Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
42 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Protester at NRA Convention (Original Post) BainsBane May 2013 OP
Wrong place to be protesting newmember May 2013 #1
Maybe she lives in Houston ??? LeftInTX May 2013 #2
The correct place would be 1000 people every day at every gun store and show w/pickets graham4anything May 2013 #6
The states already know who shouldn't have a gun if bought through a dealer newmember May 2013 #11
Gotta make purchasing a gun as bad as smoking a cigarette.& NO to Cronyn reciprocity amendment graham4anything May 2013 #14
Anywhere and everywhere is a good place to protest BainsBane May 2013 #32
At least she spelled the words on her sign correctly rightsideout May 2013 #3
And what would that common sense be? The Straight Story May 2013 #4
The President's proposals are fine by me. BainsBane May 2013 #5
Actually expanding background checks wouldn't cost the state or the feds anymore money newmember May 2013 #7
Um, yeah, they would The Straight Story May 2013 #9
So raise the taxes on guns and ammo BainsBane May 2013 #10
Which is why some people hate the left The Straight Story May 2013 #12
they want the guns BainsBane May 2013 #13
They do pay for them already The Straight Story May 2013 #18
Opposing background checks qualifies as unreasonable BainsBane May 2013 #20
It is not that I oppose them The Straight Story May 2013 #23
"the problem is not guns" BainsBane May 2013 #25
And yet The Straight Story May 2013 #26
It was meant illustratively BainsBane May 2013 #27
Not all of us. I conceded that rural folks here Warpy May 2013 #29
that's my view BainsBane May 2013 #31
Gun owners do not pay for what their hobby costs society. SunSeeker May 2013 #38
And that's why some people hate gun owners. baldguy May 2013 #36
What you are talking about is an expansion of NICS newmember May 2013 #15
Actually, it would The Straight Story May 2013 #19
I'm not a data guy , I'm just a working blue collar stiff newmember May 2013 #22
You have just as much of a right to opinion as anyone BainsBane May 2013 #33
Sadly, 2naSalit May 2013 #39
Canada's gun laws. Japan's gun laws. The UK's gun laws. Australia's gun laws. Uzair May 2013 #41
They pretend murder has gone up in those places BainsBane May 2013 #42
Others will consider it, not the greedy gun merchants or those blinded by gun culture. freshwest May 2013 #8
It's all about corporate profits BainsBane May 2013 #16
Psychopathic business model, that it is. freshwest May 2013 #17
now we see BainsBane May 2013 #21
So much money, they'll say anything, no matter how illogical. No morals, ethics or values allowed. freshwest May 2013 #24
Brave woman! Warpy May 2013 #28
Sorry lady, they lack common sense. SummerSnow May 2013 #30
NRA,ers don't have common sense. liberal N proud May 2013 #34
Their members may BainsBane May 2013 #35
She speaks for me. SunSeeker May 2013 #37
For most Americans, I think BainsBane May 2013 #40
 

newmember

(805 posts)
1. Wrong place to be protesting
Sun May 5, 2013, 01:23 AM
May 2013

It should be done on the steps of congress and the senate.

If she wants change go where change can happen.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
6. The correct place would be 1000 people every day at every gun store and show w/pickets
Sun May 5, 2013, 01:35 AM
May 2013

In their face every single day with signs and pictures of people shot and killed or wounded by guns.
1000s and 1000s in every single town that has a gun store and at gun shows.

Make the person entering the stores have to think about it.

And don't forget to bring the cell phones for cameras and to call police if they see something that doesn't appear to be right.

And also maybe a John Walsh type show to connect the dots between people who shouldn't be having a gun, and have people protest outside every establishment that allows a gun inside, especially bars.

Who in the world thinks it makes common sense to bring a loaded gun to a bar and have drinks?

Zimmerman's need to be stopped. Vigilantes and chaos makers need to be stopped.
The NRA needs to be stopped. Guns and bullets need to be stopped.

The two leaders of the NRA both sounded in recent days like the worst terrorists alive.

 

newmember

(805 posts)
11. The states already know who shouldn't have a gun if bought through a dealer
Sun May 5, 2013, 01:49 AM
May 2013

It's private sales that require no checks ( in many states)

Protesting doesn't work , the only protesting that will work is with the people who
write and pass the laws.

That's it
 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
14. Gotta make purchasing a gun as bad as smoking a cigarette.& NO to Cronyn reciprocity amendment
Sun May 5, 2013, 01:52 AM
May 2013

then when the courts change from 5 to 4 bad to 5 to 4 good, reinterpret the 2nd and be done with all arguments.

and NO to recirpocity unless it is NYC's that all 50 states take after.
Would rather have no bills than one which includes that poison pen or pill amendment, which would undo any and all gun control nationwide.

And at same time, have the Great Equalizer finance enough states to swing the house in 2014.

BainsBane

(53,074 posts)
32. Anywhere and everywhere is a good place to protest
Sun May 5, 2013, 03:43 AM
May 2013

People have every right to make their voices heard regardless of whether they live in DC or elsewhere.

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
4. And what would that common sense be?
Sun May 5, 2013, 01:33 AM
May 2013

Here on DU it could be anything from we want to take all your guns and give them to the government to background checks for every state funded by grants.

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
9. Um, yeah, they would
Sun May 5, 2013, 01:43 AM
May 2013

Someone has to enter all of that data. Some states which don't currently include mental health background checks have said one reason why is they did not have the funds to hire people to enter all of the data.

Data centers require space, power, etc - it is measured by the square foot (and priced that way). Cooling, internet connections, staff, etc. Having people to sort through the paperwork and know what to enter legally (and then spend time typing it up) costs money.


A little info on background checks, how they work, cost, and mental issues
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022774001


The NICS system is linked to several databases managed by the FBI, including the National Crime Information Center, and runs an individual's name through federal and state criminal records.

CNN Poll: Background checks popular, worrisome

Individuals can also be added to the NICS index outside of potential gun sales, on the recommendation of psychiatrists, mental health institutions and family members.

Under the current NICS system, buyers may be denied the purchase of a firearm for reasons such as being indicted or convicted of a felony, admitting to being addicted to a controlled substances, having been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, being subject to a restraining order, as well as other regulations.

Since its implementation in 1998, 2.1 million background checks have been denied out of 118 million requests, or almost 2%.

...

The current system cannot force states to share all of their records with the NICS database, especially ones regarding mental health. This lack of records allows some people with mental issues to legally purchase guns.

Seung-Hui Cho, the shooter in the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, had been declared mentally ill by a judge two years before he murdered 32 people. But Cho had gone through a background check and been cleared.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/background-checks-explainer

140 Million Checks and Counting

On December 17, 2011, NICS’ staff processed its 140 millionth firearms background check. The transaction was an immediate proceed for a long gun purchase out of Paris, Arkansas. This is a significant milestone in the system’s history since its beginning in 1998.

NICS Index on the Rise

In January 2008, Congress signed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA), which authorized the Attorney General to obtain electronic versions of information on individuals disqualified by federal law from purchasing or possessing firearms; that information is stored in the NICS Index for use in determining eligibility to purchase firearms. (The NICS Index contains information on individuals who are prohibited from possessing a firearm when disqualifying information may not be available through the National Crime Information Center or the Interstate Identification Index.) The NIAA also required the Attorney General to establish regulations and procedures to protect the privacy of records submitted to the NICS, through consultations with state and mental health agencies regarding the adequacy of proposed regulations.

Since the NIAA was signed into law in January 2008, statistical totals for all NICS Index categories have more than doubled. From January 31, 2008, to December 31, 2011, state entry totals in the NICS Index increased from 1,090,099 to 2,289,386. State mental health entries in the NICS Index saw a similar increase from 405,761 to 1,218,156 for the same time period.

One of the biggest hurdles to states submitting records to the NICS Index is state laws that prohibit sharing mental health information. However, states are required to make this information available if they wish to obtain grant funding through the NICS Act Record Improvement Program (NARIP). The state of Oregon received NARIP funding in 2009 and 2010, using the $770,849 and $2 million, respectively, to update criminal history records and automate systems to achieve NICS Index participation and share disqualifying mental health information. During the last few days of 2011, Oregon submitted 24,729 mental health entries to the NICS Index.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/cjis-link/march-2012/nics-hits-record-days-as-index-continues-to-rise

BUFORD: In California, the courts are required to send that information to us electronically and, in some cases, on paper. We take that information. We upload it to our California system, and then the California system also feeds into the federal system.

CORNISH: And over time, we've heard about several obstacles that some states may have in terms of keeping their databases current. For instance, mental health records. Now, California had had a central records keeping for mental health records since 1991. But it took you guys more than a decade to actually start sending those to the federal government. What were some of the obstacles and what do you think other states are facing?

CORNISH: Another obstacle states have discussed is in terms of getting up-to-speed, they might want help or grant money from the federal government. And yet, because of the gun restoration policy, this is the policy that allows people who have been blocked because of mental health records, to have their gun rights reinstated. Some states have - that's actually been an impediment to them applying for funding. Can you talk about why that is?

BUFORD: A little bit, you know. I think the big issue there is, you know, who bears the burden of implementing and maintaining that restitution program? The grant monies that the feds have placed out there for these particular programs just aren't sufficient enough to fund the program. So there has to be a sufficient, you know, you can't just lay it out there and say, go implement this program. There has to be sufficient funding and it can't be small amounts of funding. It has to be sufficient to fund the entire program.

BUFORD: There are some gaps in the system, but I'd rather have the system with the gaps than no system at all, no federal system at all. You know, we use federal records all the time to deny people the legal and lawful aliens, you know, here illegally and unlawfully, they could be criminals. We use it to deny people that are mental defectives in other states and people that are under restraining orders.

So I think it's important to have that information regardless of the gaps. I think we should focus on how do we build that system out, how do we eliminate those gaps. That's where the discussion should start at is eliminating the gaps, providing sufficient funding for all states to contribute and participate. I think that's the best thing that we can do as a nation, you know, and as a people.

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/14/169363285/gun-background-check-system-lacks-money-state-compliance

Majority of Gun Dealers Haven’t been Inspected in Last 5 Years

Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, told USA Today that ATF has “an appalling lack of resources” to do its job.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022772542

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
12. Which is why some people hate the left
Sun May 5, 2013, 01:50 AM
May 2013

Raise taxes - less than 1% of gun owners use their guns in crimes. 2% are rejected by background checks.

So let's raise taxes on the the 98-99% of people who are not a problem.

Reminds me of how the right in FL pushed through drug testing for people on welfare because folks were so dang sure that all of them people on welfare were taking drugs.

Turns out less than 2% failed the drug tests and the cost of testing was greater than the savings the right was hoping for.

The right has their 'welfare queens' and the left has their 'gun nuts' - both are a tiny percent of the total.

Kind of like how a tiny percent of muslims are radical - funny how we don't want to punish the many for the few in that case and call it bigotry when people try to do so.

But then, some on the left don't really care about the principles involved across the board - just how they can use things to bring down people they don't personally like and then complain when others do the same in other circumstances.

Funny how that works.

BainsBane

(53,074 posts)
13. they want the guns
Sun May 5, 2013, 01:51 AM
May 2013

They can pay for them. Why should I pay for them to play with guns? Jesus. Gun nuts have got to be the most selfish people on the planet.

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
18. They do pay for them already
Sun May 5, 2013, 02:02 AM
May 2013

And there you go using the word 'nuts'

Is that like those Muslims who are 'nuts' that oppress women. Where else do you use that term?

We have enough laws (on many things) already where we don't have the funding to enforce them.

Go for a drive later. How many people will you see speeding? We don't have enough cops to catch them all. People changing lanes without a signal? Same thing.

We fund what we care about and focus on where the problems are. 0.2% of a group is not something where we put a lot of money towards. We would rather put our money into making sure me, you, and others don't board a plane with hand lotion.

Fear is selling like crazy to both the right and the left. Fear of Muslims, every citizen in the US as a potential terrorist, fear of gun owners - they sell it and we buy it and want to spend more of our money and remove more of our rights to be protected.

Maybe, just maybe, we should start looking at the real perps in the world - our government and what they do to others.

I fear my fellow citizen less than I do our government - but then one gets a pass when it kills others.

BainsBane

(53,074 posts)
20. Opposing background checks qualifies as unreasonable
Sun May 5, 2013, 02:09 AM
May 2013

That is the most basic measure. That puts you with 9% of the country. That is outrageous. The idea that you think an ideological position opposing basic public safety measures makes you a protected class akin to race, gender, or religion is absurd.

Everyone pays for car registration and taxes, not just those in accidents. The odds of killing someone rise greatly if someone owns a guns.


It's pretty obviously you aren't interested in any common sense gun measures. This is exactly why I don't waste my time talking to gun extremists.

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
23. It is not that I oppose them
Sun May 5, 2013, 02:22 AM
May 2013

We have such checks here in Ohio and I have no issue with them.

There is a difference in wanting them to be fully federal vs fed and state based.

"The odds of killing someone rise greatly if someone owns a guns."

I won't disagree with that. But again, percent wise how many legal gun owners use their guns in such a way? If you throw out illegal gun owners BUT keep the crimes done by them in the numbers you still have very few overall who use their guns in crimes.

Don't own a gun, have no plans on owning one until I move out to the country. But I do know a ton of gun owners. Only one I know of has used a gun in a crime (and he is a 5 time felon and the guy he killed was by running him over in his car). The gun he has used in a crime is legal for felons to own here (black powder) and he shot at a neighbor's house.

But for the sake of argument - let's say we pass a federal background check on both criminal and mental issues (and the mental issues are where states are not all that fond of the federal model). And someone who passes such a check kills some people.

Then what? It will happen. When you have about 1% (less than that) using their guns, mainly influenced by alcohol, to hurt others - what other laws will we want to make?

We have kids shooting each other - and people blame the guns and not the parents for not watching them (but when it comes to pools, chemicals, etc...we ask where the parents were).

Our problem is not guns. They are tool to be sure of some (a small percent). Our problems are much deeper.

And as long as we keep blaming and object and not the cause of that object being used we won't get anywhere.

BainsBane

(53,074 posts)
25. "the problem is not guns"
Sun May 5, 2013, 02:26 AM
May 2013

It's malice in people's hearts I suppose. Americans just have more malice that the rest of the developed world. Give me a break. Guns are the most efficient killing weapons commonly available. The perform precisely as designed.

It needs to be federal because states like Mississippi can't be trusted to do anything.

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
26. And yet
Sun May 5, 2013, 02:33 AM
May 2013

It was not in Mississippi where we had the Newtown shooting.

States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners(more than 50%)
1. Wyoming - 59.7%
2. Alaska - 57.8%
3. Montana - 57.7%
4. South Dakota - 56.6%
5. West Virginia - 55.4%
6. Mississippi - 55.3%
6. Idaho - 55.3%
6. Arkansas - 55.3%
9. Alabama - 51.7%
10. North Dakota - 50.7%

States with Below Median Populations of Gun Owners
40. Delaware - 25.5%
41. Florida - 24.5% (Battleground state. See Florida in 2012 Elections.)
42. California - 21.3%
42. Maryland - 21.3%
44. Illinois - 20.2%
45. New York - 18%
46. Connecticut - 16.7%
47. Rhode Island - 12.8%
48. Massachusetts - 12.6%
49. New Jersey - 12.3%
50. Hawaii - 6.7%

http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election2012Factors/a/Gun-Owners-As-Percentage-Of-Each-States-Population.htm

Illinois, Florida, etc - we hear more about gun violence in those places than we do states with more gun owners.

Rural gun owners hate us on the left because we are judging them based on the few.

BainsBane

(53,074 posts)
27. It was meant illustratively
Sun May 5, 2013, 02:40 AM
May 2013

The point was about state capacity to take care of what they are supposed to, and some states like Mississippi fail at that. The population is half illiterate for God's sake.
This is the most pointless conversation. We can argue all night and I will never ever in a million years agree with you. I'm going to watch my movie now.

Warpy

(111,367 posts)
29. Not all of us. I conceded that rural folks here
Sun May 5, 2013, 02:50 AM
May 2013

and even folks in some of the suburbs need their guns. This is bear and cougar country.

It's just inappropriate for anyone to amass an arsenal of semi automatic weapons that have no real purpose beyond
being used by angry young men to slaughter as many people as they can before the cops show up.

BainsBane

(53,074 posts)
31. that's my view
Sun May 5, 2013, 03:31 AM
May 2013

I have nothing against someone owning a couple of guns, but people take it too far.

SunSeeker

(51,740 posts)
38. Gun owners do not pay for what their hobby costs society.
Sun May 5, 2013, 09:13 AM
May 2013

Much like polluting corporations, they leave the rest of us to clean up their mess when the inevitable happens.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
36. And that's why some people hate gun owners.
Sun May 5, 2013, 08:07 AM
May 2013

They want all the privileges of owning a gun, but none of the responsibilities. But then, some gun owners don't really care about the principles involved.

Funny how that works.

 

newmember

(805 posts)
15. What you are talking about is an expansion of NICS
Sun May 5, 2013, 01:58 AM
May 2013

I'm talking about the current one in place now.

If private sales also had to go through it the cost wouldn't change.

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
19. Actually, it would
Sun May 5, 2013, 02:09 AM
May 2013

I managed over 5,000 servers for JP Morgan Chase. Every time a new customer was added the data bases grew, back up space increased, bandwidth grew, etc.

That stuff is not free. From data base admins to network engineers there is a cost involved per customer, and the more that such things grow the more the costs do as well. You have a pre-defined SAN? If the base grows you need more space (not just the drives but the contracts for the maintenance if you want 24x7 support). Even if the data itself does not grow but the need to access it to does you have issues.

There will always be added costs - and we can address those costs, but it seems no one wants to. They just want more laws and when those laws, like many others, don't pan out because they cannot be afforded folks will be yelling for more laws to fix the ones they passed before that are not working.

Let's focus for a spell on funding enforcement of all the ones we have now.

 

newmember

(805 posts)
22. I'm not a data guy , I'm just a working blue collar stiff
Sun May 5, 2013, 02:16 AM
May 2013

that drives a forklift in a factory so I can't begin to address your post.

So I'll just bow out .

BainsBane

(53,074 posts)
33. You have just as much of a right to opinion as anyone
Sun May 5, 2013, 03:55 AM
May 2013

And I obviously agree with you that background checks are essential. What they will
cost, I don't know, but they need to be implemented.

2naSalit

(86,824 posts)
39. Sadly,
Sun May 5, 2013, 11:56 AM
May 2013

the "common sense" among the crowd inside the convention hall is a smug "everybody but us is wrong" mentality. Hard to fix stupid that's become a religion for the ignorant... and she's protesting the arch bishops of the religion. Nice sign though.


 

Uzair

(241 posts)
41. Canada's gun laws. Japan's gun laws. The UK's gun laws. Australia's gun laws.
Sun May 5, 2013, 12:40 PM
May 2013

Take your fucking pick. Stop pretending like the gun problem hasn't been solved elsewhere.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
8. Others will consider it, not the greedy gun merchants or those blinded by gun culture.
Sun May 5, 2013, 01:39 AM
May 2013
It is solely a commerical venture, and those caught up in it are creatures of media advertising. They dress it up in a myriad of ways, but what Joe Scarborough said is true:





BainsBane

(53,074 posts)
16. It's all about corporate profits
Sun May 5, 2013, 01:58 AM
May 2013

The only reason to obstruct background checks is that they want criminals to have access to guns. Criminals generate a lot of profits for gun manufacturers.

BainsBane

(53,074 posts)
21. now we see
Sun May 5, 2013, 02:14 AM
May 2013

They didn't really support background checks anyway. The story about supporting everything but an assault weapons ban was just a ruse.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Protester at NRA Conventi...