Rand Paul wins significant victory

[The Free Hornet]

Can't there be an effective, inexpensive way to conduct background checks at a personal level? You mean to tell me that we can conduct credit card transactions on an iPhone anywhere on earth, but we can't send a name to be checked on an automated server with a mental health/crime database and have it send back an approved or disapproved?

That is nonsense. That IS a loophole you just spoke of, and it should be closed. I am all for less government, but if we have a program, I want it to be effective and not a POS masquerading as a tool.

Which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

to "mental health/crime database" from " mental health database"

You've backpeddled by adding crime. Of course crime requires, in theory, a fair trial. What is the fair trial equivalent for "mental health" bullshit?

The only loophole you ought consider is not having a gun yourself in a crisis... that is the only loophole the crazies exploit. Not that I'm one to speak as I don't own, don't pack, and don't plan to buy but you won't see me putting up a roadblock for others.

 

[V3n]

Lanza tried to purchase a rifle and was turned down. The current background check laws worked. We don't need any additional legislation or overhead.

 

[compromise]

Ted Cruz is an excellent Senator. One bad vote doesn't make him "suck".

 

[Warmon]

Lanza tried to purchase a rifle and was turned down. The current background check laws worked. We don't need any additional legislation or overhead.

Not exactly. Lanza attempted to buy a rifle just before the shooting, but ended the transaction cause he didn't want to wait out the mandatory "cooling off" period. There is nothing in his background that would have prevented him from buying the rifle.

 

[supermario21]

Ted Cruz is an excellent Senator and an even better debater. I want him prepping Rand for presidential debates.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

1. Cruz is a top 3 best Senator

2. Either Cruz or Dewhurst would have been the Senator from Texas, everything else is irreverent. If you're against Cruz, then, by definition you're for Dewhurst; there's no middle ground except in your imagination which is outside of reality. Does anyone believe Dewhurst would've stood with Rand reading tweets of encouragement?

3. Cruz has been surprisingly good and has impressed me more than other liberty candidates (Bentivolio). I will be directing my future donations accordingly.

*BONUS* Cruz being latino and incredibly articulate unintentionally makes Rubio look more ridiculous and lessens Rubio's supposed minority cred. If Cruz can supplant Rubio as the latino voice in the Senate, Rand benefits.

 

[Brett85]

Rand, Cruz, and Lee are the best three Senators we have, but none of them are making the argument that all federal gun regulations violate the 10th amendment. Lee may actually be the best on this issue, since he was the only Republican to vote against the Cruz amendment. But, it would be nice if we had Ron in the Senate, and he would make it clear what the Constitutional position on this actually is.

 

[BlackTerrel]

I've only followed this story tangentially.

Did 90% of Americans really back this bill as I've seen posted all over facebook? That is a hard to believe number.

 

[torchbearer]

I've only followed this story tangentially.

Did 90% of Americans really back this bill as I've seen posted all over facebook? That is a hard to believe number.

they must have excluded the majority of louisiana from that survey. we may be considered a conquered territory and not a state.

 

[itshappening]

No, 90% don't support it. That's just bogus polling.

If 90% truly supported it then the senators would have voted for it. They would have felt that pressure.

Truth is there wasn't that support there especially in red and purple states. No where enough support.

 

[asurfaholic]

Can't there be an effective, inexpensive way to conduct background checks at a personal level? You mean to tell me that we can conduct credit card transactions on an iPhone anywhere on earth, but we can't send a name to be checked on an automated server with a mental health/crime database and have it send back an approved or disapproved?

That is nonsense. That IS a loophole you just spoke of, and it should be closed. I am all for less government, but if we have a program, I want it to be effective and not a POS masquerading as a tool.

Are you also going to ban those from buying knives, screwdrivers, scissors, hammers, machetes, chainsaws, rope, meat tenderizers , and long hard dildos ?

Cuz there's alot of stuff your deranged nut is going to need taken away from him before you can worry about only his hands.

 

[asurfaholic]

I've only followed this story tangentially.

Did 90% of Americans really back this bill as I've seen posted all over facebook? That is a hard to believe number.

I think the actual 90% statisitic (actually like 91 or something) is from a poll of police officers, whether they thought reducing guns would reduce crime.

 

[BlackTerrel]

No, 90% don't support it. That's just bogus polling.

If 90% truly supported it then the senators would have voted for it. They would have felt that pressure.

Truth is there wasn't that support there especially in red and purple states. No where enough support.

Is there a poll with different numbers? I keep seeing this 90% stat all over my facebook.

 

[Rudeman]

Is there a poll with different numbers? I keep seeing this 90% stat all over my facebook.

I'd love to see what poll these people are citing (90%).

 

[itshappening]

If there was 90% support then it would pass easily or they would amend the constitution nevermind expand background checks.

Here are some polls this week:

Perhaps helping explain Democrats’ problems, an AP-GfK poll this month showed that 49 percent of Americans support stricter gun laws. That was down from 58 percent who said so in January — a month after the December killings of 20 children and six aides at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school propelled gun violence into a national issue.

#Just over half the public — 52 percent — expressed disapproval in the new survey of how President Barack Obama has handled gun laws. Weeks after the Newtown slayings, Obama made a call for near universal background checks the heart of his gun control plan.

And Gallup which shows the issues Americans actually care about instead of what the president is grandstanding about:

 

[itshappening]

Something to bear in mind when politicians cite favorable polls:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

 

[WhistlinDave]

No, 90% don't support it. That's just bogus polling.

If 90% truly supported it then the senators would have voted for it. They would have felt that pressure.

Truth is there wasn't that support there especially in red and purple states. No where enough support.

I think the actual 90% statisitic (actually like 91 or something) is from a poll of police officers, whether they thought reducing guns would reduce crime.

Is there a poll with different numbers? I keep seeing this 90% stat all over my facebook.

I'd love to see what poll these people are citing (90%).

This is what I could find in a quick preliminary search for the source of this "statistic":

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=4981112#post4981112

EDIT: I just found the horse's mouth. Note question 38 down the page. This gives us the demographics too of who was polled. Also very interesting to note some of the other questions regarding gun controls... Nowhere close to 90%.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes--centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1847

 

[WhistlinDave]

I am a supporter of background checks and a mental health database that functions.

My wife was a victim of a workplace shooting where the deranged shooter obtained a weapon AFTER having been diagnosed with severe mental illness a few years before and was clearly in the throes of depression. He was in a database, but the gun shop owners didn't have access or didn't have to check it. And the gunshop loophole should be closed.

This is just one of those things we will have differing opinions on!

Sorry to hear this happened. Is your wife OK? If so, I'm glad she's OK. If not, I'm truly sorry.

Background checks won't really prevent this from happening though. If someone is crazy or evil enough to do this kind of thing, and wants to get their hands on a gun, they can drive to the nearest inner city high crime neighborhood and purchase one for a lot cheaper than from any Firearms dealer. All the background checks will do is slow someone down a little bit. Maybe their shooting spree will have to happen tomorrow instead of today.

 

[anaconda]

I am a supporter of background checks and a mental health database that functions.

My wife was a victim of a workplace shooting where the deranged shooter obtained a weapon AFTER having been diagnosed with severe mental illness a few years before and was clearly in the throes of depression. He was in a database, but the gun shop owners didn't have access or didn't have to check it. And the gunshop loophole should be closed.

This is just one of those things we will have differing opinions on!

But given the way the federal government works, won't most persons eventually be placed in "the database" just for sneezing? A DUI conviction? A late IRS payment? A Ron Paul bumper sticker? A copy of the Constitution in the back seat of your car? Etc.?

 

[whoisjohngalt]

I'm very happy that 3D printing is only a couple years away from ending this debate for good.