E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-17-2013, 03:56 PM   #1
Nt_loader
ASA NO MO
 
Nt_loader's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UT
Posts: 2,324
My Ride: 2006 GTI
Senate vote on background checks fails

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1

Geez even I support the background checks


Quote:
Washington (CNN) -- In a major defeat for supporters of tougher gun laws, the U.S. Senate on Wednesday defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on firearms sales.
The bipartisan plan brokered by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, and Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, was backed by President Barack Obama in his push for a package of gun laws in the aftermath of the Newtown school massacre.
However, fierce opposition by the powerful National Rifle Association led a backlash by conservative Republicans and a few Democrats from pro-gun states that doomed the amendment to the broader package of legislation.
Due to procedural steps by Republican opponents, the amendment required 60 votes to pass in the 100-member chamber, meaning Democrats and their Independent allies who hold 55 seats needed support from some GOP senators to push them through.
The final vote was 54 in favor to 46 opposed with two Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting the compromise.
The overall gun legislation includes tougher laws on gun trafficking and straw purchases, and steps to devise ways to improve safety in schools.
It would be the most significant gun legislation before Congress in almost two decades, and comes four months after the December shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, that killed 20 first-graders and six educators.
Obama pushed hard for Congress to include expanded background checks in any gun package and the White House campaigned in support of the Manchin-Toomey compromise.
However, the NRA promised political retribution against supporters of tougher gun laws.
"You may not win today ... but I will say that you did the right thing," veteran GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona said in praising Manchin and Toomey tor political courage in proposing their compromise. McCain was one of three Republicans who supported the compromise.
Manchin earlier sounded resigned to defeat, telling his colleagues that regardless of how the chamber votes, the issue of background checks "is not going to go away."
The NRA has said an expanded background check system would be the first step toward a national gun registry and therefore a violation of the constitutional right to bear arms.
Manchin and other supporters rejected that claim, noting the compromise amendment prohibited a national gun registry and criminalizes misusing background check data for that purpose.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warned Republicans that the strong majority of Americans who support expanded background checks won't forget votes against the Manchin-Toomey compromise.
"The American people ... have a long, long memory," he said.
Meanwhile, conservative Republicans proposed an alternative package of gun laws that reflected the NRA position.
The GOP plan, introduced Wednesday after weeks of hearings and debate on Democratic proposals, lacked any expansion of background checks but called for more funding to better enforce the existing system.
A sponsor of the Republican alternative, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, said it would target the gun violence problem in a way that the Democratic proposal before the Senate would not.
In response, Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vermont, called the GOP's last-minute proposal a "weak and counterproductive alternative."
Other proposed amendments to the gun package sent to the Senate by Leahy's committee include a ban on semi-automatic firearms modeled after military assault weapons sponsored by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, and a plan by Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas to make state concealed weapons permits acceptable throughout the country.
The Senate debate was expected to last several days and any legislation passed would then go to the Republican-led House. So far, House Speaker John Boehner has stopped short of promising a vote on whatever the Senate sends over.
Obama and others have been highlighting daily gun violence in America in their appeal to lawmakers for stricter limits.
Many in Washington have coalesced around expanding background checks conducted on gun sales. However, settling on the exact mechanism of such a step has been difficult in a sharply divided political climate, with the NRA leading a strong lobbying effort against proposed changes

Last edited by Nt_loader; 04-17-2013 at 03:57 PM. Reason: Auto-save 1366232248
Nt_loader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 03:59 PM   #2
Carskibum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 3,116
My Ride: E90
Send a message via AIM to Carskibum
So was the AW ban attached to this or no?
__________________
Carskibum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 04:04 PM   #3
Nt_loader
ASA NO MO
 
Nt_loader's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UT
Posts: 2,324
My Ride: 2006 GTI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carskibum View Post
So was the AW ban attached to this or no?
No I believe that was removed and will not be voted on.
Nt_loader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 04:04 PM   #4
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nt_loader View Post
Geez even I support the background checks
You support the expanded background checks proposed by the defeated amendment, or you support more funding to better enforce the existing system as counter-proposed, or you support no change to the existing system of background checks?

And whats your reasoning?
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 04:07 PM   #5
Nt_loader
ASA NO MO
 
Nt_loader's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UT
Posts: 2,324
My Ride: 2006 GTI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
You support the expanded background checks proposed by the defeated amendment, or you support more funding to better enforce the existing system as counter-proposed, or you support no change to the existing system of background checks?

And whats your reasoning?
You support the expanded background checks proposed by the defeated amendment: Yes, anyone trying to purchase a gun should follow the same process, regardless of private sales or not. Reasoning: An effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I know they will continue to obtain them but this is one more obsticle they need to face.

You support more funding to better enforce the existing system as counter-proposed: Yes I support this as well, I believe both are needed to reduce the change of enabling criminals to obtain guns.

Last edited by Nt_loader; 04-17-2013 at 04:08 PM.
Nt_loader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 04:27 PM   #6
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 107
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nt_loader View Post
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/politi...html?hpt=hp_t1

Geez even I support the background checks
As do vast majorities (~90%) of Americans, including majorities of Republicans, law enforcement folks, military (active and veterans) and even gun owners. So, the obvious question, just who are those Senators who voted against this reasonable, bi-partisan bill representing? I mean, I don't think even 90% of Americans love their own mothers!
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 04:47 PM   #7
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Smyrna
Posts: 127
My Ride: 2005 330cic ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
So, the obvious question, just who are those Senators who voted against this reasonable, bi-partisan bill representing? I mean, I don't think even 90% of Americans love their own mothers!
Perhaps the bill itself isn't reasonable after all? I am sure you have heard that at least occassionally the legislative process produces an unreasonable/ineffective bill that even the most partisan politicians realize would be a mistake. And certainly we should expect that a bill written while emotions are running high might not be the most reasonable. If the proposed bill were as reasonable as you suggest, how else do you explain it's failure to pass? Do you really think something reasonable would encounter this much opposition?

Sometimes the obvious answer to your obvious question is in fact the correct answer!
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 05:21 PM   #8
david05111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ponte Vedra, FL
Posts: 3,833
My Ride: drei hundert dreißig
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
As do vast majorities (~90%) of Americans, including majorities of Republicans, law enforcement folks, military (active and veterans) and even gun owners. So, the obvious question, just who are those Senators who voted against this reasonable, bi-partisan bill representing? I mean, I don't think even 90% of Americans love their own mothers!
Misleading statistics are misleading. Take that 90% with a grain of salt, just like the 40% figure for gun transfers outside of dealers that they keep throwing around. That 90% is horseshit...its the way the question is asked.

Admittedly dated poll, but within 30 days:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ntrol-dipping/

Quote:
A new national poll suggests that support for major restrictions on guns may be fading, three months after the horrific shootings at an elementary school in Connecticut.

Although a majority of Americans favored major restrictions on guns or an outright ban in the wake of the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, when a heavily armed gunman killed 20 young students and six adults, a new CNN/ORC International survey indicates that support has tumbled to just 43%, as more time has passed since that December tragedy.
__________________


"You'll Never Walk Alone"

"Psycho Murican" -- beeemerdude of Canada
david05111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 04:30 PM   #9
Sentaruu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 848
My Ride: Xterra
i am so glad it failed. where are you getting your stats from rhumb?
__________________

Last edited by Sentaruu; 04-17-2013 at 04:31 PM.
Sentaruu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 04:46 PM   #10
joeski3d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 520
My Ride: 2000 323i
Just shows the senate, as usual, is ignoring their constituents and doing whatever they get outside funding to do.
__________________

Ballbusters Inc.

DISCLAIMER: No balls were physically hurt during the reading of this post. Should redness and/or swelling occur consult your gynecologist immediately.
joeski3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 04:51 PM   #11
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Smyrna
Posts: 127
My Ride: 2005 330cic ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeski3d View Post
Just shows the senate, as usual, is ignoring their constituents and doing whatever they get outside funding to do.
Or maybe they are acknowledging that their job is to ensure that any bill they pass needs to be reasonable and effective, and not just vote based on opinion polls. In other words, doing the job they were elected to do. Do you really think that an elected representative should always vote based on what is popular?

Just because 90% of Americans support an idea, doesn't mean the bill that is presented accomplishes the idea that was measured by the polls. I am sure the polls cited asked simple questions like, do you support increased background checks, which not surprisingly (to me) garnered 90% support. But if you have ever read federal legislation, you will know that it never limits itself to simple ideas.

Last edited by Cabrio330; 04-17-2013 at 04:55 PM.
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 05:05 PM   #12
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nt_loader View Post
Yes, anyone trying to purchase a gun should follow the same process, regardless of private sales or not. Reasoning: An effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I know they will continue to obtain them but this is one more obsticle they need to face.

Yes I support this as well, I believe both are needed to reduce the change of enabling criminals to obtain guns.
So which proposal would you instruct your Senator to vote for/support?
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 05:06 PM   #13
joeski3d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 520
My Ride: 2000 323i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabrio330 View Post
Or maybe they are acknowledging that their job is to ensure that any bill they pass needs to be reasonable and effective, ...
wait... the US senate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabrio330 View Post
...and not just vote based on opinion polls. In other words, doing the job they were elected to do. Do you really think that an elected representative should always vote based on what is popular?
It's not a matter of popularity. It's their job (I know... still laughing) to acknowledge and represent the majority. They are shooting something down (notice the pun?) that a very vocal overwhelming majority are in favor of. Can you say lobbyist?
__________________

Ballbusters Inc.

DISCLAIMER: No balls were physically hurt during the reading of this post. Should redness and/or swelling occur consult your gynecologist immediately.
joeski3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 05:17 PM   #14
Serbonze
Master of his domain.
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 2,056
My Ride: My wife
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeski3d View Post
They are shooting something down (notice the pun?) that a very vocal overwhelming majority are in favor of. Can you say lobbyist?
Says who? The White House? CNN? MSNBC?
__________________
Serbonze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2013, 05:31 PM   #15
joeski3d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 520
My Ride: 2000 323i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serbonze View Post
Says who? The White House? CNN? MSNBC?
The overwhelming majority ignored.

NRA happy.

1+1 = __
__________________

Ballbusters Inc.

DISCLAIMER: No balls were physically hurt during the reading of this post. Should redness and/or swelling occur consult your gynecologist immediately.
joeski3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 11:24 AM   #16
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 893
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeski3d View Post
wait... the US senate?



It's not a matter of popularity. It's their job (I know... still laughing) to acknowledge and represent the majority. They are shooting something down (notice the pun?) that a very vocal overwhelming majority are in favor of. Can you say lobbyist?
It is poorly sold. Most support background checks. Great. But they ignore the fact that we ALREADY have background checks. The media is selling it as everyone is buying guns willynilly like a box of cereal, which you know isn't true. The senate voted down the EXPANSION of background checks, not background checks.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 02:32 PM   #17
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 107
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
But they ignore the fact that we ALREADY have background checks.
The current background check laws, regulations and systems are so pitiably weak, loophole-ridden and ineffectual -- hardly by accident -- that the system hardly deserves to be called that.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 11:18 AM   #18
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 893
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeski3d View Post
Just shows the senate, as usual, is ignoring their constituents and doing whatever they get outside funding to do.
Wait, what? You didn't jump through enough hoops in NJ to try and get your gun? You think we need MORE regulations?
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 02:23 PM   #19
joeski3d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 520
My Ride: 2000 323i
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
Wait, what? You didn't jump through enough hoops in NJ to try and get your gun? You think we need MORE regulations?
I honestly don't mind going through the checks. I'm still currently waiting for the mental health check to be completed... because there's been an overwhelming demand for license requests which created a log jam. Bad timing on my part. Prior to the big gun legislation scare it took about 30 days tops.

I plan to purchase legally. I am not in a big hurry. I'm not going to get my undies in a twist over it.
__________________

Ballbusters Inc.

DISCLAIMER: No balls were physically hurt during the reading of this post. Should redness and/or swelling occur consult your gynecologist immediately.

Last edited by joeski3d; 04-18-2013 at 02:24 PM.
joeski3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 02:29 PM   #20
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 893
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeski3d View Post
I honestly don't mind going through the checks. I'm still currently waiting for the mental health check to be completed... because there's been an overwhelming demand for license requests which created a log jam. Bad timing on my part. Prior to the big gun legislation scare it took about 30 days tops.

I plan to purchase legally. I am not in a big hurry. I'm not going to get my undies in a twist over it.
Just wait until you get fleeced for $15 everytime you want to buy something (even if it's an hour apart), when you have to apply for a special permit to be able to buy more than one gun a month, to wait (it's up to 10 business days now) to be able to PICK UP your gun while the background check is done (backlog my a$$, this is simply an illegal waiting period), etc.

For me to buy a gun in NJ at a gun shop.

Get in Jeep, drive 11 miles to shop.
Fill out paperwork, show my ids and FIDs, and submit paperwork.
Get in Jeep, drive home.
Wait.
Wait.
Wait some more.
The following week (or two) I get a phone call telling me the check is in and it's clean.
Get in Jeep, drive 11 miles to shop. Sit in some traffic.
Go to store, pay for gun I "purchased" 2 weeks ago.
Get in Jeep, drive home with gun.

Wasted about 4 hours of my time, about $25 in gas, etc.

If you think that's ok, by all means support new gun legislation, but I sure as hell won't support ANY new law when it comes to guns, no matter how much "sense" it makes.

What these states are doing is criminal.

Oh, and BTW, the above is for a long gun. For a pistol it's even more fun.

Get a call from shop "hey Dave, I got that TRP you wanted in stock, but they wont last long!"
Get in Jeep, drive to gun shop, drop $100 so that they hold it for me.
Get in Jeep, drive home.
Get in Jeep, drive to precinct the following Monday (since thats the day the detective allocates for pistol permit approvals.)
Fill out paperwork for a pistol permit.
Get in Jeep, drive home.
Wait a week, two weeks, a month, who knows....depends on the detective and if he got laid the nights before.
No answer, so you call and badger the detectives voicemail
Get a call back the following week, with an apology and your permits are ready.
Get in the S2000 (its a nice day out) and drive to precinct to pick up permit....but pay first of course.
Get in the s2000, drive to gun shop.
Fill out the NICS paperwork.
Get in the s2000 and go home.
Wait.
Wait.
Wait some more.
The following week (or two) I get a phone call telling me the check is in and it's clean.
Get in Jeep, drive 11 miles to shop. Sit in some traffic.
Go to store, pay for pistol I "purchased" 2 months ago.
Get in Jeep, drive home with pistol.

Trust me, your underwear will start to rustle after you've been jerked around.
__________________

Last edited by NFRs2000nyc; 04-18-2013 at 02:35 PM.
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use