1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How exactly was the universal background check blocked?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by wacki, Jun 27, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wacki

    wacki Well-Known Member

  2. General Geoff

    General Geoff Well-Known Member

    Major news media reflects reality like a funhouse mirror.
  3. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Well-Known Member

    They call it the Pauline Kael effect, after that film critic's alleged disbelief in Nixon's reelection--"How could Nixon be reelected? Nobody I knew voted for him." Whether she actually said it is open to debate, but the effect is real and we saw it in play over gun rights. The MSM and administration back east are part of a very elite, insular group. They really don't have much of a clue about "flyover country." But flyover country still controls the House and has enough votes to block legislation in the Senate. So that's pretty much what happened.
  4. barnbwt

    barnbwt Well-Known Member

    I dunno, probably those mean ol Republicans who can stop a 90% majority but will never win a national election again...:rolleyes:

    The votes weren't there, they were never there, and they couldn't be raised in spite of a massive dilution of the bill and ridiculous hysteria all around captilizing on a heinous crime. That's it, and that's why it make it didn't make the news for long.

    And it never even made it to the House, BTW. Total damp squib

  5. jstein650

    jstein650 Well-Known Member

    "don't have much of a clue about "flyover country."... And thank God for flyover country! It's still one of the best reasons for the concept of the electoral college. As meager as it is, still gives a little more power to individual states.
  6. SilentStalker

    SilentStalker Well-Known Member

    let's just hope we continue control in 2014.
  7. JSH1

    JSH1 Well-Known Member

    Instead of going small with something that had a chance to (background checks) the Democrats and administration tried to go big and add the assault weapons ban and magazine limitations. This overreach pushed out the moderates that would be need to pass the background checks alone and played into the hands of the NRA-ILA claims that Obama is trying to take your guns. By the time the bill was pared back to just a watered down background checks it was clear that the bill would go nowhere in the House so their was no reason for moderates in the Senate to go on record voting for something that wouldn't pass and may draw a primary challenge.

    I'm disappointed with the Obama administration because they wasted time on ineffective and politically charged assault weapons ban and only half-heartedly campaigned for the background checks. It was a political move to placate his base not a serious effort to pass legislation. Notice during the State of the Union he said that the bill deserved a vote, not that is had to pass. Now he can tell his base that he tried and the Republicans filibustered the bill.

    Also the members of the House of Representatives don't answer to the people in their district, the answer to the people that vote in their primaries. So many House districts on both sides are drawn out to be safe for one party or the other, the real election takes place during the primary.
  8. 316SS

    316SS Well-Known Member

    I agree it was a political move, but it didn't go as Barry planned. His anger at the bill's failure in the Senate was very real, because ...

    He meant for it to pass the Senate and be blocked in the House, so it could be used as a talking point in the midterm elections.
  9. jstein650

    jstein650 Well-Known Member

    316SS is 100% correct. A political move, much like the current amnesty, oh, I mean "Immigration" bill. Although at this point a post committee bill from the house could be as bad as the Senate's which will die, as designed, in the House.

    JSH1: "I'm disappointed with the Obama administration.." I'm not sure exactly what you're disappointed with. UBC bills can easily be written by this corrupt, completely anti 2nd amendment group of leftists, to pervert the concept of an actual simple and sensible background check, and they'd no doubt carry a number of Republicans with them if they did so.
  10. vamo

    vamo Well-Known Member

    That poll was pretty old data. Prior to gun control becoming such a hot topic in December you could probably have gotten most people on this board to say they favored expanding background checks, so long as you used the right phrasing.

    Another thing is once the battlelines were drawn neither side was willing to give at all for the most part. I do wonder if assault weapons and magazine bans were never brought up if things would have played out differently.

    Don't get me wrong I think of gun control as a battle of attrition myself we can't give the other side even a small victory without getting something in return.
  11. greenmtnguy

    greenmtnguy Well-Known Member

    I don't know about others, but I wrote to my senators, congresspeople, and sent extra money to the NRA-ILA and GoA. I talked to family and friends and asked them to also contact their congress people.

    I think that the polls were in error (by a wide margin) and the lame stream media basically just regurgitate each others' effluent anyways, so once one of them gets a lame poll percentage figure they all start repeating it.

    I am pleased that ONE of my senators (Kelly Ayotte) represented my wishes and those of many of my friends accurately and faithfully. And I have written her (2) thank you letters on this topic.

    I have also written our other senator, Jeanne Shaheen, and told her how disappointed I was in her lack of representation of the people in our state. But what can I say, Ayotte is a republican and Shaheen is a democrat
  12. JSH1

    JSH1 Well-Known Member

    I disappointed because I support universal background checks for dealer as well as individual sales. They aren't a panacea that will eradicate gun violence but background checks are a useful tool to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I also don't believe that background checks infringe on the 2nd Amendment in any way.
  13. guyfromohio

    guyfromohio Well-Known Member

    So you should have had a background check to inherit pappy's shotgun?
  14. raz-0

    raz-0 Well-Known Member

    This was the basic process of how universal background checks failed.

    1) Lots of other bills were floated that were worse, and they hoped to pass this (and probably some others) as a "compromise". Nobody bought that, not even politicians. Because they knew they were swimming up stream, it became 100% politics, and 0% convictions. This is why it was introduced in the senate. It wouldn't even have seemed possible in the house, and that would have totally killed momentum.

    2) The 90% polls were a load of manure. Very small sample sizes, very skewed polling locations, very vague polling questions. When you looked at other polls conducted at the same time that were more general about being in favor of more gun control or not, you only got about a 54% result for more. This is much closer to the reality being worked with.

    3) There are very few active gun grabbers. Personality wise they are expecting someone else to do any serious work for them when it comes to protection from something dangerous. Add to that that the vast majority of them haven't had firearms negatively impact their life. Then you have the RKBA who are being threatened with legal peril and at the very least loss of property. Who do you think actually gives representatives grief?

    4) Due to this, by the time it came to get stuff to a vote, you had lots of bills, and lots of pro and anti amendments just waiting to be tacked on to things.

    5) Many of the bills just did not have remotely enough support to get through committee, or to get passed if they hit the floor. So they were dropped. Probably in hopes they could be tacked back on at the last minute as amendments.

    6) That didn't work. The backlash form involved constituents was BAD. AS people checked which way the wind was blowing in the senate, it was clear if they went for simple majority, they were going to get some pro gun amendments added, like nationwide CCW reciprocity. Why? Because it would either get a big win for some, or for others it seemed like an awesome poison pill to kill it and thus they'd get to vote yes and vote no on the same bill and talk out both sides of their face as it suited them come campaign season. So...

    7) They decided on an up down vote requiring 60 votes to pass as this would have killed most of the amendments both pro and anti and at least leave a chance for the bill to get through.

    8) In order to buy 60 votes, they needed pork they didn't have.

    9) So they tried to buy votes by amending the bill in committee until they could sway some folks sitting near the fence but on our side. Which they did.

    10) Then since the back office polling said it was so close, they yanked out most/all of the compromise language (like an anonymous NICS equivalent that could be used for FTF transactions that likely would have been non-objectional to a lot of people).

    11) Without the compromise text, they didn't have enough votes to hit the 60 mark.

    Thus one dead bill.

    They talk about bringing it back because they think they can get 60 votes due to MAIG harassing certain democrat senators for some, for others it is just to beat the drum so they can call republicans baby murderers come campaign season.
  15. jstein650

    jstein650 Well-Known Member

    JSH1: "I support universal background checks for dealer as well as individual sales"

    Ahh, but the devil is in the details, as they say. Dealers already do background checks - every time, unless they are just black market dealers in the first place, and those guys aren't going to be affected one iota by a new law. I've purchased many firearms at gun shows as well, still, background check.
    As far as individual sales, well, explain to me how that works without a maintained and accessible gun registration database. Previously owned, and inherited guns?
    Then, what constitutes a 'criminal', actually? I personally know one friend that has a domestic violence on his record for trying to break up a fight between a crazy woman and another guy whose butt she was kicking. She just filed with the police first. Can't own a gun. Also was being floated, was a proposal that anyone that had ever been prescribed an antidepressant, or anti-anxiety med. to be denied of a purchase. It goes on... and it's always sold as something that any rational gun owner would support...
  16. caribou

    caribou Well-Known Member

    Criminals are not affected , legally, by an Universal Background Checks, because criminals don't do back ground checks, they buy guns from individuals, often no different than a drug deal, buying a stolen car, or paying a prostitute......or they steal them.....
    Besides, Criminals don't have to do back ground checks, nor surrender the guns because as Citizens, they have as the 5th Amendment, the Right for an individual to NOT incriminate themselves, because doing either would be incriminating.

    Criminals know their Rights and exercise them regularly.

    I never once heard how they were going to take guns from criminals or how a UBC would stop Criminals from obtaining guns. :cuss:
  17. macadore

    macadore Well-Known Member

    IIRC, the kicker was that Schumer wanted a permanent registry kept of the background checks while Cobern wanted no record of the background checks. Coburn also wanted people with a concealed carry license to be exempt from having to go through an FFL to purchase a firearm. When Schumer et al kept the the Coburn amendment of the background check bill Coburn and the moderates balied. The gun control crowd doesn't want sensible gun laws. They want confiscation.

  18. Bruno2

    Bruno2 Well-Known Member

    It does infringe on the 2nd amendment and so does keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Like it or not, once you start imposing rules on who can own a gun we start down that slippery slope. I know a lot of people don't like to hear it, but just look at how they included the Lautenberg amendment for misdemeanors. This gives validation to restrict people that have been charged with assault and battery or any violent misdemeanor. Then we start down the road of incriminating everybody in order to ban all guns.
  19. Hacker15E

    Hacker15E Well-Known Member

    The "universal background check" isn't unreasonable because of the 2A; it is because it is not in the federal govt's authority to regulate private sales of private property between individuals.

    The government's authority to impose NICS checks is via the commerce clause. That authority does not extend to private property owned by individuals and sold by individuals.
  20. Hacker15E

    Hacker15E Well-Known Member

    Well, like it or not, with Heller, these restrictions are now SCOTUS case law.

    Heller said:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page