Let’s talk about the gun control deal between Sen. Joe Manchin (D-Buckwild) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa) because there are some interesting facets of it that have come to light. I suppose we’ll need to wait to see how the amendment process goes, but right now it looks like this bill is going to freak out both sides. Interesting.From what I’ve seen, the stuff Obama claimed he wanted is already out of the bill, but then we knew it would be. Obama’s gun control promises were basically impossible promises mixed in with a few placebos. I suspected the goal was always to get the placebos and declare victory, but now I’m not even sure they even want the placebos. Observe.
The big issue everyone is talking about which Manchin and Toomey worked on is the issue of background checks. Most people favor background checks and this makes a lot of sense. Criminals and the mentally ill simply should not be allowed to buy guns legally and the only way to prevent that is with background checks. Moreover, most on the right have accepted the idea of background checks. So I figured that would happen. But now I have my doubts.
What happened is that there are some concerns with background checks. For example, conservatives don’t want leftists like Obama’s Justice Department trying to create a database of gun owners. There are also concerns that requiring background checks will prevent sales by anyone except retailers. Thus, for example, people couldn't sell their own guns if they wanted get rid of them and they couldn’t give them to their kids. These concerns basically would have killed the bill if they weren’t addressed.
So along come Manchin and Toomey, who apparently worked out deal. This deal will:
● Require background checks for all commercial gun sales, including sales at gun shows, but excludes gifts and sales between families and “temporary transfers” between hunters and sportsmen.On the surface, the first one seems to make sense, but the next two seem to be intended to make conservatives oppose the bill. Requiring a federal license strikes me as unacceptable because it is the first step in creating a gun-owner database. Indeed, while I see no issue with creating a database of people who cannot own guns, I think that creating a database of those who can is a different matter entirely because it tells the government where to look for gun owners. I think the combination of needing a license and there being some sort of record keeping requirement on sales also makes this worse because it’s pretty obvious this will result in a database of who owns what, even though the bill supposedly prohibits the creation of a gun registry. So I expect conservatives will shoot this bill down.
● It will include some form of record keeping, but it’s not clear what that is yet.
● Moreover, the background checks apparently will be done through some sort of licensing requirement rather than a federal database. It’s not clear what that is either, but it sounds like you will need a federal license to buy a gun.
But then, get this. . . the bill also includes a provision requiring states to grant reciprocity for concealed carry permits. Thus, a state like New York would need to honor and allow someone granted a concealed carry permit in Texas to carry their gun in New York.
Excuse me for a moment...
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!I’m back. It will be interesting to see how liberals respond to this. I can’t imagine this will be acceptable to them.
Similarly, the bill apparently will allow dealers to sell across state lines. That means that all those wonderfully stupid laws passed in places like Colorado will become meaningless because I could then mail order a gun from Texas. Essentially, all Colorado gun control will do is make Colorado gun dealers less competitive.
Excuse me again...
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Ouch, my kidney.I’m back. Anyway, I think these provisions will be stripped from the bill in the Senate because they would wipe out state-level gun control... or at least make it ineffective. That will then allow the Republicans to vote against the bill on the basis that the Democrats broke the deal they had crafted.
In the end, this lets both sides paint themselves favorably. The Democrats can tell their left that they passed strong gun control measures, which those meanie Republicans stopped. send us money They can also tell the center that they aren’t radicals because even far-right-Republican Toomey agreed before he reneged, plus nothing happened anyway so why worry about it? Meanwhile, the Republicans can tell their base that they stopped this monster cold. send us money They can also tell the center that they are moderates who were ready to reach a deal on background checks if only those radical Democrats hadn’t tried to break the deal.
Call me a cynic, but this reeks of political theater and I’m seriously starting to wonder if the two sides aren’t working together to write the scripts.
Thoughts?
Update: After I wrote this, Lindsey Graham decided to oppose the bill, so it looks like the thing is doomed for sure. His reasoning was that this bill does nothing to solve the problem of gun violence.
25 comments:
I was thinking of a compromise with the libs(since all this is moot anyway).
They want gay marrage, in exchange we can buy, sell, and carry our guns in any state we like.
I think they have been collaborating a long time.
Max, Try suggesting a compromise on gay marriage to Rick Santorum and you'll see his little heart explode. Face it, gay marriage is just too tempting to people like Rick to let it be legal.
Personally, I think the best thing for conservatives to do would be:
1. A database of criminals and the insane.
2. Ban those people from buying.
3. Make carrying a gun (other than traffic stop) during a crime a 40 year addition to any sentence.
I was joking in my original statement.
Growing up in Arizona, guns are part of life. I would think the best solution to the problem is not to do a thing. These people are playing us as fools, controlling the narrative.
My original education in guns was from a soldier of fortune type(the NRA's education program was a joke, which is why I'm not a member to this day) I was 15 at the time he told me that was government's intention was to first register, then take the guns. It's scary to hear people say what I warned about 30 years ago.
The problem with any new regs is it will not make any difference. Criminals can obtain guns anytime(they don't have to steal them). Increasing sentencing is just a panacea, criminals could care less. The legal system has little teeth, which is part of the greater problem. The only true deterrence to gun crime is for the criminal to potentially face equal force. These shooters pick and choose their targets, schools being the obvious mark. As for the insane, that's very difficult to assess. People could snap at any time, how do you cover the people that fall through the cracks? The most recent incident the kid broke all of the laws on the books. What good did that do? It only gave Obama a chance to go for a gun grab.
Andrew......I view this bill as you do...political theater. Just as I view the "comprehensive immigration" bill. What is interesting, is that this bill, gun control, is so obviously a 2nd amendment issue and thus deserving of debate as it draws fine distinctions between folks. The immigration bill is not as clearly a Bill of Rights issue (Is there an equally clear amendment dealing with immigration?).
Both are a result of the "We must do SOMETHING" approach to federal government, and federalism, that has become the De-facto way of governing lately.
My concern is that they will rush something through (ala Obamacare)without knowing the full extent of what was passed, and we will be left with a monstrosity of mush that does even more to muddy the waters of both issues (how's that for a sentence full of cliche's?)
Patriot,
Right now "rushing something through", especially a bill on gun rights is unlikely as Republicans have a 25(-ish) seat majority in the House. If anything is passed it will be so innocuous that no one will even care except those who are paid to care.
Kit......You are exactly right. I forget sometimes that O'Care was rushed through both houses of congress when it was in dem control. I don't think it even got a single repub vote did it?
1. In the famous Facebook meme,
"The government takes what isn't broken and fixes it until it is"
2. If we refuse to address the real problem, it will not matter WHAT is in the bill. Crazy will always find a way.
I will expand later. I'm off to the dentist...
Well, it got ONE Republican vote in the House on its first go through* but the Representative voted against the second time. Likely after a "little meeting" with Boehner that may have involved a discussion
*Remember, in Congress bills are voted on twice -something people often forget. Both Houses vote on their versions of a bill, then it goes to committee where they smooth out the differences between the two bills, then they vote on that version and it goes to the President.
So that means that the gun law, even if the Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban Amendment goes w/ it, a version will have to be passed in the House (good luck getting the Feinstein Amendment in that one). Then it will go to committee and then it will be voted on by both Houses.
And it took several months to pass those.
" a version will have to be passed in the House"
Excuse me, " a version would have to be passed in the House"
And the "little meeting" may have involved discussion on RNC's monetary support for House re-election campaigns in the 2010 election.
Well, we can always trust Lindsey Graham to have his finger on the pulse of the matter, can't we?
If I thought this bill was going to go anywhere, I might have a bit more interest in it.
I read several really good anti articles about the bill - mostly saying that today's "of course" exclusions become tomorrow's loopholes.
The whole "list of insane people" is starting to worry me too. At what point are people crazy enough to get put on the list and who decides? How does this impact confidentiality? How will this change in confidentiality influence the search for help?
There are many issues with the "list of insane" people, the biggest for me is that it will discourage people from seeking ANY kind of help for emotional issues for fear they will put on some "list".
Max, I know you were joking.
In terms of adding a mandatory sentence, criminals do respond to things like that. When you make something too strong of a sentence, they will change the way they operate. Laws won't stop crazy people, but they can affect the behavior of average people. Not to mention, that despite what people want to believe, the number of criminals is limited and the longer you lock the ones away who do carry guns, the less crime they can commit and the fewer people who will be out there using guns in crimes.
Patriot, Speaking as a cynic, this is their best theater. Both sides have worked out a perfect formula that they can use to exploit their own base without turning off anyone in the middle. It's really pretty amazing... everyone knows their role perfectly.
And you know what? It works. Everywhere you look on the right or the left, they are screaming how vital this is blah blah blah must stop/pass... must save the children... must save the Second Amendment... won't somebody please think about the hunters!!! It's like a huge joke.
In terms of this bill passing, I have to say that I think it would be a mess. I don't think anyone has any idea how all of this would work out, especially the reciprocity stuff.
Kit, The House is what makes the theater work. If the Democrats held the House, there would have been no talk about gun control -- just as their wasn't when they held the House and Senate. The only reason they can do it now is because they know the House will kill whatever it is the Senate creates. So...
1. Leftist Democrats can all vote for it and demand more.
2. Moderate Democrats can harrumph and then reluctantly support it after getting "concessions."
3. Right-wing Republicans can all vote against it.
4. Moderate Republicans (N/A)
5. The "reel" conservatives trying to prove their purity can scream filibuster and fail.
The bill passes... and dies in the House.
Fundraise about what those evil Democrats/Republicans/RINO did.
Rinse, repeat.
Patriot, Despite the claim that the Republicans helped (which is religiously at conservative blogs), not a single Republican voted for any part of Obama's agenda during his first term.
Bev, True on both counts. One thing I've noticed about government policy is that the government always tries to fix what is broken by reworking the part that actually works. For example, even though 5% of cars cause 95% of all pollution, they don't do something about the 5%, they try to force the 95% to be more efficient. That seems to be the only way the government can think.
And yes, you can't stop crazy.
Kit, Don't say that too loudly, people will think you're a fan of Boehner, who we know is Obama's puppet. ;P
My guess on that vote, by the way, is that they voted for and then against so they can have it both ways -- a favorite Congressional trick. That way you can go whichever way the wind shifts by the time of the election. Basically, "I supported it so we could debate it, but the other side was just too extreme."
T-Rav, I'm actually surprised that Graham broke ranks so quickly. He usually waits until the very end to milk his stance as "thoughtful."
As an aside, there's something funny going on. When the filibuster attempt failed, it was presumed this thing would pass the Senate for sure. When Graham said he would vote no, suddenly, the MSM started reporting that it doesn't have enough votes to pass because it doesn't have the 60 votes needed to beat the filibuster... which isn't even being threatened anymore.
All theater.
rlaWTX, I haven't seen how people are defining crazy, but I would assume it would need to rise to the level of being committed at some point. But that's just a guess.
Bev, That's a really good point and you need to ask... "is not stopping the occasional mass shooting worth stopping people from seeking help?"
If we are being rational, then the insane list should be limited to those who get involuntarily committed.
Andrew, either way, we lose something. But better to keep track of those who we KNOW can be a potentially violent threat, but keeping in mind that some of the most violent acts can be perpetrated by seemingly harmless people.
Just as an aside: But, being put on a list kind of reminds me of...hmmmm...what was it called in the '50's? Oh, I can't remember...oh, you know what I'm talkin' about, don't you? When all of those...whatacallits in Hollywood...oh, I can't remember. But I do remember they've thrown such a fit for years about it.
Yeah, we all HATE lists until we like them...all in the name of "public safety" and "national security".
Bev, I agree. There is no perfect solution, not where people are concerned. So it's always about balancing pros and cons and chance of success versus cost.
I think that a background check system that keeps track of felons and people who have been involuntarily committed (with a right to petition a court to have that removed) would solve a worthwhile portion of the problem. It would stop some people, it would make it harder for others which raises the chance they get caught, and it would assure the public that at least we try to stop the people who shouldn't have guns from getting guns (which makes them less inclined to reach for solutions that stop everyone). It also does so with a minimum intrusion into innocent gun owner's lives.
I would also recommend adding a massive sentence to anyone who even caries a gun in a crime to reduce the chance that guns will be used in crimes and to lock up forever the people who would use a gun. That won't stop gun crime, but it will reduce it -- just like three strikes laws have reduced crime across the board.
Honestly there are only so many criminals.
Beyond that, I think the "solutions" tend to be overly intrusive placebos.
As for the "black list", black lists are only bad when they are aimed at leftists... you know that. The left loves enemies lists and watch lists.
"Call me a cynic, but this reeks of political theater and I’m seriously starting to wonder if the two sides aren’t working together to write the scripts."
Andrew.... so you are telling me that Gun Legislation made in the wake of a shooting tragedy, being marketed to the American Public by the white house with the victims of tragedies to pass a bill that in essense will do nothing is just Poltical Theater....
No, say it so
My problem with all of this is that in the end it will just be more paperwork and make the process of controlling guns more bureaucratic and complicated.
As the former State Auditor General of Tennessee told us in fraud CPE and I paraphrasse. If you want to make certain that fraud occurs in your accounting department then develop a system with the most complicated and hard to follow set of rules for internal controls that you can. Your employees will start circumventing these rules just to get their work done in time and eventually you will crreate a corporate culture in your enterprise that promotes fraudulent activity.
I do not see how complicated gun control laws are any different.
Shocking, isn't it? LOL!
In terms of this being complicated, in truth, gun control is nothing more than a placebo and we know that. Laws only stop people who don't intend to violate them.
Post a Comment