Why did anti-Second Amendment advocates ignore the NRA's bill?

[Nakura Chambers]

A common argument I hear from anti-Second Amendment advocates is that the NRA isn't doing anything to improve the background check system. Yet after the Sandy Hook incident, they actually endorsed a bipartisan bill that would do just that. The media completely ignored the NRA and still continued to demonize them, even though they proposed a bill that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals, without hurting law abiding citizens. Senators from both sides of the aisle supported the bill and it received a clear majority of votes (though not a supermajority). Why is this fact ignored by anti-gunners?

Linky: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.480:


Note
Please note that this is a discussion on why the media and opponents of the Second Amendment ignored this. To discuss gun control itself, please use the megathread.

[Reg]

Because doing what is expected isn't News.

[Nakura Chambers]

Because doing what is expected isn't News.

Then you can't lie and claim they didn't work towards improving the background check system.

[Reg]

Then you can't lie and claim they didn't work towards improving the background check system.

What I can do is say they didn't go far enough, which is what I have always said. I am a gun owner who believes in universal background checks; every gun, every purchase.

[Prokne]

Probably because it doesnt go far enough. It is only limited to clarifying who cant pass a background check because of mental illness. Its useful but it doesnt do much and was likely a part of the more comprehensive background check legislation that expanded the use of background checks which the NRA successfully lobbied against.

[Nakura Chambers]

What I can do is say they didn't go far enough, which is what I have always said. I am a gun owner who believes in universal background checks; every gun, every purchase.

And that is absolutely fair to say. However, I don't think it's fair to say that they aren't coming to the table at all.

And obviously the NRA isn't going to give in to Bloomberg's lobby on things like the assault weapons ban or on gun registration (so-called "universal background checks"). If they did that, they wouldn't be representing their members. But they have come to the table on background checks and I think it is disingenuous for anyone to say otherwise.

[Orestis]

Then you can't lie and claim they didn't work towards improving the background check system.

I'm all for the universal background checks, but have never been under the assumption that it will prevent bad people from getting their hands on guns. More needs to be done.

For instance, I have inherited guns that no one knows I have.

[Nakura Chambers]

A prime example of what I am referring to:

It would be nice if the NRA didn't oppose any and all legislation that says the word "gun" but doesn't reaffirm an unlimited right to gun ownership free from inconvenience or consideration of circumstances just because.

[mvaliz]

"Anti-second amendment advocates"... /sigh

Jeebus h Christ I'm so sick of this deluded labeling and damn fear/hate mongering...

Here's an idea - talk of ideas instead of spouting irrational fear-based labels. Because nothing makes somebody listen to your ideas/info than calling them by a negative label that totally misrepresents their goals and ideals

[Nakura Chambers]

I'm all for the universal background checks, but have never been under the assumption that it will prevent bad people from getting their hands on guns. More needs to be done.

For instance, I have inherited guns that no one knows I have.

But why should someone know that you have them? Let alone a group of people that have proven time and time again that they want to take those very guns away from you.

[Reg]

And that is absolutely fair to say. However, I don't think it's fair to say that they aren't coming to the table at all.

And obviously the NRA isn't going to give in to Bloomberg's lobby on things like the assault weapons ban or on gun registration (so-called "universal background checks"). If they did that, they wouldn't be representing their members. But they have come to the table on background checks and I think it is disingenuous for anyone to say otherwise.

But coming to the table and offering the idea "People with mental illness shouldn't be able to purchase guns" is kind of a no-brainer. The "table" could have figured that out itself. Especially when on the other hand, we have certain states defending the rights of blind people to own guns, which I find to be ridiculous.

[Nakura Chambers]

"Anti-second amendment advocates"... /sigh

Jeebus h Christ I'm so sick of this deluded labeling and damn fear/hate mongering...

Here's an idea - talk of ideas instead of spouting irrational fear-based labels. Because nothing makes somebody listen to your ideas/info than calling them by a negative label that totally misrepresents their goals and ideals

What do you think I did? I avoided using the word "liberal," because I didn't want to insult liberals. Not all left-wingers are afraid of guns.

[Prokne]

And that is absolutely fair to say. However, I don't think it's fair to say that they aren't coming to the table at all.

If the table was for proposing and debating expanding gun control laws then the clarification of an existing law isnt really coming to the table.

[Orestis]

But why should someone know that you have them? Let alone a group of people that have proven time and time again that they want to take those very guns away from you.

Maybe I missed the underlying point of the thread, thinking it was concern over keeping guns out of the hands of people who will potentially misuse them for violent and illegal activities. Ie: background checks.

[Nakura Chambers]

But coming to the table and offering the idea "People with mental illness shouldn't be able to purchase guns" is kind of a no-brainer. The "table" could have figured that out itself. Especially when on the other hand, we have certain states defending the rights of blind people to own guns, which I find to be ridiculous.

I think a pretty strong argument can be made that some people with mental illnesses should still have the right to bear arms. Just because someone has a mental illness, that doesn't mean they are violent. Should such people have to undergo a stricter process before owning guns, solely because of their mental illness? Maybe, that's something we still need to determine as a society.

Mental illness was only part of the NRA's bill though, there were other provisions that would have helped as well, such as better sharing of state and federal databases.

[Reg]

But why should someone know that you have them? Let alone a group of people that have proven time and time again that they want to take those very guns away from you.

Except they haven't. This administration has signed two gun laws, E.O.s don't count because they aren't even laws. The two laws Obama has signed EXPAND gun rights, carry in National Parks and carry of guns in checked Amtrak luggage.

[Prokne]

But why should someone know that you have them? Let alone a group of people that have proven time and time again that they want to take those very guns away from you.

The US and state governments have never proven that they want to take your guns away or even why or what they would do afterward. And they should at least know that the guns exist and where they are in case they become stolen or lost and involved in a crime.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

But why should someone know that you have them? Let alone a group of people that have proven time and time again that they want to take those very guns away from you.

Find me one time where this is expressed by the very people you're trying to accuse of this and I might care about what you bring to the discussion on any important topic.

[Masark]

Why is this fact ignored by anti-gunners?

Because the bill was promptly sent to die in a committee rather than actually being implemented?

[Vvulf]

If guns alone were the problem, Switzerland would be a warzone. It's not the guns, it's the culture at fault for gun related crimes.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp