Unintended consequences, energize!

Time to wait for the press conference at 11:00.

For housekeeping purposes, I believe it would be best to have a totally separate thread for apologies to me.

Posted by: Count de Monet at April 10, 2013 09:43 AM (BAS5M)

In MO the gun ranges are part of the department of conservation (which oversees hunting.)

Why? Why parks? MO's conservation department is surprisingly well funded so we get cheap deer tags, firing ranges and lots of space.

Posted by: jwest at April 10, 2013 09:53 AM (u2a4R)

Nah, no reason to open a thread that won't get any replies.

(We owe you an apology for what?  Disagreeing with you?  Pffft.)

"Well, I see Bannion is firing on all cylinders this morning. Which is stunning that he can still manage that after working with/for"

"Distrust in government is directly proportional to length of time spent in governmental service."

Are we counting military service as being a government employee?