The future of the AR-15

[Turdacious]

Senator McCain -- the top recipient of @NRA "donations" at over $7,700,000 -- just voted against expanding background checks. I wonder if he's tired of being an elected official?

Settle down, Beavis. Dems & Reps both proposed bills, and rejected bills.

WASHINGTON — The Senate as expected on Monday rejected four partisan gun measures offered in the wake of the Orlando massacre, including proposals to keep guns out of the hands of people on terror watch lists.

Two Republican proposals would have increased funding for the national background check system and created a judicial review process to keep a person on a terror watch list from buying a gun; two Democratic measures would have expanded background checks to private gun sales and allowed the Justice Department to ban gun sales to suspected terrorists.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /86143418/

Exactly my point. 90% of the country wants background checks and politicians like McCain ignore their constituency for (in McCain's case) over $7 million dollars of NRA money. Must be nice.

I'm pretty sure he knows exactly what his constituency thinks about this issue-- it's an election year.

[dead man walking]

a pox on both their houses.

why do the d's reject the r's proposals, and vice versa?

the capitol is the capital of bad theatre

[Schlegel]

Senator McCain -- the top recipient of @NRA "donations" at over $7,700,000 -- just voted against expanding background checks. I wonder if he's tired of being an elected official?

The NRA can only give McCain a few thousand a year. He's old, but not that old. They must be counting all related political activity (and remember, he ran for president) as a "donation". Even using this metric the NRA is a pretty modest spender. There are more than 200 lobbying organizations that spend more. Calculating this way, Michael Bloomberg is buying politicians wholesale.

[nafod]

Senator McCain -- the top recipient of @NRA "donations" at over $7,700,000 -- just voted against expanding background checks. I wonder if he's tired of being an elected official?

The NRA can only give McCain a few thousand a year. He's old, but not that old. They must be counting all related political activity (and remember, he ran for president) as a "donation". Even using this metric the NRA is a pretty modest spender. There are more than 200 lobbying organizations that spend more. Calculating this way, Michael Bloomberg is buying politicians wholesale.

It's not the money so much as it is the single issue voters.

[Yes I Have Balls]

Senator McCain -- the top recipient of @NRA "donations" at over $7,700,000 -- just voted against expanding background checks. I wonder if he's tired of being an elected official?

Settle down, Beavis. Dems & Reps both proposed bills, and rejected bills.

WASHINGTON — The Senate as expected on Monday rejected four partisan gun measures offered in the wake of the Orlando massacre, including proposals to keep guns out of the hands of people on terror watch lists.

Two Republican proposals would have increased funding for the national background check system and created a judicial review process to keep a person on a terror watch list from buying a gun; two Democratic measures would have expanded background checks to private gun sales and allowed the Justice Department to ban gun sales to suspected terrorists.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /86143418/

Exactly my point. 90% of the country wants background checks and politicians like McCain ignore their constituency for (in McCain's case) over $7 million dollars of NRA money. Must be nice.

I'm pretty sure he knows exactly what his constituency thinks about this issue-- it's an election year.

We'll see what the Latino vote says (30ish% of all voters) and the anti-Trump vote as well.

[Turdacious]

Senator McCain -- the top recipient of @NRA "donations" at over $7,700,000 -- just voted against expanding background checks. I wonder if he's tired of being an elected official?

Settle down, Beavis. Dems & Reps both proposed bills, and rejected bills.

WASHINGTON — The Senate as expected on Monday rejected four partisan gun measures offered in the wake of the Orlando massacre, including proposals to keep guns out of the hands of people on terror watch lists.

Two Republican proposals would have increased funding for the national background check system and created a judicial review process to keep a person on a terror watch list from buying a gun; two Democratic measures would have expanded background checks to private gun sales and allowed the Justice Department to ban gun sales to suspected terrorists.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /86143418/

Exactly my point. 90% of the country wants background checks and politicians like McCain ignore their constituency for (in McCain's case) over $7 million dollars of NRA money. Must be nice.

I'm pretty sure he knows exactly what his constituency thinks about this issue-- it's an election year.

We'll see what the Latino vote says (30ish% of all voters) and the anti-Trump vote as well.

So pushing for background checks would make him more electable during both the primary and general elections?

My guess is that if he did, Chemtrail Kelli would gain about 30 points in the polls overnight.

[Yes I Have Balls]

Senator McCain -- the top recipient of @NRA "donations" at over $7,700,000 -- just voted against expanding background checks. I wonder if he's tired of being an elected official?

Settle down, Beavis. Dems & Reps both proposed bills, and rejected bills.

WASHINGTON — The Senate as expected on Monday rejected four partisan gun measures offered in the wake of the Orlando massacre, including proposals to keep guns out of the hands of people on terror watch lists.

Two Republican proposals would have increased funding for the national background check system and created a judicial review process to keep a person on a terror watch list from buying a gun; two Democratic measures would have expanded background checks to private gun sales and allowed the Justice Department to ban gun sales to suspected terrorists.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /86143418/

Exactly my point. 90% of the country wants background checks and politicians like McCain ignore their constituency for (in McCain's case) over $7 million dollars of NRA money. Must be nice.

I'm pretty sure he knows exactly what his constituency thinks about this issue-- it's an election year.

We'll see what the Latino vote says (30ish% of all voters) and the anti-Trump vote as well.

So pushing for background checks would make him more electable during both the primary and general elections?

My guess is that if he did, Chemtrail Kelli would gain about 30 points in the polls overnight.

Not in the primary; he has little adversity there. I feel stupid even telling you that, I'm sure you knew. GE? Different story perhaps?

[Turdacious]

Senator McCain -- the top recipient of @NRA "donations" at over $7,700,000 -- just voted against expanding background checks. I wonder if he's tired of being an elected official?

Settle down, Beavis. Dems & Reps both proposed bills, and rejected bills.

WASHINGTON — The Senate as expected on Monday rejected four partisan gun measures offered in the wake of the Orlando massacre, including proposals to keep guns out of the hands of people on terror watch lists.

Two Republican proposals would have increased funding for the national background check system and created a judicial review process to keep a person on a terror watch list from buying a gun; two Democratic measures would have expanded background checks to private gun sales and allowed the Justice Department to ban gun sales to suspected terrorists.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /86143418/

Exactly my point. 90% of the country wants background checks and politicians like McCain ignore their constituency for (in McCain's case) over $7 million dollars of NRA money. Must be nice.

I'm pretty sure he knows exactly what his constituency thinks about this issue-- it's an election year.

We'll see what the Latino vote says (30ish% of all voters) and the anti-Trump vote as well.

So pushing for background checks would make him more electable during both the primary and general elections?

My guess is that if he did, Chemtrail Kelli would gain about 30 points in the polls overnight.

Not in the primary; he has little adversity there. I feel stupid even telling you that, I'm sure you knew. GE? Different story perhaps?

Pretty sure McCain knows the answer to that one too. Besides, the last time McCain needed government assistance to get him out of a jam, he had to wait a while.

[johno]

Senator McCain -- the top recipient of @NRA "donations" at over $7,700,000 -- just voted against expanding background checks. I wonder if he's tired of being an elected official?

Settle down, Beavis. Dems & Reps both proposed bills, and rejected bills.

WASHINGTON — The Senate as expected on Monday rejected four partisan gun measures offered in the wake of the Orlando massacre, including proposals to keep guns out of the hands of people on terror watch lists.

Two Republican proposals would have increased funding for the national background check system and created a judicial review process to keep a person on a terror watch list from buying a gun; two Democratic measures would have expanded background checks to private gun sales and allowed the Justice Department to ban gun sales to suspected terrorists.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /86143418/

Exactly my point. 90% of the country wants background checks and politicians like McCain ignore their constituency for (in McCain's case) over $7 million dollars of NRA money. Must be nice.

Hey Dumbass, McCain voted for the two Republican bills.

U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) released the following statement today on voting to advance two amendments filed by Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) that would prevent individuals named on the terrorist watch list in the last five years from purchasing firearms; incentivize the improvement of the national firearm background check system; and address mental health concerns in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution:

“In the wake of the horrific attacks in San Bernardino and Orlando, and the threat of more terrorist-inspired or directed attacks on the homeland, Americans are rightfully calling for stronger action to prevent potential terrorists from purchasing firearms. I share those concerns, and voted for two common-sense amendments today filed by Senators Cornyn and Grassley that would help us accomplish this in a way that is both effective and constitutional.
http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/ind ... g-firearms

[TerryB]

Facts are hard.

[powerlifter54]

Apparently bright.

[Yes I Have Balls]

McCain voted against the proposal that would have required every gun purchaser to undergo a background check. Which, by the way, is favorable to 74% of NRA members and 90%ish of Americans.

*shrug*

Not sure I can make it more simple than that.

[Yes I Have Balls]

And now the House Dem's are doing a sit in until Speaker Ryan addresses gun control legislation. What did Ryan do in reply? Turned off the cameras so CSPAN can't show it.

oh well.

[tough old man]

Im still voting for a very bloody violent overthrow of the government.

[Sua Sponte]

And now the House Dem's are doing a sit in until Speaker Ryan addresses gun control legislation. What did Ryan do in reply? Turned off the cameras so CSPAN can't show it.

oh well.

Really? We're missing coverage of a sit-in? On CSpan no less. Fuck.

[johno]

McCain voted against the proposal that would have required every gun purchaser to undergo a background check. Which, by the way, is favorable to 74% of NRA members and 90%ish of Americans.

*shrug*

Not sure I can make it more simple than that.

1 - Be sure to post your shrugs in your Training Log, Comrade. That's where they belong.

2 - Golly Gosh! McCain voted against the Dem background check. How could he possibly defend this egregious decision?

Oh, maybe by pointing out that the Orlando Shooter PASSED a background check. Several, in fact. So that the Dem's bill would have done nothing to stop the Orlando Massacre.

And, instead, McCain supported a bill that would have prevented or delayed the Orlando Murderer's gun purchases.


*scratches nuts*

*shifts package*

*hawks & spits*

[Grandpa's Spells]

Oh, maybe by pointing out that the Orlando Shooter PASSED a background check. Several, in fact. So that the Dem's bill would have done nothing to stop the Orlando Massacre.

Come on. You don't want a more sweeping bill passed that would have stopped the Orlando Massacre. Background checks are a bare minimum that are nearly universally favored.

[TerryB]

And now the House Dem's are doing a sit in until Speaker Ryan addresses gun control legislation. What did Ryan do in reply? Turned off the cameras so CSPAN can't show it.

oh well.

Do you remember what Speaker Pelosi did when the republicans wouldn't leave the floor?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ns/488321/

I'm genuinely curious: who now can purchase a firearm without a background check? I honestly thought everyone had to pass one. Is this not the case?

[johno]

Oh, maybe by pointing out that the Orlando Shooter PASSED a background check. Several, in fact. So that the Dem's bill would have done nothing to stop the Orlando Massacre.

Come on. You don't want a more sweeping bill passed that would have stopped the Orlando Massacre. Background checks are a bare minimum that are nearly universally favored.

My point: It's a lie to say/imply that McCain & Republicans did nothing in response to the Orlando Massacre. Reps & Dems blocked each other's bills.

Myself: I'm fine with the status quo. I don't care what knee jerk, feel-good nonsense is "nearly universally favored."

I do wish we could seriously address the violence in America, but that won't happen.

[Grandpa's Spells]

Oh, maybe by pointing out that the Orlando Shooter PASSED a background check. Several, in fact. So that the Dem's bill would have done nothing to stop the Orlando Massacre.

Come on. You don't want a more sweeping bill passed that would have stopped the Orlando Massacre. Background checks are a bare minimum that are nearly universally favored.

My point: It's a lie to say/imply that McCain & Republicans did nothing in response to the Orlando Massacre. Reps & Dems blocked each other's bills.

Repubicans put up do-nothing bills to create the illusion of doing something other than just shooting down legislation:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... d-to-know/

[Herv100]

The ACLU is against the no fly/terror lists in their current form. Thats got to be tough for the lefties, like when rapist Bill Clinton owned that BLM chump

[johno]

Oh, maybe by pointing out that the Orlando Shooter PASSED a background check. Several, in fact. So that the Dem's bill would have done nothing to stop the Orlando Massacre.

Come on. You don't want a more sweeping bill passed that would have stopped the Orlando Massacre. Background checks are a bare minimum that are nearly universally favored.

My point: It's a lie to say/imply that McCain & Republicans did nothing in response to the Orlando Massacre. Reps & Dems blocked each other's bills.

Repubicans put up do-nothing bills to create the illusion of doing something other than just shooting down legislation:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... d-to-know/

You're citing an opinion piece written by Amber Phillips. So what?

[Sua Sponte]

Repubicans put up do-nothing bills to create the illusion of doing something other than just shooting down legislation:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... d-to-know/

Not really a fair representation of whats in the article. For instance, there's this little tidbit about McCain's previous vote on item No. 2: Expand background checks (Democratic amendment):

How this fared in previous votes: Not well, although it got some bipartisan support. It failed to get the 60 needed to move on, 48-50, although four Republicans voted for it: Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

While much can be made of the fact that McCain changed his vote there may to his mind be good reasons. Background checks mean the gov't knows what you're buying and therefore has record. For those who fear gov't confiscation, this is a big deal. Hillary is on record as having stated that Australian gun confiscation is well worth considering, so while I think the gov't confiscation point of view is a bit paranoid, it's hardly without merit. Buying from an FFL requires a background check. Most don't seem to know this. Buying from a private seller across state lines requires an FFL as an intermediary and a background check. Only in-state sales between private sellers, in most states, doesn't require a background check. There's no "gun show loophole". Pure fiction. Many would like to have all transactions require a background check, not a bad thing that, to my mind, but it remains true that such a rule would have stopped zero of the mass shooters in recent memory. And there's still that sticky issue of the left wanting all out confiscation, Constitution be damned.

The Republican amendment on item No. 1: Tighten up our background check system has the virtue that it at least had the possibility of preventing the Church shooter from buying guns as he passed the the background check due to a failure to report. Calling it "do-nothing bills to create the illusion of doing something" isn't true and, if insisted upon it, it's then at least as true as it is of the Dems.

For the Repubs, the 3 days for the gov't to justify a no-sale for a person on the terrorist watch list, may not be a feasible timeline, but it at least sets a limit and requires the gov't to justify the placement of the person on that list. The Dems want to require the denied person to sue the gov't. Three days may not be enough time but this is clearly an attempt to effectively deny denied person any legitimate recourse-who has the time or the money to sue the flippin' govt over being on a list they knew nothing of and have no idea how they ended up on it. To add insult to injury, the amendment attempted to go from denying those on the "no-fly list" to denying those on the "terrorist watch list", presumably taking advantage of the ignorance of most about which is what or even that they're different things. Viewed in that light, it's seemingly becoming less fictional that there is some conspiracy, by whatever subterfuge is available, to deny people their 2nd amendment rights. And it can't be emphasized enough, that Mateen not only passed state and federal background checks, he was the individual target of multiple, multi-month FBI investigations and he was on no list of any sort, not denied gun purchases.

All in all, while guns have a social ill side to them, they're no worse than lots of other things, from alcohol and tobacco, to obesity, all of which claim many more lives. A closer comparison is to traffic deaths, which show more lost lives, and much higher injury rates, along with a reported 50% lat year over the previous two. Yet, there's no background check to buy a car, no screams of "people don't need that much horsepower" or "why do we have cars and trucks that can go 2 to 3 times the post speed limited on most highways." There's no designation of cars with seat side bolsters, turbos, extra wide low profile tires, or other features as "assault vehicles." No outcry that all cars should be equipped with mandatory breathalyzers in order to be able to start the car, or identification technology so only the licensed owner may drive it. Ubiquitous cell phone usage, especially texting while driving, receives largely lip service and public service announcements despite tens of studies equating such actions with impairment many times over the legal alcohol content limit. Clearly the left's claim of "common sense" measures against guns without commensurate controls elsewhere is indicative of their brand of bigotry at least driving part of this.

I wonder what will happen when background checks and weapons bans fail to have the desired effect of markedly reducing gun violence, given most gun violence, as it's described in the media, doesn't address the largest categories such as suicide, drug and gang related homicides, and legitimate use of force. An informal, completely unscientific poll of friends, peers, colleagues and acquaintances suggests most believe Orlando-type shootings are responsible for nearly all gun deaths. Suicide by firearm is the topmost category by a wide margin of deaths, up 26%, with suicides by all measures up double that. This is a mental health crisis, but somehow the left, the "good people, the people who care deeply" have turned it into gun politics, perhaps because it's mostly men who off themselves, men not being on the leftist approved list of victims. Likewise, inner city deaths due to firearms won't be budged by these proposals.

How about those in the self-righteous "we're the only ones who care" category make it clear to everybody none of these measures would stop most forms of gun deaths nor would any of the proposed measures have stopped Mateen.

[nafod]

While much can be made of the fact that McCain changed his vote there may to his mind be good reasons. Background checks mean the gov't knows what you're buying and therefore has record. For those who fear gov't confiscation, this is a big deal.

*sigh*
Background checks are the least of it, if folks are worried about getting tracked. I am constantly amazed by the crickets from the Gun Rights folks regarding NSA monitoring and that ilk. What it tells me is that it is not really about the tracking and confiscation, it is about the emotional attachment.

I spent three years on the Find/Fix/Finish. The gun rights folks seem to be focused on being ready to fight off the "finish", but I am here to tell you that's the easy part.

it's seemingly becoming less fictional that there is some conspiracy, by whatever subterfuge is available, to deny people their 2nd amendment rights.

The Heller case confirmed for the first time that us merkins have an individual right to be armed. It also clearly stated that the right has bounds. Now multiple different circuit courts have consistently upheld restrictions by the states on assault rifles, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly and very visibly chosen not to hear those cases. Pretty clear that they are allowing the people themselves to determine where the operational bounds are, and assault rifles are in the optional category.

And it can't be emphasized enough, that Mateen not only passed state and federal background checks, he was the individual target of multiple, multi-month FBI investigations and he was on no list of any sort, not denied gun purchases.

Two comments on that. First, Mateen shined the light on the fact that someone on a no-fly list can buy an assault weapon. Saying the fact that he wasn't on the list matters, is to kind of say that even if we think it is a bad idea for someone to be able to buy a gun like that, we need to wait until we have another mass shooting to pass a law on it.

Second, you are making an argument for why assault rifles should be banned.

A closer comparison is to traffic deaths, which show more lost lives, and much higher injury rates, along with a reported 50% lat year over the previous two. Yet, there's no background check to buy a car, no screams of "people don't need that much horsepower" or "why do we have cars and trucks that can go 2 to 3 times the post speed limited on most highways." There's no designation of cars with seat side bolsters, turbos, extra wide low profile tires, or other features as "assault vehicles." No outcry that all cars should be equipped with mandatory breathalyzers in order to be able to start the car, or identification technology so only the licensed owner may drive it.

This is a really bad analogy to go down. You can only operate a car in public (not own it) if you have demonstrated ability and some minimal medical suitability. There are absolutely graduating scales of training and medical readiness for moving from non-commercial to commercial, with multiple classes of commercial vehicles and multiple approvals for things like transporting hazmat, double trailers, etc. The Class A vehicles are more closely regulated for inspection and operation because of their potential for havoc. Identification technology so only the licensed driver can operate it? It is called a key. It is a readily available technology that makes your product not as useful to someone else. Kind of like a password for a smartphone, that prevents the information on there from being used against you when stolen.

Ubiquitous cell phone usage, especially texting while driving, receives largely lip service and public service announcements despite tens of studies equating such actions with impairment many times over the legal alcohol content limit.

I missed the lip service and public service announcements regarding safe use of weapons advocated for by the republicans.

I wonder what will happen when background checks and weapons bans fail to have the desired effect of markedly reducing gun violence

I wonder what will happen when they do. People keep saying there are so many guns out there, that prohibiting access won't change a thing, and yet people keep buying them, including criminals. Any friction in the process will result in lower usage.

Suicide by firearm is the topmost category by a wide margin of deaths, up 26%, with suicides by all measures up double that.

You know what one of my first tasks was when I learned one of my sailors was potentially suicidal? Ensure he didn't have access to a firearm.

I'm with General McChrystal on this:

"Some opponents of closing these gaps in our laws will continue to argue that dangerous people will obtain guns in our country no matter what, and that therefore taking these steps to make it harder for them is fruitless. That is both poor logic and poor leadership," he wrote.

[Turdacious]

IMHO the idea of background checks are nice, but improving the practice of background checks is difficult and unlikely to get many headlines.