Schumer: Universal background checks Dems' top priority

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill




BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 02/21/18 01:30 PM EST

Senate Democrats are zeroing in on a push to require universal background checks for gun purchases in the wake of last week's shooting at a Florida high school.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that universal background checks would be the party's "number one priority."

"Our No. 1 priority is going to be universal background checks, which is supported by about 80 percent of the American people, and closing the gun show loophole and all the other ways that people get around the background checks," he told reporters.

Lawmakers have turned their focus to the background check system after last week's shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., where 17 people were killed.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/374889-schumer-universal-background-checks-dems-top-priority

[TreasonousBastard]

1. I'm far from the only one who wouldn't mind real gun control, but we should take...

background checks as a good start.

Bump stocks, too.

Let's keep up the pressure

[moriah]

17. Background check and get your license to purchase ammo at the same time.

Should be easily enough tied into the REAL-ID they're demanding of every state by 2020.

If I am going to have to go to the damn county courthouse to get a copy of my old marriage license as a name change document to enter a federal building or go an airplane after then, surely they can use some of this inconvenience to let it be in the RFID chip in the ID if they can buy ammo in another 5-10 years at the point of sale.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. We need more than that.

It's good, but only a start.

[ehrnst]

7. Everything has to start somewhere.

Encouragement, not complaining that we're not there yet, is what propels the journey.

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. That's why my money is on these kids.

They'll lead the way. Watch and see.

[ehrnst]

11. And you think it won't happen. (nt)

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. It's difficult to be optimistic.

Years of NOTHING being done makes one get that way.

But watch what the kids do. Watch and learn.

It's easy for politicians to run to the head of the parade.

[briv1016]

3. It didn't happen after Sandy Hook. It's never going to happen.

[ehrnst]

8. It didn't happen before, so there is no way it can happen now?

Why is that?

Do you often dismiss progressive action because it didn't succeed before?

[briv1016]

9. If they did nothing when Elementary School children where slaughtered,

they're not going to cave because "another" High School was shot up. Even if by some miracle a bill passes the Senate, its DOA in the House.

They're already pushing their "solution" of arming teachers.

[ehrnst]

14. Like the song says: "we shall not overcome, because we failed the last time..."

Right?

Progressives act, and keep acting.

[briv1016]

18. Good luck with that. See you after the next shooting.

[ehrnst]

19. I guess you just give up, and lay down after every shooting?

Speak for yourself, because you don't speak for progressives.

[LanternWaste]

23. It's fun to pretend that change cannot happen

It's fun to pretend that change cannot happen, and trivialize anyone who disagrees with that false premise as requiring "luck."

No doubt, many weak-willed abolitionists thought the same thing, regardless of luck or who who want to see at a mass shooting.

[briv1016]

32. Wow wow wow. I said "after" the next shooting, not "at."

I just assumed they'll be another thread here in about a month after the next shooting.

[Still In Wisconsin]

13. It will happen when the Republicans lose enough seats for it to pass.

Until then, the Republicans will continue to obey their puppet masters at the NRA.

[hack89]

31. The AWB was the show stopper post Sandy Hook

Just UBCs has a chance of passing.

[briv1016]

33. The only bills that have a chance of passing are for armed security guards

and/or armed teachers.

[Igel]

34. Won't be for armed teachers.

Those would want to carry are few, even in red areas.

They know the risks involved--lost or stolen, handled in inappropriate ways, or even just a teacher who snaps.

Security guards? Sure. Metal detectors? Yup. But, you know, most of the time when people with little experience call for generalities they don't know what they want, for sure, but dislike what they get. Often there's no real solution, and those who shout "we demand a solution" have fallen for a bad presupposition--that there's an easy solution everybody agrees on, but which haven't been implemented because the "adults" or their political foes are evil. I think of it as a kind of fundamental attribution error.

[briv1016]

36. At first they'll pass bills to "allow" teachers to carry guns.

After about 4 or 5 more shootings where that doesn't work they'll start to "require" it. Donald said as much today.

[Sophia4]

4. We have the right to free speech, but if you want to organize a demonstration down

a major street in your town or city, you have to apply and get a permit and pay money. That's because your right is subject to reasonable regulation. To me, in my words, that means that your right to free speech is subject to consideration of the rights of others to use the streets, to speak themselves and, of course, to their lives.

Speech that would pose a believable threat to the lives of others is not permitted. That is the famous, "You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" phrase.

The "right" to own a gun that gun-lovers claim should be also subject to reasonable regulation.

Guns that are specifically intended to kill humans should be highly regulated if not banned completely or at least barred from private ownership.

[X_Digger]

15. *sigh* Yes, you CAN yell fire in a crowded theater. Stop using that example, please.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, "the law"--as some have curiously called it--can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes' quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.
...
But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.
...
Two similar Supreme Court cases decided later the same year--Debs v. U.S. and Frohwerk v. U.S.--also sent peaceful anti-war activists to jail under the Espionage Act for the mildest of government criticism. (Read Ken White's excellent, in-depth dissection of these cases.) Together, the trio of rulings did more damage to First Amendment as any other case in the 20th century.

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine).

[pangaia]

16. Aren't pretty much all guns designed to kill humans?

Well, maybe I can live with 'most.'

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Essentially, yes. If not directly, they are derived from one that was.

So, the Olympic Games biathlon guns don't LOOK much like a regular firearm for war, even those funky space-guns are direct descendants of war weapons.

[pangaia]

26. The Chinese definitely knew what they were doing.

I have wondered why shooting guns is part of the bi-athelon?

Why not just have a .....um... mono-athelon ?

[AtheistCrusader]

27. I'm acutally not familiar with the history of the biathlon.

Before I look it up, I'm going to take a wild stab and guess it's a Finland/Norway/Sweden thing from WWII.

[pangaia]

28. THAT is interesting, for sure....

The Finns gave the Russians a bad time... for a while......

Then the Russians went back and brought up the 'reserves.'

[Igel]

35. Not bad.

The Great Wiki puts the origins in Scandinavia rather earlier, by a couple of centuries; Also says skiing + shooting was demonstrated at Olympics prior to WWII, but became Olympic material after WWII.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Couple problems here.

The AR-15 is weak. Pissweak. It is unlawful for use to hunt deer in my state. Not because it is powerful. It's illegal because the bullet that it fires is too small and weak to humanely put down a deer. It uses .223 diameter bullets. The legal MINIMUM in my state is .240 So for hunting purposes, it's unusable for anything bigger than a coyote. It is essentially a varmint gun. (There are a couple states that allow deer, but no elk/moose/etc)

So, while I understand the characterization of 'intended to kill humans', the big stuff, the REALLY big stuff, that makes arms and legs come off... the stuff you'd use on a bear or a moose? What about those? They're not being used in school shootings today. Take away the stuff that's light and easy, and quick to use... The stuff that's left, you don't want them using either. Not an objection, just curious what you think, and whether you realize that ultimately, all firearms were designed for use on humans, in one war or another. Directly designed or derived. My deer rifle can put down a human at 900 yards, if not for the weak link (The weak link being me, I lack the skill. but in another person's hands, it is quite capable of it.)


There are a ton of regulations on firearms. TONS. They vary from state to state. Some covered by the federal law structure, some not. Some repealed. Some only in effect for periods of time. Some that only affect weapons manufactured between certain dates. Some that only affect certain types of ammo. Some aren't laws, they're court case decisions that inform case law interpretations of laws. It's a mess. The root problem isn't that there isn't regulation or even common sense regulation. The problem is the haphazard spaghetti mess of regulations. (In my opinion.)

As another poster said, you CAN say 'fire' in a theater. You can't incite panic/terror. Very different things.

[pandr32]

5. Agreed

And add the return of the assault weapons ban.

[lark]

6. Yes, definitely, but more is needed.

They need to make assault weapons and magazines over 10 rounds outlawed. These are the real culprits for increasing the body count.

[Igel]

37. Last I could find on the topic,

Cruz was described as having "countless" magazines. However, no source that I could find said the magazines held any more than the standard 10 rounds.

However, with a little practice it's apparently easy to quickly change magazines.

It's also been claimed that high-capacity magazines are often safer than the standard ones: They apparently jam more easily, and the jams aren't always easy to clear. It's the difference between getting 30 rounds out of a 50-round magazine that jams versus 50 rounds out of 5 10-round capacity magazines.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. As a gun enthusiast, owner, carrier, etc.

I wholly support this effort. I also support repealing the 1986 GOPA, and enacting full firearms registration nationwide. It's overdue.

We made some improvements in NICS after Virginia Tech, but it wasn't enough. Registration really is the only workable solution. I will register all of my firearms the day a national registry goes live.

[Hulk]

24. "crumbs from the table of the NRA"....

Nice....a baby step. I call bull shit on the whole shell game. "Keep your eye on the pea". We SHOULD BE talking about banning assault weapons and taking them OFF THE STREETS! We SHOULD BE banning these larger than 6 round magazines, or something equivalent to that. We SHOULD BE banning caches of ammo that some of these fruitcakes possess...for God only knows what.

"background checks". A diversionary tactic. Keep your eye on the pea...while we keep selling our AR 15s and other killing stock to all the crazies living next door to you. You'll eventually get upset when some maniac murders your family member. Until then....sleep baby, sleep.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. The NRA hates background checks.

Basically because any check is an opportunity to retain the check data, and reverse engineer a registry. And they REALLY hate registries.

UBC would be a major win, and by no means the only thing we should do. Good start to maybe get some momentum though. Most of the guns used in recent mass shootings were actually acquired legally with a background check that was not deep enough to surface non-criminal disqualifications.

UBC is not nothing, it's actually a major win, and something the NRA and co. can't really deflect from anymore. Take it. Do it. Then take the next step. (IMO an official registry would be the next step)

[asiliveandbreathe]

29. BS is right...remove assault weapons from the public domain - they are trying

to shut us up..throw us a bone...register ALL weapons purchased...with that registry, limit the number of weapons one person can purchase..this goes along with the ammunition..unable to build a cache of ammo or weapons....As we register our autos, so be it with gun registration..every two years..

What the FL legislature did to those teens yesterday is deplorable..."you can't have porn, but you can have weapons of mass destruction"...who the hell do they think they are...every one of them needs to be voted out - the students emotions are raw - they were there, they heard the shots fired, they saw the carnage, they saw their friends bleeding to death...and died..

Have we come this far, just to have come this far? - We have to have hope, this is the time..time for change - the students of today, are the future...I'm with them!!!!

[OU65802]

30. Id like to see something that would have stopped this shooting

This punk passed a background check

[Igel]

38. One can solve this problem.

Or one can try to get the same measures passed with the claim that it would solve all such problems.

Bump stock? Not in evidence.

High-capacity magazines? Not in evidence.

Big, scary gun with smallish bullets? Sure.

Laser scope? Not mentioned.

Automatic-fire alterations? Not in evidence.

Failure to pass background check? Nope.

Gun-show background check avoidance? Nope.

Even "assault weapon," defined to fit the AR-15, could easily be avoided. Change the stock. It's been done before.

From what I can tell, a handgun could have been used with the same effect. And he could have easily smuggled it out with him when he took off, instead of dropping it like he did the AR-15.

[mr_lebowski]

39. A more extensive background check that revealed recent mental health exams maybe?

Perhaps 'categories' could be created and assigned when such exams are given, which go into a national system ... one w/different levels in terms of what the person is allowed to keep and/or buy. Right now there's no 'gradation' in terms of individuals and what they can buy. Either you can have and buy WHATEVER you want, or you can't have or buy ANY guns legally.

We need a more sophisticated system. If you're posting pics of yourself with guns in ski masks and making threats online you can lose ability to purchase any guns or addt'l ammo for X years, and have all but certain types of your guns *temporarily* (until x years good behavior) confiscated ... the whole system needs a lot more tracking and granularity. Some people need to be allowed nothing more than a revolver or shottie for home protection, that kind of thing.

[OU65802]

41. I like it

[DeminPennswoods]

40. About background checks

Last night on one of the MSNBC shows one of the hosts or a guest was going over all the things that are at least somethings of a red flag but have been systematically removed from being part of the background check process.

Also, brought out was the fact that the agents doing the background checks cannot have an accessible data base of names and must search manually through stacks of paper records. And the funding for the checking process itself has been cut.

The bottomline is that "universal" background are not currently what the vast majority of Americans think they are.