Senator Chris Murphy Filibusters Senate

[Cthulhu 2020]

Now that I can agree with, I think if you sell a firearm privately the sale needs to be noted and recorded and hell what honest person wouldn't want it to be. Lets say I sell my gun to you, and you go around and kill lots of people with it, guess whose ass is in trouble? Mine

+1

This is what the majority of people want to see happen, accountability and checks for private sales. You check if that person is a felon, like any normal retailer would have to do. If you don't and it's found that you sold it to them with no check, then your ass is in trouble. If you did do a background check and they're clean and sell it to them but they kill people, then you did your duty and should not be in trouble.

[Stormdash]

My point is things are done without due process and justified after the fact, that's it. Why does it have to be more than that?

And I have corrected your misconception -- TROs and PIs are not done "without due process". Due process' general "notice and hearing" requirement is still fulfilled. Even in those circumstances where the balancing test favors action first, process second, it is understood by all parties upfront what, how, and when the requirements of due process must be answered.

Suspension of a civil liberty, indefinitelty, by placement on a secret list, indefinitely, can not by and standard be said fo satisfy due process. I mean, people get told there is a PI in their case or they have a TRO, so notice is still immediate. Nobody is even told they are on those lists, they only find out when they run afoul of it. And when they do, there is nobody to appeal to or complain to that is consistent or available.

[Torgent]

You are using semantics again, now on a different word. I take it as your admittance of being wrong and refusal to move on, so I will put you on ignore "list" (if there's such a thing, you made me doubt it) and move on without you.

Look, I hate agreeing with @TITAN308 . It hurts my soul that he thinks the same as me on something. But he's right. You're using words you don't understand and saying things that are blatantly false. It's not semantics, it's that you don't know what you're talking about.

[PosPosPos]

Buddy. Brotato.

Can't get a gun shipped to you. And it sounds like you knowingly broke the law.

Yay gun control?

Laws are useless if they aren't enforced.

Courtesy of the far right wing's "small government".

[Elim Garak]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. The difference between these two people you made up is a conviction. A potential felon is not a felon until he commits a felony and is convicted of it. Your potential felon is just a normal dude.

Look, I hate agreeing with @TITAN308 . It hurts my soul that he thinks the same as me on something. But he's right. You're using words you don't understand and saying things that are blatantly false. It's not semantics, it's that you don't know what you're talking about.

A felon doesn't need a conviction to be a felon. If you insist that the word felon implies conviction 100% - then you are using semantics, because it's not the only meaning and most certainly not the common used one.

[Reeve]

Now that I can agree with, I think if you sell a firearm privately the sale needs to be noted and recorded and hell what honest person wouldn't want it to be. Lets say I sell my gun to you, and you go around and kill lots of people with it, guess whose ass is in trouble? Mine

There are a lot of people who are anti gun control who view that sort of regulation as a first step to the government cataloging the location and ownership of every firearm in the country, to make it easier to seize them down the line. The ability to sell privately without documentation muddies the water enough that the government has no idea where the guns are.

[Kantalope]

A felon doesn't need a conviction to be a felon. If you insist that the word felon implies conviction 100% - then you are using semantics, because it's not the only meaning and most certainly not the common used one.

It's not semantics. You CANNOT BE A FELON if you are not convicted of a felony.

[Dextroden]

Laws are useless if they aren't enforced.

Courtesy of the far right wing's "small government".

Sounds like a problem with the left being unable to enforce the laws they pass.

[petej0]

We know the outcome, which is that our country has half the world's guns and a very high rate of gun related violence. That's enough to know that the current process is totally ineffective.

OMG!!! Stop the press!

Wouldnt that be expected? Wouldnt it make sense a nation with more guns has more gun related violence? A country with more cars has more traffic accidents, a country with more homes has more house fires! Colorado "legalized" weed and driving under the influence incidents increased, big shock!

[Elim Garak]

It's not semantics. You CANNOT BE A FELON if you are not convicted of a felony.

YOU CAN, see i can use caps too, too bad it's not an argument. just a statement, a loud one.
The fact is a felon is someone who committed a felony. If they are convicted of felony they are CONVICTED felon.
The other meaning of the word - is someone convicted of a felony.
So when you focus on that meaning and disregard the other one - you are ARGUING SEMANTICS. And off to ignore you go.

[zenkai]

There are a lot of people who are anti gun control who view that sort of regulation as a first step to the government cataloging the location and ownership of every firearm in the country, to make it easier to seize them down the line. The ability to sell privately without documentation muddies the water enough that the government has no idea where the guns are.

I can understand their hesitation because the Government does like to chip away at our freedom, we can't use that to stop common sense laws

[petej0]

I can understand their hesitation because the Government does like to chip away at our freedom, we can't use that to stop common sense laws

I think a good compromise would be a system like this.

You register through the NRA. Who give you an firearm registration ID.
It is with this ID that you purchase all firearms. So when a gun transfers ownership the new registration ID is on record as the owner.

The firearm serial number and buyer registration ID is sent/updated to a national firearm registration database.
When a firearm is found at a crime scene, the serial number is traced in the database and the registration number is retrieved
The police then subpoena the NRA for the owners information so they can perform an arrest.

A system like this would keep the owners information "private" and out of the hands of "the government" unles a crime has occurred.

[Themius]

There was a poll that showed that over 90% of republicans polled were for some sort of gun control you know like banning people on watch list or no-fly list from being able to buy a gun... the majority of people are for that, so why all the repub vs dem shit? Both constituents want something, the issue are the people who can actually make these changes are all sitting on their hands.

[petej0]

Not sure what your point is, except to point out that increasing personal freedoms can have negative effects on others. A responsible government needs to decide whether those tradeoffs are made correctly. I'd argue that the negative effects on others from gun ownership are high enough that it doesn't make sense to allow people to have guns. I'm fine with the other cases you mentioned.

My original point was a response to the comment that people criticize the process without knowing much about it. My point was that you don't have to know that much about a process if you can assess its outcomes, and in this case the outcome is clear and obvious. I don't need to know the details.

My point is, if you are going to allow firearm ownership, there will be deaths as a result. You can do what you want to make sure that firearms only fall in the hands of "good people" but in this case. The guy, by the law, was a "good person". He had no legal record, passed all his employer based background checks and passed a psychological screening. Do what you want. There is nothing to stop a "good person" from turning bad and doing bad things. Nothing will stop a upstanding career police officer of 20 years from turning bad and shooting up his local Subway.

- - - Updated - - -

This would make it a bit more difficult to get guns but not impossible. "Oh my god officer, I thought that my gun was in the garage in its safe! Someone must have stolen it!"

Thats fine, we would have this problem regardless. At least it will stop repeat offenders by not allowing them to purchase again.

Then there are other problems like, how often do guns even get recovered, etc. And this system would be expensive. I still think the only real answer is a ban because that can be used to stop production of guns in the first place.

Yeah well, a ban wont ever happen. I wish you would come to the real world and discuss something that has a chance at becoming reality

[Draco-Onis]

Probably true, but there's nothing else that will have a real impact. If I pretend there's a middle ground the pro gun people have already won. Spending a lot of political capital to pass meaningless restrictions is meaningless, and a big problem the current Democratic Party has is they pretend these things matter so that they can claim they've done something to their constituents at home. It's the same point Bernie makes on health care and education. Either pay for them or don't. Either allow guns or don't. The issue is actually pretty simple and we have to make a choice. With guns right now our position is, "Sure, have as many as you want!" Restricting who can buy them, magazine size, etc. is fiddling on the margins and makes little to no difference. Banning weapon types (like handguns) matters.

I think there's plenty that will have an impact

1) properly fund and staff the ATF, thanks to extensive cuts by congress guns are only regulated in theory only.

2) allow the ATF to use computers (yes that was done by congressional law), it is insane that they are not allowed to do that in 2016.

3) proper tracking of gun deaths and violence by civilians and police so we can have the data to make proper decisions.

4) tightening of the gun licensing and purchasing process especially for private sales and gun shows.

All these are good starts that will help curb gun violence at the least stop us from being blind to problems, we can take it from there. I don't see why any logical pro gun person would object to any of these.

[TITAN308]

A felon doesn't need a conviction to be a felon. If you insist that the word felon implies conviction 100% - then you are using semantics, because it's not the only meaning and most certainly not the common used one.

This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've seen posted in recent history.

Even if I commit a felony crime in front of an officer I am not categorized as a felon until I am taken to court, tried, and convicted.

You can't "magically" become a felon without a court involvement.

Holy crackers.