Schumer plows ahead with gun registration
Chief Tango sends us a link to the Washington Post which reports that Li’l Chuckie Schumer is going ahead with his plans for mandating background checks on all gun sales, despite the fact that he can’t even get a consensus from his little working group.
For weeks, Schumer has been locked in negotiations over a new background check bill with Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.). Early on, Schumer agreed to change his original proposal to permit limited exceptions for the transfer of firearms between family members and close friends. But aides familiar with the talks said Schumer and Coburn repeatedly locked horns over whether to keep records of private gun sales, a provision that Democrats believe is necessary to fully enforce any new background check law.
Now, think about it, how would keeping a record of background checks prevent crime? Seriously. The only reason that anyone would want to keep a record is for eventual registration, which would, we all know, lead to confiscation. Schumer said as much last year when he admitted that registration is a back door to eventual confiscation.
Joe Manchin, West Virginia Senator, says that he won’t support Schumer’s bill, but ya know what, I’ll wait to see how the vote comes out before I’ll pat him on the back. Of course, I’ve flooded his office with faxes, so he knows we’re watching.
The Post continues by posting a completely irrelevant poll;
A January Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that nearly nine in 10 Americans (88 percent) support requiring background checks for sales at gun shows. Seven in 10 (71 percent) endorsed the creation of a federal database to track all firearm sales, with 54 percent supporting the idea “strongly.” More than half of respondents in gun-owning households supported each measure.
Yeah, I wonder what your poll would say if you asked respondents whether they support keeping records of transfers after watching the Schumer video;
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
a provision that Democrats believe is necessary to fully enforce any new background check law.
You mean any attempt at confiscation.
“Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms.” Even 2500 years ago, Aristotle had it right.
The day the American government tries to confiscate guns is the day pigs fly. Contrary to Geico, pigs don’t fly coach. While they may want gun confiscation in their heart of hearts, they know it can never happen in this country. Don’t feed the paranoia!
Sgt–honestly, deep down in my heart of hearts, the day they try that will be the day future historians point to as the start of the Second American Civil War/Revolution.
Funny how shit just seems to come full circle–tyrants trying to confiscate “military grade” weaponry from law-abiding citizens, and then the shit hits the fan.
Yeah. I mean, my dad gave me a car and the dad-gum government said I had to register that damn thing. It’s been in my family for generations….
The poll is so lopsided, that intuitively you just know something is amiss. I looked at the breakdown and it is just flat-out impossible that 85% of folks living in the South support ANY 2nd amendment infringement. What’s more, the poll was taken a little less than a month after the Newtown Massacre while people were emotionally reacting, not thinking. Hell, I remember Bush’s addresses to the nation after 9/11 when we would have marched to hell and back, civilian and military alike, to stop those terrorist bastards. A year or two later, it was Axis of What?
As for Manchin, he has taken serious heat for blowing off any questions last week regarding the gun grab issue, when he met with local newspaper editors. I mean, he was nearly hanged in effigy. So, two days ago, he held a phone conference with the editors about the matter but said virtually nothing. He gets the message but, like Jonn, I’ll wait and see.
HM2 FMF-SW Ret: not at all a good example.
There is no Constitutionally-protected right to drive (or own, for that matter) an automobile. Under the 10th Amendment, states are free to regulate doing so, including requiring both proof of competency to operate same (licensing) and registration of the vehicle. Theoretically, a state or locality could ban both driving or automobile ownership. Indeed, if I recall correctly some US urban areas have designated a number of former public streets as “pedestrian only” areas.
In contrast, firearms ownership IS an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution which is explicitly protected against “infringement” by both Federal and state/local governments. The SCOTUS has ruled that reasonable restrictions may be imposed; however, it has never defined what restrictions are reasonable.
It is yet an open question as to whether mandatory firearms registration of weapons falls into the category of reasonable regulation. Heller v. DC did not address that, as Heller had conceded he was willing to register his firearm under DC law.
Any guns and mags good enough for Holder to supply to the Mexican drug cartels should be OK for US citizens.
@4, where in the Bill of Rights are cars mentioned?
AirCav, if it’s a WaPo/All Barack Channel poll, it just has to be completely fair and……Never mind, I can’t even summon up the sarcasm to go on with that thought.
Forgot to add in #8, Fuck Chuck.
#4
Strawman arguement…I should therefore register my knives, my bow (after all, my bow is only meant for killing), etc…
UpNorth: “where in the Bill of Rights are cars mentioned?”
In the Ninth Amendment.
You know, right alongside home-schooling, using vitamins and choosing to grow your garden in the front yard instead of the back — other activities that are coming under increased government scrutiny and regulation.
Freedom to travel the public highways by the common conveyance of the day used to be considered a right, until the government chose to see it different.
And that’s how freedom dies — calling a government intrusion that we’ve grown quite used to a “starwman argument.”
@4 If I thought for one moment that what the government had in mind for guns was to treat them like cars, to register and tax them simply for revenue, I’d roll my eyes and not give it another thought. But the fact of the matter is, that ISN’T what they have in mind at all. We are dealing with an administration that has totalitarian aspirations, and toward that end, they are setting up the mechanations to destroy our Second Amendment / confiscate our firearms. Don’t take my word for it — look at history. Read what was said by people like Hitler about allowing citizens to be armed. If the words of murderous dictators throughout the last 100 years alone won’t convince you, then I guess you’ll be the one who waits until they knock on your door before you believe what we’re trying to tell you. Then it will be too late.
Every time they speak or act, liberals like Shoo-mah remind us that the Human Gene pool is in DIRE NEED of some serious chlorine!!
#4, you are not guaranteed the right to own that car are you? Nope, it is a priveleage to own and operate one on the highways. Oh, and the use or missuse of automobiles account for more preventable deaths each year than gun crime does in multiple years. (With the possible exception of Chicago).
Registering guns will not prevent criminals from using them. Next irrational argument for a means of gun control please…
We’ve gone thru the other boxes (soap, ballot, jury). Nothing left but the last box (cartridge). Even then, start with a cold box via civil disobedience – whatever the new “reasonable” “commonsense” law is, DON’T OBEY IT.
If TPTB then want to push for the arrests (and worse), then it will be time to go hot!
@13: You don’t even have to look at Hitler, just look at Canada, Australia, and Great Britain. First they required registration, then they went and confiscated. That’s fact.
Eagle Keeper: um, no. You might want to check the 10th Amendment.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Bottom line: if a particular state or locality wants to regulate automobile ownership and use – or even ban it outright – unless it’s prohibited by that state’s Constitution it is within the state/locality’s power to do exactly that. The 10th Amendment reserves such authority to the states. I believe that is called “Federalism”.
For a historical example, see Prohibition. After it was ended nationally by the 21st Amendment, many localities (and some states) retained Prohibition locally. Absolutely legal under the Constitution. Ditto Sunday “blue laws”. How do I know? I grew up in a “dry” county in a state with Sunday “blue laws”. And as I recall, Mississippi retained statewide prohibition into the 1960s.
Selective reading really isn’t a good thing, Eagle Keeper – especially when you’re ignorant of history. Read the whole document, not just the parts being spoon-fed to you out-of-context by Saint Ron.
50% of gun owner households support it? Where the hell are they doing this poll? We’re having this debate right now in Colorado and there are almost no gun owners supporting universal background checks.
The fact that so many support checks at gun shows proves that they didn’t poll many gun owners since we know that background checks are already done at gun shows.
Most of our sheriffs testified against it as well, knowing that there would have to be registration to support it.
Speaking of cars, the government does regulate those. There are the CAFE standards, and one can look in the acres of impound lots or go to Sheriffs’ auctions to find vehicles confiscated for such violent, anti-societal crimes as debt.
So the analogy of privately-owned cars is a damned good one!
What causes Schumer to shit his Brioni suits is not the anger of non-New Yorkers, but the paroxysm of violence NYC would face as its residents worked off their rage from decades of gradual repression, and being forced to play nice with jerks. Schumer fears another Crown Heights, but wider in location, longer in duration, and without NYC corps-size police force capable of suppressing it. When you mash millions of folks together, they don’t play nice. Give ’em guns and the meek will take revenge on the strong.
That, and Schumer is pro-rape, and anti-women.
I think that contributors are beginning to diverge here. I’m not at all certain there is substantive issue so much as some folks not writing out their thoughts completely so that others of us might understand. I don’t but something seems out of kilter here.
@4 – one major difference – government can regulate titles, emissions,m etc (just as we are regulated on full-autos, etc) but the government does not have to give pre-permission for you to acquire a car. You can buy a car, drive it on your private proerty, park it in your garage, disassemble and rebuild it any damn way you please without anyone in the government having one damn bit of input. The debate on guns is that the gornment is requiring you to get a mother-may-I to even be able to purchase one even though all legal requirements are met. Entirely different – and unique – situation.
I dunno if many people saw it yet, but Senator Feinstein just said that veterans shouldn’t have access to “assault weapons” because of this “new thing called PTSD” that’s caused by the Iraq war.
DiFi is merely again demonstrating her abject ignorance. PTSD is hardly “new” – stress reactions and/or psychological disturbances related to direct participation in warfare have been documented since the Battle of Marathon in Ancient Greece in 490BC.
http://www.vva.org/archive/TheVeteran/2005_03/feature_HistoryPTSD.htm
It’s also hardly new among US veterans. Documented cases of post-war reactions with symptoms resembling PTSD exist from the Civil War (it was called “soldier’s heart”), World War I (“shell shock”), and World War II/Korea (“battle fatigue”). And I’m pretty sure I remember hearing about something called “post-traumatic stress syndrome” among Vietnam veterans prior to the Gulf War.
Sheesh.
Addendum: yep, I checked and the term appears to have been formally recognized as a psychiactric/psychological disorder in 1980.
She also framed it as part of a “Why there is a retired LEO exemption to the assault weapons ban but not one for veterans” argument, so she apparently believes that cops can’t get PTSD.
Spade: good point. PTSD is not at all a military-unique conditions. One of the earliest known historical examples of PTSD appears to the the reaction of Samuel Pepys and other Londoners to the Great Fire of 1666 and its aftermath (see link above).
I have issues with “retired LEO exceptions” to firearms laws, but that objection has nothing to do with retired LEOs potentially having PTSD.
Be careful with the “cars and guns” analogy. There are a few ways to compare them, and there are ways that the picture gets skewed by trying to compare them. Personally I’ve always been a fan of the “Muscle car/Sports car vs. ‘assault weapon'” analogy. If a libtard has a problem with an AR-15 or a 30 round magazine, citing some idiotic crap like, “No one NEEDS 30 rounds to defend themselves!”, then I could go with the car analogy, citing that no one NEEDS a 300+ horsepower car. In fact, the old Geo Metros from the 90’s were just perfect for a citizens “needs”. It had a 1.0 liter 3 cylinder engine just barely capable of achieving the 65-70 MPH speed limit in most parts of the country. That’s all anyone “needs” isn’t it? After all, those high horsepower “assault cars” were designed for one thing: breaking the speed limit and endangering lives! But here’s the difference: AR-15s and 30 round mags are Constitutionally protected. Your Mustang GT and Driver’s license is not.
Side note: Yes, I own assault cars. I had a 1987 Camaro IROC-Z when I was 17. My “Basic Training and AIT graduation present” to myself was a 1982 Camaro Z28, which I had a 383 Stroker built for, and damn that thing would boogie. I have since upgraded to a 1984 Corvette, which was a birthday present from my wife. I also own a variety of other “politically incorrect” toys….. Don’t like my toys? GDIAF.
Once again the so called progressives are setting the agenda. I would like to see conservatives completely ignore the gun registration stuff until the progs answer questions like “Do you support the right of self defense and the means with which to conduct it? “Do you believe that limiting the rights of law abiding responsible people will make this country safer?”
Put them on the defensive.
@27: agreed. I don’t like LEO exemptions at all for anything.
Does anyone bother to ask DiFi if she even has a clue what the letters PTSD stand for?
I have a few definitions right here:
Post turkey-stuffing disfunction
Personally transmitted sexual disease
Pertinent time stamp duty
Peas-turkey-salad dispenser
Plywood timber sales display
Put the shovel down
Plant the snow drops
Pick the special day
@28 Michael Z. Williamson had a nice post on his blog about how we should regulate CARS like we regulate Guns. Unfortunately fascists like Chuckie and DiFi don’t see it that way. But give them time and enough low information voters and it could change
Hey PH2, you left out:
Political Turd Speaking Drivel
I really hate Hitler analogies… The mere fact that he was one of the worlds most brutal dictators who brought about the Holocaust and the devastation of Europe in WWII should be enough to keep any from comparing him to any current events/individuals. However the often used quote that can be found nowhere in any of his speeches about disarming the people is just wrong. While he did in fact restrict gun ownership of Jews, he actually loosened gun laws for all other Germans (laws that are still in effect today in Germany by the way). In 1938 Hitler made it easier for German citizens to buy and own guns, something under the previous government that was highly restricted.
As to the quote attributed to him about conquering a people by first disarming them, it was probably derived from comments made about it being foolish to allow citizens of conquered nations to be allowed to retain their arms, as it was foolish to not believe that they would not be used against their conquerors. He saw a huge difference between the German People and everyone else. A little bit true, but not a lot. He was not talking about controlling his own countrymen, he was talking about repressing those subcultures as he saw them.
One correction I did not meant to say that the laws of 1938 are still in effect today… they are not.
@34 Here’s the source for the Hitler quote:
Hitler gave his talk on April 11, 1942. He’s quoted in “Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.” [Translation: Hitler’s Table-Talk at the Fuhrer’s Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951).
@34 “He was not talking about controlling his own countrymen, he was talking about repressing those subcultures as he saw them.”
So? Hitler rose to power through his popularity. Of course he didn’t subject EVERYONE–he was very lenient to those he saw as useful. The point is…he knew precisely what he intended to do, and he did it. There was no respect for human beings, only interest in those people who served his purpose. It’s the same pattern that has been repeated over and over again and it is taking shape here. Pick your tyrant…the pattern is the same.
I am not saying anything positive about hitler, just stating the facts regarding him and gun control. This is why he is a poor choice to use in any argument for or against anything at all.
Again, he was talking about repressing those conquered countries not his own. Which is another reason why it is a bad analogy for US Gun Control. Hell there are those who could easily say he was correct in his statement, that if you want to control the population of a conquered land, you need to rid them of their weapons….
But he was not talking about control of the German people. His gun control laws lessened restrictions and made gun ownership easier.(except for Jews)
@34 Off topic… here’s an interesting thought…6 million Jews, 7 million others about 12-13 million depending on whose numbers you like….blamed on Hitler’s policies with accuracy in my opinion.
In the United States since 1973 Roe V Wade we have systematically eliminated roughly just under half (16 million) the current population of Black Americans (35 million) in the 40 years that have passed. Based on those numbers a few folks have commented that the womb is far more dangerous for Black Americans than the street gangs of Chicago. We don’t call the folks responsible for this anything but Doctor here in the US….this might be one of those few topics where the analogy might fit…both actions were state sponsored, both actions had a large impact on a particular segment of the population, and there’s not much outcry by the majority of the remaining population regarding the policies….
Hitler is a good choice for one reason only: He was just a man. We use terms like monster, villain, tyrant, to descibe him. It’s a mistake to think he was the devil incarnate. He wasn’t. What he was was a psychopath that through time and circumstances became almost unstoppable in his violence. It literally took the WHOLE WORLD to stop one man who, by all rights, should have been committed to an insane asylum long before the public even knew his name. But that’s not what happened. The point is that he was just a man — all the tyrants start out as “just a man.” They don’t stay that way. And that is the difference.
rb325th (15) “you are not guaranteed the right to own that car are you? Nope, it is a priveleage to own and operate one on the highways.”
To operate on the public roadways, perhaps.
But merely to OWN one?
Really?
@33 – The list is potentially endless.
Pointless twaddle spoken by Democrats
@42, nope last I checked we are not guaranteed the right to own anything under the US Constitution… well except guns.
Otherwise you have the opportunity to purchase a vehicle if you so choose, but I still have not seen any guarantees that you have the Right to. You can of course freely purchase one, park it in your yard, drive it around your own private property even, but best leave it there because you do not have the right to own and operate that vehicle on public ways without being licensed to drive, register that vehicle, and even have insurance depending on the State you live in….
Funny how owning a gun is guaranteed by the Constitution and I have to jump through hoops to own one. All it should take is a background check to see if I am either a Felon, wanted, or mentally defective. Which should take no more than a few minutes to do on a computer accessing the NICS Database.
#44 rb325th: no, it’s not funny. It and other parts of the Constitution (like the ban on quartering troops in the homes of citizens) are a direct result of the British government’s imposition of power on the then-colonists. Lexington and Concord started during a British campaign to grab all firearms in the great Boston area.
The Constitution is written to specifically enumerate the power of our government – all else reserved to the people, or their states. So it’s not funny – colonists had their property seized, were thrown in jail, and such other destructive actions that impressed the Constititional Congress to specifically address them.
Funny as in weird, not humorous… Kind of a common use of the word. I know quite well the history of what led to the revolution and the reasons why our forefathers had the wisdom to place in our Constitution the Guarantees that those could not be forced upon us again.
Once upon a time as a young NCO I marched under the Regimental Colors that carry the Battle Streamers of Lexington and Concord. I know our history, and damned if I want it repeated, nor do I find anything humorous in that either.
Think you have seriously misread my views.
#46 rb: entirely likely, but hardly seriously.
Regarding cars, license plates and fees for them began in the early 20th century. The earliest date I could find was 1901. In some states, they were discontinued or issued by counties. It’s a tax, nothing else.
The first driver’s licens was issued in 1888 to Karl Benz, at his request. The first American driver’s licenses were issued to chauffeurs in 1910, and later to other drivers in New Jersey in 1913. In Illinois, a driver’s license was not required for driving until the late 1930s, just before WWII. They started in this country because of the number of fatal accidents.
You don’t have to have a driver’s license or auto plates if you’re driving on your own property and stay within your property lines. It’s mostly just a tax now and a source of revenue, and rises every year.
My license plate renewal this year will cost me $100, and the cost of gas has me hardly driving my car at all. And in order to keep my driver’s license intact, I’m also required to keep my auto insurance current. There is no end to it, and I need my car to run errands. A horse and buggy would do fine, but I have no place to put a horse right now.
PH, at this rate, a horse would be cheaper, even with the cost of the stables, and lawn to munch on.
Video of the Finestain comments: http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2013/03/sen-feinstein-opposed-veteran-exemption.html
Oh, PN, painting all veterans with the same brush is libelous. That fat old bat can be sued for defamation.
Where in blue-eyed world do people like her get their information? From a cracker jacks box?
Re: horse v. car: gas just went up again. I had to drive eight miles just to find the cheapest price; waste of a half gallon of gas.
Cost of gas per gallon (8lbs) $4.05 3/7/13
Cost of oats per bushel (35lbs) $4.05 02/13
Alfalfa hay per ton (WI) $260 2/13
Yeah, I think you’re right.