NRA vs Mayors

[zyxt9]

As much as I despise King Mike, this time I cannot find fault with what Bloomberg and other mayors are trying to do. Creating and enforcing stronger background checks is very much needed. Yes I do still believe people can still get whatever they want, but this increases potential success of sting operations.

It kind of depends on the degree to which they are looking to have background checks deny people. I'm not sure what the restrictions include and highly doubt they would deny people who would be responsible as that would be a very tough sell for legislative purposes.

Anyone have more info than I have found as to why NRA is against the proposal other than they oppose any and all restrictions?

 

[Thumb]

Because they are a gun lobby, and any new background checks will obviously impact the sales receipts of the gun manufacturers who pay them to fight everything tooth and nail.

In the end, everything is about money.

 

[Michchamp]

... Creating and enforcing stronger background checks is very much needed. Yes I do still believe people can still get whatever they want, but this increases potential success of sting operations.

...

funny how "laws" work, eh?

 

[Michchamp]

it's great seeing how cynical, evil, and cocky the NRA got when Reid announced they were dropping the assault weapons ban...

there you go american people... you thought your elected officials would actually fucking DO SOMETHING opposed to OUR interests after 30 little kids were slaughtered in Sandy Hook? WE FUCKING OWN YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. FUCK YOU.

enjoy your fucking "democracy"

 

[zyxt9]

Well I still don't have a huge issue with the assault rifles being allowed, but stronger background checks I have no opposition to as it keeps guns out of the hands of those who are irresponsible.

I don't think anyone would have an issue with assault rifles if everyone who owned them was responsible and used them appropriately. Anyone who thinks everyone should have a gun, even criminals and people with mental problems, are way too extreme for my liking.

That said, Bloomberg is involved so perhaps there is some hidden motive or deception I am not aware about. King Mike should be in prison for his own corruptive behavior. Yet I cannot wrap my head around how requiring better background checks could be abused unless it says something like "if you have a pulse you cannot own a gun and if you don't have a pulse you still cannot own a gun"...which obviously should never pass without being overturned by the supreme court.

 

[Michchamp]

funny how "laws" work, eh?

... stronger background checks I have no opposition to as it keeps guns out of the hands of those who are irresponsible.

...

oh. so it wasn't you that was advancing the "laws shouldn't be enacted because criminals break them anyway" argument against gun control? maybe it was KAWDUP. or maybe I'm just attributing other arguments I read elsewhere to you guys.

either way, I've seen some statistics that everyone - even gun owners - are overwhelmingly in favor of tougher background checks. This is only being opposed by the NRA and... I'm guessing as a proxy by the gun manufacturers themselves... who would not be able to withstand the bad press if they came out publicly like that. But then again, I don't think it would matter.

 

[KAWDUP]

oh. so it wasn't you that was advancing the "laws shouldn't be enacted because criminals break them anyway" argument against gun control? maybe it was KAWDUP. or maybe I'm just attributing other arguments I read elsewhere to you guys.

either way, I've seen some statistics that everyone - even gun owners - are overwhelmingly in favor of tougher background checks. This is only being opposed by the NRA and... I'm guessing as a proxy by the gun manufacturers themselves... who would not be able to withstand the bad press if they came out publicly like that. But then again, I don't think it would matter.

Laws shouldn't be enacted? Not sure I ever said that, because I certainly don't believe that. Now whether that enacted law accomplishes its intent is entirely another story. Get it straight.

You argued about it for so long, I bet you'd forget your own position if it wasn't glued to your own forehead.

 

[zyxt9]

Yeah, my arguments were far less that the laws should not enacted and far more that criminals would still get guns regardless. Same IS true with better background checks, but the background check law would make for far better sting operations and proving sellers were violating the law, thereby increasing conviction rate of those supplying guns to those who are mentally unfit. It will therefore make all sellers more aware to whom they are selling guns.

Couple that with sting operations to catch mentally unstable people trying to buy guns and that is where we have a better chance at stopping Sandy Hook situations. Getting the potential killers before they get the weapons and then get them whatever help possible at that time is better than banning assault weapons which keeps weapons out of the hands of responsible gun owners as well as criminals.

See the difference yet in how the laws would be carried out? Ban assault weapons and sting operations will bust someone who would be responsible. I have some issue with that. Stronger background check sting operations convict people who have a very low chance of being responsible gun owners.

NRA is very wrong with their attempts to block stronger and more thorough background checks. Not that it prevents another Sandy Hook 100%, but it decreases potential with far less potential of infringing on the responsible gun owner.

 

[Michchamp]

... Now whether that enacted law accomplishes its intent is entirely another story. ...

pretty sure a law requiring universal background checks would accomplish its intent. I don't see why it wouldn't.

reading a couple articles on the topic, I find some pretty disingenuous arguments from the NRA or assorted other gun nuts on why background checks are not worth it; in one they made a big show of poking a hole in the argument that 40% of gun sales are made w/out a background check... without answering the obvious question: okay, so what % do you think are sold that way? They shoot down all initiatives, but don't have any real counter-proposals. They literally refuse to put anything on the table.

this article has some stats...

From March 1994 through the end of 2009, background checks blocked more than 2 million of 108 million attempted purchases of firearms in the U.S., according to the Justice Department.

Last year, about 6.6 million guns were sold privately without a background check, according to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg?s group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The mayor is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News.

A 2004 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of inmates convicted of gun crimes found that 80 percent acquired the weapons through a private transfer.
​

seems like universal background checks are a no-brainer. Presumably the cost would not be prohibitive... we already have some systems in place, and the FBI and other police organizations have national databases related to criminal records. It's just a matter of passing the laws to ramp this up to cover the portion of sales made privately... maybe a couple million/year to run some sting operations at gun shows to ensure all sellers are doing background checks. sure some will slip through the cracks, and this may not have done anything for Sandy Hook, but at least now you have laws in place to nail the sellers who are enabling firearm violence.

so whether a particular law is effective or not is an "entirely another story" but not in this case.
​

 

[KAWDUP]

pretty sure a law requiring universal background checks would accomplish its intent. I don't see why it wouldn't.

reading a couple articles on the topic, I find some pretty disingenuous arguments from the NRA or assorted other gun nuts on why background checks are not worth it; in one they made a big show of poking a hole in the argument that 40% of gun sales are made w/out a background check... without answering the obvious question: okay, so what % do you think are sold that way? They shoot down all initiatives, but don't have any real counter-proposals. They literally refuse to put anything on the table.

this article has some stats...

From March 1994 through the end of 2009, background checks blocked more than 2 million of 108 million attempted purchases of firearms in the U.S., according to the Justice Department.

Last year, about 6.6 million guns were sold privately without a background check, according to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The mayor is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News.

A 2004 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of inmates convicted of gun crimes found that 80 percent acquired the weapons through a private transfer.
​

seems like universal background checks are a no-brainer. Presumably the cost would not be prohibitive... we already have some systems in place, and the FBI and other police organizations have national databases related to criminal records. It's just a matter of passing the laws to ramp this up to cover the portion of sales made privately... maybe a couple million/year to run some sting operations at gun shows to ensure all sellers are doing background checks. sure some will slip through the cracks, and this may not have done anything for Sandy Hook, but at least now you have laws in place to nail the sellers who are enabling firearm violence.

so whether a particular law is effective or not is an "entirely another story" but not in this case.
​

Didn't need to go through all that. I am in favor of the strongest background checks and sharing of information they can get through Congress. You said it - a no brainer. I believe I was referring to something else, but that information is left for the student to figure out.

pssst - I'll give you a hint - it was about the gun ban.

. . . and while you got your position correct, this time, you probably didn't have a clue about mine.

It is always an entirely different story for every law - I thought you went to Law School?

If I make a law that you can't spit on the sidewalk in front of your home, don't you think the effectiveness of that law depends way more on the actual implementation and enforcement of said law than the words of the law itself or for that matter even the idea of the law?

Maybe not, but what the hell do I know?

 

[Michchamp]

... I believe I was referring to something else, but that information is left for the student to figure out.

I know. everyone who could pass a background check should have an assault rifle, or any other weapon they might want to own, right? If I can pass a background check, I should be able to buy that 0.5 cal heavy machine gun, hand grenades, napalm, and landmines to defend my family. after all, why should my right to own those things be infringed?

2nd amendment don't say nothing about "reasonable" restrictions after all... so there can't be none.

 

[KAWDUP]

I know. everyone who could pass a background check should have an assault rifle, or any other weapon they might want to own, right? If I can pass a background check, I should be able to buy that 0.5 cal heavy machine gun, hand grenades, napalm, and landmines to defend my family. after all, why should my right to own those things be infringed?

2nd amendment don't say nothing about "reasonable" restrictions after all... so there can't be none.

Forgot about that bazooka. That's an important one considering our discussions.

 

[zyxt9]

Champ, we all are agrreeing with the mayors side; HOWEVER, as a NYC resident please don't ever, Ever, EVER trust King Mike or use his statistics to prove anything because he is a fucking tyrrant who will say and do anything, including but not limited to buying and lying, to get what he wants. Yes, that is true with all politicians, so it should say something about a man who reset the bar higher than anyone ever has before. Think about all the corruption in NYC history, yet Bloomberg was the one able to pull of the revoking of two term limit and got elected to a third.

Really looking forward to when he leaves office, just hope whomever comes in next doesn't invoke an even broader scope Nanny State than King Mike has pulled off, but he sure plans to instruct the next mayor how to run things. He has already stated publicly that he will tell the next mayor not to provide past dues to police, firemen, and teachers if they get new contracts with the new mayor. They've been working under the old contracts for over 5 years past their experation.

Soon the King will be dead, his term ends in January...unless he changes the rules again.

IMO, the next mayor would do well to condemn what he did, force the return of two-term limits, invalidate any and all changes he implemented during his 3rd term and have him prosecuted to the fullest extent for corruption and every other possible charge that could be mustered against him. I would also shut down Bloombergs connections with Wall Street. If I cod get all that done I would then turn to him eye to eye and say Sic Semper Tyrranus Mother Fucker.

But that's why I won't get elected as the next mayor of New York City. LOL