House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told President Donald Trump Sunday that anything short of the universal background check bill passed by the House “will not get the job done.”
Sigh. Universal background checks is the way to do nothing while giving the appearance of doing something.
As far as I can tell, only One of the recent mass shootings could have been possibly prevented by it (the dude that drove around in the postal van shooting people).
Since nothing is going to pass MoscowMitch, may as well go for real reform and stick it to the Republicans.
Yes this is ALL political posturing. The question is - “Go BIG” as you suggest, which would certainly ‘trigger’ the Cons. (Arguably Beto’s recent statement regarding taking away 'your AR’s is such a statement)
Or go ‘sensible’ - which has it’s own worth as propaganda. Mitch wouldn’t even allow a vote on something as REASONABLE as this…
Each set of posturing has a different target and set of values.
I err on the side of going for actual fixes. Doesn’t even need to be a full ban at this point. Could be as simple as restrictions on ammunition purchases and elimination of magazines with more than, say, 10 round capacities.
Something like that could actually change the death toll at the next mass shooting.
The danger of just going with the background checks is that, if the republicans allowed it to pass, then they’d sit on their hands, say that there’s nothing else that needs to or can be done.
I’ll just sit and wait for Mitch to do absolutely fuck all until the next time we have “Thoughts and Prayers”
Then it will be “Too Soon” to politicize it.
AMIRITE Moscow Mitch?
Sure I can see your point. And completely agree with that approach - especially on magazines and bump stocks and such.
And I also think that using someone like Beto as ‘the crazy uncle’ and Pelosi as ‘the reasonable Aunt’ - can push the Overton Window to the left on the debate itself.
IF the target is the Unicorn Middle - then getting them triggered by ‘We’re COMING FOR YOUR ASSAULT RIFLES’ - and then placating them with “Let’s ‘settle’ for back ground checks” can move them - then I’m okay. Each succeeding change then - must be accomplished by shifting the window. “Okay -we’ve done background checks - you’ve still got your military grade civilian assault rifle - now let’s work on the magazine/clip limit”
It’s just another way of shifting the window.
With any other topic, that works, but with guns, they’ve gone absolutist to ensure the overton window never shifts, or if it does, it’s in the direction of “freedom”.
Oh, well, I’m just gonna wait for President Warren to declare a national gun emergency, and swipe a few billion from the pentagon to fund a mandatory buyback of assault weapons…
Mitch, in the time-honored words of Doyle Lonnegan:
“Not only are you a cheat, you’re a gutless cheat as well.”
If nothing else, there are Democratic States that hold majorities. Let them do it from within.
Of course, that begs the question for places like Chicago where the leaking of major weaponry comes in from neighboring States (which one of my gun-happy friends points out doesn’t work because now only gangs have guns, according to him). However, States can pass what they can and make it stick, if done properly.
And just as ‘ammunition’ for YOUR crazy uncle around the upcoming holiday table… When he starts the whole “Assault Rifle isn’t even a real term - it’s made up by the liberal media…” Just show him a few “Guns & Ammo” Magazine covers from the 80’s. Yeah it’s a made up term. MADE UP BY THE MANUFACTURERS.
Please note "LETHAL NEW BREED - MILITARY FIREPOWER & PRECISION in SPORTING RIFLES"
Funny thing. We’ve got open borders between States, easy to smuggle stuff.
So NYC famously has the highest prices for cigarettes, like $140 or something for a carton. Easy drive for folks up from Virginia, where it’s less than half that-- you can double your money!
But… You may have seen that case where the guy got choked to death by the cops for trying to sell loose cigarettes…
Turns out, States are very good at catching smuggling activity that they want to catch.
If it works for cigarettes, surely that can also work for guns…
I like the bottom-right “Competition Games for real-life readiness… sniper course… silhouette”
I’m sure that’s a reference to deer-hunting, because that’s what all those assault weapons are needed for…
I know, right? And for the few ammosexuals who insist ‘REAL assault rifles are fully auto - and can only be owned by the military’ - you can point to the article “Complete Buyers Guide to Assault Rifles” in a Civilian Magazine.
One cover gives us so much… ammunition. (sorry)
“We Shoot the Works to Pick the Best”: sounds like a DNC debate strategy, don’t it? /s
I’d rather think of it as an obvious first step. Pass the background check before you buy a gun in this country, period.
ETA it’s got pretty close to unanimous support—even most gun owners think certain people shouldn’t have guns.
Yes, it should be part of any comprehensive reform, but not as a stand-alone.
Since all historical data shows that most of the shooters have obtained their guns legally, most have passed background checks, etc., then it shouldn’t be presented as something that would solve things.
You’re not a criminal, after all, until you commit a crime. And most of the folks (again, postal van guy excepted) weren’t criminals prior to going on their last big adventure.
I think you’re conflating a ‘legal purchase’ with a background check.
That’s not required at gun shows and through ‘private’ one to one transactions. So how many ‘legal’ mass murder weapons were purchased legally - WITHOUT back ground checks?
I haven’t seen statistics, just going off of memory from reading after these events, and most of the purchases I have read about were from gun stores, so would have had the background checks. Postal van guy stood out because he was one of the few that had a private transaction and had previously failed a background check.
Here’s an article that seems to support your point. Careful reading will also note that many ‘checks’ were flawed or incomplete.
But yeah - it LOOKS like they’re not enough. And I think it’s not ‘the solution’. It’s a start.
I don’t know what the statistics would be on unchecked sources of guns used in the shootings that don’t make the national news. But changing that can’t hurt and might help.
Want to throw out an idea that affected my thinking going back years: The big dramatic stuff that could change the picture quickly isn’t the only thing that could help. There’s also little things like waiting periods that will put off some people and keep a certain number of guns in the warehouses.
