McCain folding again


#1

McCain continues to show his true, non-election year colors.

McCain emerges as key senator in expanding background checks[LEFT]

By Alexander Bolton

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has emerged as a key player if Senate Democrats are to have any chance of passing legislation to expand background checks for private sales of firearms.

[COLOR=#000000]

McCain and Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.) are at the top of a list of Republicans considered most likely to sign on to legislation expanding background checks after talks with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) stalled earlier this month.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) has signaled he will likely support the yet-to-be-finalized proposal he negotiated with Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to expand background checks to cover private gun sales, according to Senate sources.

The proposal includes modifications to attract Republican support. One would let rural gun owners conduct background checks from their home computers. Another would give military veterans who have been declared mentally unfit to own a gun a process for appealing that finding.
[/COLOR]

[/LEFT][LEFT][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000]
Read more: McCain emerges as key senator in expanding background checks - The Hill
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Sorry for the split quote, the silly thing was fighting me. I kept taking it out and it kept showing back up. If it continues I will report a bug.
[/COLOR]


#2

[quote=“tperkins, post:1, topic:38811”]
McCain continues to show his true, non-election year colors.

McCain emerges as key senator in expanding background checks[LEFT]
[/LEFT][LEFT][COLOR=#000000][COLOR=#000000]
Read more: McCain emerges as key senator in expanding background checks - The Hill
[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Sorry for the split quote, the silly thing was fighting me. I kept taking it out and it kept showing back up. If it continues I will report a bug.
[/COLOR]
[/quote]I sometimes get funny results when I try to post. I think some sites are trying new protocols to stop people from copying their materials even if it helps their circulation and ad clicks.


#3

I’m shocked!


#4

TPerk…you know that I’m big time 2nd amendment. Please explain why expansion of background checks (NOT Registration) is a bad idea if we want to keep guns out of the hands of bad or mentally ill people. Serious question.
I’m ready to accept that it is bad since most everything McLame touches these days comes away with smelling like crap.


#5

You cant see how setting a precedent for letting the federal govt the severely regulate private sales (of anything) is a bad idea? I would say its unconstitutional, regulation of intrastate sales is the states prerogative under the 10th amendment.


#6

We are being set up and McCain is helping. The left asks for the world, postures, makes impassioned pleas “for the children”, then blames those on the right for the failure. Someone on the right then pops up with some grand compromise that is “fair” and we are one more step to the left. I know you don’t like slippery slope angles, but you have to be getting tired of falling face first on the side of this hill we’re sliding down.


#7

#8

I sometimes get funny results when I try to post. I think some sites are trying new protocols to stop people from copying their materials even if it helps their circulation and ad clicks.

Copy-and-pasting directly from a webpage into a discussion site post often retains a whole bunch of formatting. And a lot of sites are embedding links in the text to the article from which you are trying to quote. I always copy-and-paste first into an ASCII text file: that strips out the formatting and shows embedded links that I can then edit out (I always include the link with my posts). Then I copy-and-paste from the ASCII text file into RO’s (or other discussion site’s) posting window. Doing this also lets me choose and edit what I want to quote.

McCain’s a Big-Government Semi-RINO. He gets some thing right, and he gets many things very wrong.

What’s wrong with universal background checks? Well, if further government encroachment on people’s lives isn’t that big a deal to you, it also makes owning a gun burdensome and diminishes the monetary value of the gun itself. Why? Doing a background check is expensive and time-consuming. Making it a requirement even to sell/transfer a gun to a friend, relative or immediate family member is basically a government taking of personal private property. And the benefit will be zero! A person giving a gun to a criminal isn’t going to obey this law!


#9

Well, what’s the use of passing any law if “a criminal isn’t going to obey the law” anyway?

Background checks for the transfer of something as inherently dangerous as a gun would seem to be a no-brainer for anyone equipped with common sense.


#10

Always slipping to the Left, never back to the Right. If you don’t slip with them you eventually become a far Right looney like me.


#11

“Shall not be infringed” anything that undermines hinders interferes with in any way, INFRINGES. PERIOD!!
If you support background checks you are for trashing the Constitution! The only way to Constitutionally interfere in any way with me obtaining, owning, and bearing arms of unlimited kind is to amend the Second Amendment.

But, what the hell, the Constitution has been so spun, mutilated, and foiled, it’s only a political gimmick anymore. For it’s original purpose, it’s DEAD!!


#12

So far I haven’t read anything that make compelling sense to me though I appreciate the responses. Pete…I just can’t see a background check as a taking.

We wish as a society to keep guns out of the hands of felons and mentally ill folks. We have commercial background checks that do this for all guns sold at retail. They take less than 15 minutes to complete. Making private weapons sales subject to the same conditions with a CONVENIENT and non-burdensome process…seems to me to be a good thing to help with SOME of the problem. Of course… some will still get guns who shouldn’t and without enforcement…none of it matters.

As to the notion of the 2nd amendment…or ANY amendment having no exceptions…that is nutso.
Try exercising your religious rites of human sacrifice and see how far you get. Yell fire in a theater. Incite to riot with your free speech.
Ditto guns. I can BEAR a mortar or a bazooka…or a stinger missile.

Hate to be on McCains side…but I guess he is not wrong about EVERYTHING…just everything else! :smiley:


#13

As to the notion of the 2nd amendment…or ANY amendment having no exceptions…that is nutso.

Yeah, that!

The hard right seems determined to paint itself into a political corner, with extremist positions on the Second Amendment, abortion, immigration and civil rights that alienate the vast majority of the electorate. The only question is whether common sense conservatives will allow the hard right to define and destroy the GOP.


#14

I’m about as pro-small government as one can be, and . . .

My stomach tends to turn everytime I hear McCain’s name. But, I’m with those who favor background checks - thorough ones - on EVERY RETAIL gun sale. That includes sales at gun shows. Will it make a difference? Probably little, if any, is my guess. However, as Cam has asked, how can one logically argue against taking such a step if there is a chance it might keep a gun out of the hands of a nut?

Where it gets sticky for me concerns the sale/trade/gift of a gun between private individuals - friends, family, neighbors. I have yet to hear of a mechanism that sets out how background checks would be conducted in such instances. More importantly, there would be no way to enforce the imposition of a background check in these private, non-retail, transactions.


#15

Cam, Having me wait while they do a background check on me is hindering (infringing) me in my endevor to purchase a firearm, an “arm”.

Oh, it says that, but it really doesn’t mean that! Now I get it. Our Constitution is just a collection of meaningless ramblings by a bunch of senile old white men.


#16

again I ask why you think the FEDERAL govt should be able to regulate intrastate sales


#17

Thats already the law, even at gun shows. The dubiously named “gun show loophole” is referring to private sales


#18

That’s the problem folks like Cam have. We’re only far right because they have allowed us to slip so far left. One little step at a time! Silly us for taking the Constitution as it’s written and not pointing out comma placement or the meaning of words in today’s usage vs. when the thing was written.


#19

Because this is 2nd amendment rights and not commerce clause rights. Sorry I missed the question the first time. And I don’t consider this a regulation of sales. I consider it a public safety issue. ANYONE may sell a gun to the POOL of BUYERS that is not disqualified from ownership on the grounds of public safety.


I’ll also respond to Doc Mike by saying that private exchanges between relatives and friends probably never can be captured…but frankly…I’m not all that concerned about those since it is unlikely that you’ll give Crazy Uncle Bill the means to annihilate his kin! :smiley:
I’m more concerned about private weapons being sold to unknown persons on Craigs List etc. and think a 15 minute check is not an unreasonable restraint of commerce.


While we dicker around with peripheral minor stuff like this… it is of little matter to me how it ends up as I think it will only have a minor impact on guns in the wrong hands…especially since not much happens to the 70k persons or so who FAIL on their applications already each year and have little or nothing done to them.
I’d much prefer we stopped playing defense and started driving for open carry everywhere and concealed carry honored by all states if granted by one. I’d also be looking to push the striking down of restrictive state and local laws like Cuomo’s and Bloombergs and Dickenloopers.


#20

There is no doubt background checks for private sales ARE constitutional but laws for intrastate private sales fall to the states. If the feds are allowed to run rampant over the 10th amendment in the interest of “public safety” it is a slippery slope with no stopping them. The federal govt wasnt able to make a law raising the drinking age to 21 under the guise of “public safety” they had to do an end run around the 10th amendment by denying highway funding to make that happen.