Democrats reject push to alert ICE when illegal immigrants fail firearm

[LeafByNiggle]

Without registration it will be very difficult to trace a weapon back to the supplier, unless the criminal voluntarily rats on his supplier. Maybe with the right incentives that can work, and I hope it does.

Firearms are the only item where people want to hold every person in the supply chain responsible for the criminal actions of an end user. Nobody wants to hold the Ford dealership liable when a customer kills someone with a Ford. When a terrorist rents a truck to commit an attack, nobody talks about holding Ryder responsible. It’s only firearms. Odd that…

OK, fun little deflection. Let’s travel a bit down that rabbit hole, shall we? But let’s not get lost as we do.

Of course Ford Motor Company is held responsible if their vehicle causes an accident due to manufacturing defects. There is no law requiring background checks before owning a car, but there is a requirement for background checks for driving a car - not a background check for criminal behavior, but a background check that you have passed your drivers’ tests, written and practical, and that you have sufficient vision to operate a car. So why don’t we have a law against selling a car to someone unqualified to operate it? It is because there are other safeguards in place that accomplishes the same goal, like the fact that a person can be stopped and required to show a valid driver’s license if he is driving erratically or violated a traffic sign. And since cars are operated in a much more public manner than guns, such encounters are more likely. It is hard to conceal carry a car. It is very visible. Now that I have ventured this far down the rabbit hole, I’m going to retrace my steps, and when I get to the surface I’m going to fill it in with concrete, never to visit it again. So don’t invite me to go down there again.

[Guinness]

Of course Ford Motor Company is held responsible if their vehicle causes an accident due to manufacturing defects.

Are firearms inherently defective? Otherwise, I don’t see how you can hold the seller or manufacturer liable for the illegal actions of an end user.

There is no law requiring background checks before owning a car, but there is a requirement for background checks for driving a car - not a background check for criminal behavior, but a background check that you have passed your drivers’ tests, written and practical, and that you have sufficient vision to operate a car.

They also check for criminal behavior that would disqualify you from having a driver’s license, such as DUIs.

So why don’t we have a law against selling a car to someone unqualified to operate it? It is because there are other safeguards in place that accomplishes the same goal, like the fact that a person can be stopped and required to show a valid driver’s license if he is driving erratically or violated a traffic sign.

Those safeguards only protect against illegal operation, not possession. Their the equivalent of a carry permit.

And since cars are operated in a much more public manner than guns, such encounters are more likely. It is hard to conceal carry a car. It is very visible.

A gun in the hand, being misused is very visible. A gun in the holster of someone legally authorized to carry one shouldn’t be a concern, unless you believe there’s something inherently defective about someone who desires to carry a firearm…

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m sorry, but as I said, that rabbit hole has been sealed.

[Theo520]

Of course Ford Motor Company is held responsible if their vehicle causes an accident due to manufacturing defects.

I think you stumbled into a gofer hole on accident.

Nobody is against holding gun producers responsible for defective product,
But they don’t have defective products. Guns are very safe from errant discharge.

[pnewton]

It is no worse than missing who the author was. Does that mean everything else some one says should be dismissed for that error? I don’t think so.

[pnewton]

You do have a fetish for registration, don’t you.

That is the oddest use of the word “fetish” I have ever seen. As a law-abiding citizen, I have no objection to the government having a data base on what car I own, or what gun I have.

Yet here we are, still arguing about it. By this I mean, it is the talking point on media. I guess I read a different transcript.

And the argument will continue while the body count rises. We will see men, women and children gunned down and the political gridlock will allow it to keep going on.

[Rockoh22]

What I meant is that we are arguing what the media says needs to happen. The media sets the tone, the topic and the solution. And we keep the talking point of the media.

I personally do not believe anything the media is putting forward will do anything.

Think of it like this. I will use a not so well thought out analogy. But hope you get the idea.

Tomatoes have cause many people to die in a school today. They where also the cause of many people to die in a mall last week.

The arguments put forth by the media.

Stop the grow of tomatoes. No more tomatoes.

Tomatoes are not the cause, people have allergic reactions and we need to have a better screaming for people who are allergic.

Not put forth by the media: There was a problem at the factories that poisoned the tomatoes sent to those places.

[Peeps]

I just want to make it clear that NRA is not just a few individuals who fight against any gun controls.

The organization claims to have 5 million members. I am frankly surprised that the number is so low, but I also know that many people who aren’t members (e.g., my father, R.I.P.) and my brother (who is still very much alive!) oppose gun control, but would never join NRA just because they don’t join organizations, with the exception of a church and possibly a labor union (although my brother isn’t in a union, even though he’s a welder).

A lot of people who support gun control just don’t want their names “registered” on anything. I know, it’s sounds suspicious to people who have no trouble joining everything from their church to Facebook to the local neighborhood watch association to a Beer Crafting club–but that’s just the way some people think–privacy is very important to them.

What I’m getting at with this post is that it’s not accurate to say that the Republican Senators are blocking gun control because of NRA. What the Senators are doing is blocking gun control because they are faithfully representing their constituents who elected them in good faith to support legislation that they agree with and oppose legislation that they are opposed to.

That’s what elected officials in the U.S. are supposed to do–represent the people who elect them, not propagate their own ideas.

It’s the citizens, not a few NRA demagogues, who are stopping gun control laws.

I would count myself among those citizens. My husband is actually a member of NRA (but he doesn’t own a gun), and I’m not a member, but I agree with NRA. There are millions like me, who are outraged and saddened by any shootings, not just mass shootings (and we have plenty in our city), but we oppose gun control. I favor citizen control, not gun control. People must be taught from birth the differences between good and evil and taught to be good, not evil. Until that happens, no gun control law will work, as evil people will obtain guns from other evil people. There is no need to “control” good people.