It appears that my current provider hires motherfuckers from Arrakis to serve you if you go to a repair center. They want to know if water was involved. They revere water, as it completely invalidates your repair contract.
Here’s more of The Yankee Marshall.
Well what did you expect from a phone technician named Stilgar?
Mick only thinks there was no water. They’ll find it when they check, oh my yes.
The water sensors are set for normal atmospheric moisture -50%, I swear.
The white sticker that turns pink doesn’t matter anymore…
you’ll have to look for it, but the phone insurance companies lost a court case over those stickers. It was proven that they will react to moisture in the air, perspiration, etc. So they cannot deny you coverage just based on that stupid sticker.
Actually, they already show pink-for-moisture when you get them–but nobody checks.
Except I did, this last time. >:-]
He gives water to the dead [phone]?
Dune references FTW.
The problem with this argument against gun laws is that although criminals don’t obey the laws, law-abiding citizens do, generally. So, a law requiring universal background checks would affect the ability of criminals to get guns. Background checks have helped prevent more than a million illegal sales, and requiring them for private sale will likely improve upon that while not restricting our rights. This proposed law is supported by more than 90% of the population, including the vast majority of gun owners. By blocking even that, the NRA risks having us marginalized, left out of the conversation because the rest of the country lumps us all together and decides we are too unreasonable, which in fact IS what the NRA is being. They do not represent me, and to my mind represent the biggestthreat to my rights.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/10/2130331/felon-in-maximum-security-prison-thanks-the-nra-for-making-it-easy-for-him-to-get-a-gun/
Man, you’ve got a really smooth mind.
I’ll believe the 90% number IF and WHEN I see the poll methodology, questions, sample size, and raw answer data.
Are the 90% that agree with “universal background checks” the same 90% that believe that having PRISM poke it’s nose into everything you do electronically? Can you cite your source for this magical 90% number? Because if I query ten associates who own firearms, nine of them are certainly NOT going to agree with the background checks. And, if you like, they can ask ten of their unrelated associates, and so on, and I believe that, at the end of the day, we won’t come up with 50%, much less 90%.
Geez. Should read before posting.
Are the 90% that agree with “universal background checks” the same 90% that believe that having PRISM poke it’s nose into everything you do electronically is OKAY?
The beautiful thing about that magical 90% number is that it is completely, utterly, and totally irrelevant. You see, we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Therefore, what 90% of the people agree with has absolutely no bearing on anything. Last time I checked, a lot of people liked Twilight. That doesn’t change the fact that the movies sucked.
Most people who bring up universal background checks do so to score points off of the NRA, not because they actually care to enact universal background checks. I say this because the reason the NRA no longer supports background checks (and why I don’t, and what seems to me to be the most common objection) is well-known, and the easiest way to pass any gun-related legislation has long been to address the NRA’s concerns. You may have noticed that these concerns weren’t mentioned in the article you linked, nor in almost any article covering the issue. I’ve covered them here before, but for the benefit of anybody who missed it, I’ll outline the key problem.
Under Federal law, the paperwork (including Form 4473) from a completed sale must be kept by the FFL for 20 years. However, the ATF is NOT permitted to keep them itself, with the exception that a FFL that goes out of business must turn over its records to the ATF. This is because those records, in government hands, are de facto gun registration. Despite the law explicitly forbidding it, the ATF has been making photographic copies of these records and keeping them, including entering them into a database for easier retrieval. The ATF uses the excuse that it is for ongoing law-enforcement purposes, but no exception exists in the law for that or any other purpose.
TL;DR: The ATF is violating Federal law in order to enact gun registration, and nobody is stopping them. This is what changed between 1999, when the NRA supported universal background checks, and now, when they oppose them.
If you really want to see universal background checks, push to enforce the law and stop the ATF from keeping these records. Complaining about the NRA opposing background checks is at best a demonstration of ignorance and at worst a lie by omission. (I have a strong suspicion which of these thinkprogress.org is doing.)
As an aside, the fact that the NRA’s policies are not supported by some or even most of its constituency is neither unprecedented nor unexpected. This has happened a number of times in the past, most notably with the “Saturday Night Special”/”junk guns” issue from a few years back. (See also the AWB, “cop-killer bullets”, the Brady Bill, etc.) All this indicates is that the NRA pays more attention to the worldwide history of gun control than many of its members do, and acts accordingly in its members’ best interest. I don’t know about you, but that’s what I’d expect them, or any advocacy group, to do.
Hello, “Owen”.
You are pulling facts and numbers out of your ass. Instead of showing us how much you are a ‘progressive’ thinker, give us facts first. Oh, that’s right, you can’t give us real stats. It’s easy to attack the NRA; and while the NRA is what it is and certainly isn’t full of angels, it’s too easy of a target. I thought progressives were about “progressive” thinking instead of finger pointing? You and your ilk are a shame on what progressive thinking really is. Watch that, this is why.
Have a nice day, shill.
Friggin Yankee Marshal. Four hours last night. Grr.
I don’t know if you read it or not J, but Look for a study entitled Violent Encounters done by the FBI back in 2006. Very eye opening read. Especially the portion where most of the inmates questioned and studied don’t care about gun laws because they’ll just break into a house to get them. Or the fact that most of those in the study has broken many laws before with little consequence.
I’m personally a firm believer in no new gun laws, enforce the ones we have on the books already.
HAH! I keep forgetting that he’s called YankeeMarshall on his youtube. That’s Playboy Penguin from my local forum; http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum.php more pearls of wisdom from him there too. He’s a good guy all around.
Re phones, I first ran into this situation when my wife got her BlackBerry soaked at an amusement park. If I’m not mistaken, if you get the equipment protection through Best Buy, they’ll cover even water damage. I won’t swear to that, but I remember their plan was better than the carrier’s on several points. Regardless, in today’s world of phones with no keys, bluetooth accessories, non-serviceable batteries, and induction charging, they should all be made waterproof anyway. Because seriously, how much could that possibly add to the cost?
On Yankee Marshall, I doubt I’m the only one around here that thinks that codified laws should only exist where natural law exists. Owen managed to hit all of the stale talking points concerning background checks, didn’t he? Does anyone else wonder where that arbitrary 90% came from, and does anyone actually buy it? Because more background checks would totally keep people from stealing guns from legal gun owners. If your house gets burglarized, you’ll find your empty safe with a filled out 4473 laying next to it. Yeah. That will work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCzCJzTRtPc&NR=1&feature=endscreen
That makes an interesting point. England’s death rate is rising even after they’ve introduced strict gun laws. America’s death rate is falling.
Correlation does not equal causation.
As convenient as I find those statistics for my views, I must, in good conscience, warn against drawing parallels between seemingly similar countries like the US and Britain. As Kellerman & Reay accidentally showed in 1988, even Seattle and Vancouver deviate enough in details to greatly complicate (if not invalidate) comparisons between them. While many sociologists do draw a link between fewer guns and more crime, and while I like that conclusion personally, it’s a heinously complex issue with many confounding factors.
Oh no, that’s not the point of those statistics at all. It’s not that “fewer guns means more crime”, it’s that “fewer guns does NOT mean LESS crime”.
Fair enough. A pity that hasn’t lead to more people turning from pushing gun control to examining more effective ways of reducing crime. The cynic in me would think that perhaps gun control has little to do with its stated goal of decreasing crime…
And thank you for the lead in, Vyk! 😉
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Gun control is victim disarmament, not crime control. The only reason anyone has to disarm people is because hey want to do something to those people, WHICH THEY COULD NOT DO, if those people were armed.
No background checks, no gun laws, repeal everything back through (and including) 1934 NFA, and let the chips fall where they may. I am willing to bet, (even stake my life on it), the crime rate will plummet, there will be far fewer criminals (after 6-12 months) and we will have a much safer, politer society. As a society, we got along fine before this fascist, sexist, racist, “kinder, gentler nation” gun control garbage. B ut It’s not about controlling guns. World history will bear out that gun control always precedes disarmament and in the end is about people control, especially minorities and dissidents.
Is it any wonder that the biggest gun control (victim disarmament) acts have been rammed through by the politicians making the biggest power grabs? Provable, and proven historical fact, BTW. Roosevelt–New Deal, gold seizure(!) and National Firearms Act, 1934. Lyndon Baines Johnson–Taking us back off of the silver standard, initiating, expanding and perpetuating Vietnam War, expanding American Intelligence services, HUGELY expanding “social welfare” programs, increasing taxes, et cetera. All backed by the Gun Control Act of 1968.
By their OWN ADMISSIONS, government cannot be trusted to defend us. In truth, government simply cannot be trusted. We must retain that sacred duty for ourselves, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is the means by which ALL people can carry out that duty.
Right on, hon. I’d say “testify” but I really don’t want to bring some male into the house solely for the use of his nuts.
I believe the more accurate statement would be: “Decreasing crime has little to do with gun control”.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/
• Washington Post-ABC News poll, April 11-14, 2013: “Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?” Support: 86 percent. Oppose: 13 percent.
• CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, April 5-7, 2013: “Some proposals would require a background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine whether the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony or has a mental health problem. Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for a prospective gun buyer under each of the following circumstances. … If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun at a gun show.” Favor: 83 percent. Oppose: 17 percent.
• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. “Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?” Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.
• CBS News poll, March 20-24, 2013. “Would you favor or oppose background checks on all potential gun buyers?” Favor: 90 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.
Who’s been pwned? 🙂
Sample sizes may or may not be available for those polls, but where were the polls conducted? What were the geographic and demographic details? It does make a difference.
I didn’t answer his questions this time because I’m not going to waste my time speaking with someone who resorts to ad hominem attacks when they receive an answer they don’t like, especially when the guy is just shilling for big government.
Background checks set up the infrastructure for disarmament, and do nothing to stop criminals. Can’t buy from an FFL dealer, fine, buy from a gunshow; close that loophole, fine, they buy from an estate sale; close that, they just steal the damned thing in a burglary, or buy from another thug.
“Background checks set up the infrastructure for disarmament,…”.
How? The data isn’t saved. So please explain how your rights are violated by a background check? Especially as it is an “existing law”, that we simply wish to include all sales in instead of just dealers.
As for criminals getting guns; isn’t making it harder for criminals to get them a good idea? Why make it easy on them? The guns had to come from legal side somehow, isn’t closing those routes a good idea?
Oh, and disagreeing with you isn’t an ad hominem attack.
You know, the reason I called you out as a troll, and the reason I agree with Karina’s assessment of you as a shill is because you mock people when you dislike their answer, and you ignore facts which do not fit your pre-conceived conclusions. Every purchase involves registration.
Infringement is exactly what these acts are, because they cut into a right which is absolute. I suspect you will disagree with that. If you really have that difficult a time comprehending plain fucking English, then run for office and be a senator, because you’re qualified.
I’ve already answered all of your questions, if you’ll be honest with yourself and actually read. In the meantime, I’ve had enough of your selective data, your attempts at catch-22 questions, your shilling and intellectual whoring for big mama government. I’m going elsewhere. I may keep following the strip, but I’m tired of the psuedo-intellectual dihonesty.
Oh, and If you really want to hear some horrifying facts, go here. Michael sums it up pretty well, and articulates very smoothly most of the points I’ve been trying to make.
http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/the-post-in-which-i-piss-off-everybody
“the data isn’t saved”
Yes it is. On the 4473. That is required to be kept in the FFL’s bound book for a minimum of 20 years by Federal law, and it’s turned over to the ATF if the owner goes out of business.
The ATF is not allowed by law to make a registry from it (see the Gun Owner Protection Act), but when would that stop them? This is the same organization that ran guns to Mexico and has been directly responsible for the deaths of numerous Americans and Mexicans alike. You think a law is going to stop them, like a law will stop a criminal?
Background checks won’t stop criminals, dude. You don’t understand that. Criminals don’t get their guns from a dealer or at a gun show. They’re stolen, or purchased from someone who stole them (black market), or smuggled in. Where do you think Larry and Emil got their fully automatic weapons from? Smuggled in, especially since every single firearm and magazine (let alone the illegal modifications) they used at the time were banned by Federal law.
“When would that stop them?” It already hasn’t; see my post above about the ATF illegally taking data from dealers’ log books while inspecting them. It’s exactly the fact that the data IS being saved that is behind the NRA and others moving from supporting universal background checks to opposing them.
The common thread here was that people were pulling the 90% statistic out of their ass. I believe that Owen did a bang-up job of putting that shit to rest.
Do agree with the poll results? Fuck no. I am against all background checks. But I have to admit, Owen did a damn good job of knocking it out of the park. The 90% statistic is not snatched from the ether of imagination.
AND YET – Those numbers vanished the very next day. (link goes to Washington Post and Pew polling)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/postpew-poll-background-checks-demise-disappoints/2013/04/24/2456df28-acce-11e2-9493-2ff3bf26c4b4_page.html
So explain to me how a background check “infringes” on your rights. How does it “disarm” anyone that can legally own a gun?
And please explain how background checks means “less guns”, instead of “less guns in illegal hands”.
You apparently like statisics try and find this one. How many people who were stopped from purchasing a gun by a backround check were subsiquently arrested for that illeagal action? Here is a hint, there is no number because it is too rare an occurance. So how are more backround checks going to change this?
Failing a background check is not itself illegal.
According to a letter from House GOP leaders saying to enforce existing laws, in 2010 alone background checks at dealers stopped more than 76,000 illegal sales, of which some 4,000 were investigated further and 62 were prosecuted. So in one year, tens of thousands of illegal sales were prevented, so how many more if we required background checks on the other 40% of sales that are done privately, especially as someone that knows they will fail can still go to a show or online and buy one from a private seller.
So how does going through a background check, which you already have to do if you buy through a dealer, violate your rights?
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/every-objection-to-background-checks-debunked.html
The data is meaningless. You can fail a background check for a number of reasons. If you have a number of unpaid parking tickets, for example, you can fail a background check, even though you are not a prohibited person.
A background check failure has no punishment for it because it’s not a crime. The sale was stopped, therefore you never took possession of the firearm.
THIS. You can fail a 4473 for failing to spell out the entire name of your county rather than the common county abbreviation. My county calls itself “MultCo.” It’s name is “Multnomah County.” MultCo is on almost everything, from the library to ballots to official building signs.
We also constantly write our city “PDX.” The mayor calls it that. The city council calls it that. It’s on official forms, our official website and is the code for everything from Amtrak to Greyhound. The post office even grudgingly calls it that. Write that on a 4473 and it gets kicked back, because this is Portland.
Failed purchases are not necessarily cases of bad guys trying to get guns. They are nothing more than a sale that didn’t go through for one of hundreds of reasons.
Unfortunately, data doesn’t seem to be readily available on why people fail background checks. How many of the failures are due to unpaid tickets or using an incorrect address, versus how many involved intentionally falsifying data on a federal form in order to attempt to purchase a firearm for which they were ineligible? 62 is a very important number. It may be that only 62 rejections were actually due to somebody illegally attempting to purchase a firearm, but in that case, that’s only 62 successes, not 76,000. It may be that only 62 people were prosecuted out of some larger number of people who illegally attempted to purchase a firearm, in which case we’re failing to enforce existing law. (The statement that 4000 out of 76,000 were investigated further suggests the latter to me.) In either event, 62 out of 14,409,616 is a pathetic number; so pathetic that it becomes hard to justify NICS at all, on both a cost/benefit basis and a civil-liberties basis.
I’ll stomp in here.
The entire concept of incarceration, in the USA, is that once you’ve done your time, you’ve paid your societal debt. But convicted felons are denied their 2nd amendment rights, and voting rights, for life. And I personally think that’s bullshit.
I have no problem with convicted felons buying guns, after they’re done with their time. No problem at all. Here’s why.
The top three reasons convicted felons are busted on parole are:
– Drug possession
– Alcohol possession
– Firearms possession
The law isn’t stopping them. It’s not. Convicted felons, after they get out of prison, end up buying and owning firearms. Which some of them get caught for. I will wager that most don’t.
The law is apparently against the concept of felons owning guns. Sorry, but, it doesn’t work. The felons end up finding and owning guns anyway. They have the guns. What are we afraid of? That if felons get firearms, they’ll use them for more crimes? THEY ALREADY HAVE THE GUNS.
Fuck all of this prohibition. Let the felons have guns. If they commit a crime AGAIN, lock ’em up.
Well, some states do allow them to regain the right, whether automatically or by petition. Whether or not you agree with it though, losing it permanently is Constitutional, as it follows due process of law. But to say we should let them do so legally because they are going to break the law anyway is a bit odd. I mean, as you say, many get caught breaking the law in violation of parole, aren’t those the ones we really ought to be keeping guns away from, since they won’t follow the law already? This is why the “criminals don’t follow laws” meme isn’t applicable in this case; it isn’t about a criminal obeying the law, but a law-abiding citizen doing so and performing a background check before selling a gun to someone that lies to them about being allowed to own a gun. Lock them up if they commit another crime? They already did, they bought a gun.
Owen –
Which article/clause of the Constitution allows the rights defined within the Constitution to be abrogated by Due Process?
There is nothing I can find in the Constitution that allows any right to be denied. No where does it say ‘Convicted Criminals can’t Vote. Or own guns. Or worship freely. Or Peaceably assemble.
For many years, I was a proponent that felons shouldn’t be able to buy guns. I was also a proponent that once out of jail, they should get their voting rights back. Then I realized that, essentially, these were the same root issue.
I’m honestly not sure how I feel about Background checks. Hell, I have to have a Background check to get a job or to get on an airplane. Yes, BG checks do stop some people who ‘society at large’ might feel are incapable of being responsible gun owners – but all the statistics I’ve seen show that the majority (certainly, not all) of gun crime is not committed by otherwise law-abiding citizen who are simply incapable of responsible gun use, but by people who’ve already demonstrated wanton abandonment of laws.
The one statistic I have yet to see are stats on how many gun crimes were committed with guns where the shooter was in legal possession of the firearm vs crimes where the shooter was NOT in legal possession of the firearm. I have friends on both the US Marshal’s Service and BATF – and the both tell me even THEY can’t get that statistic (though they don’t know if it’s because it doesn’t exist, or because they’re just not ‘cleared’ to see it).
And, honestly, I think any discussion about BG checks or Firearms Registration or really DEMANDS this statistic be examined.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Right there. As part of the laws regarding sentencing, part of your sentence is to lose various rights. Felons in prison certainly don’t have the right to own a gun, do they? They can’t vote, either. If the law so provides, conviction for crimes can include the loss of rights and that they not be gained back. That’s what all the fuss about felons voting was all about.
I’m not sure what value there is in citing statistics anymore, seeing as how the last time even when documented they are doubted. But a quick google found that according to one study in CT of 290 cases where the origen of the gun was identified and the shooter identified, more than 85% were committed by person unable to legally purchase a firearm, even though all firearms started out with legal sales through a dealer. I’m pretty sure in fact that the corollary, that legal gun owners rarely use them commit crimes, has often been used as justification for expanding carry rights (which I agree with). So I do not think it accurate to say that no one ever releases that data.
Impeccably logical.
And this is quite possibly the biggest load of horseshit I’ve ever heard. Why as a felon do you lose a bunch of rights? Yes, lose them while you’re in prison — but afterwords, as you put it, you’ve paid your debt. I can only see revoking the rights for someone who’s been convicted of seriously capital crimes, like murder, manslaughter, etc. — a very heinous crime where violence and threat to life & limb has been involved. But it’s not just losing the 2nd that bothers me, it’s losing other rights — like the right to vote. What does that accomplish?
If you do not trust the government, try living where they don’t have one. Have fun.
Go away, TROLL!
Interesting that you would list these as the only two possible options. Personally, I don’t trust our government. I don’t trust the people running it. I don’t trust the vast majority of the people working for it. I don’t even trust that they have the citizens’ best interests at heart while running it. That being said, it is my duty as an American citizen to keep a watchful eye on that government. It is my duty to not trust the government. I am honor bound, both by our constitution, as well as my sworn oath to uphold and defend it, to watch our government like a hawk. When I see those currently in power attempting to subvert that which I have sworn to defend, I am required to fight back. I leave you with quotes from three men that were far more knowledgeable on this subject than I am.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
Patrick Henry
“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, (A)nd if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”
Thomas Jefferson
“Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”
James Garfield, the twentieth president of the United States, 1877
I hope “interesting” was intended as sarcasm. Owen has already demonstrated a lack of understanding that a government can be effective without being all-encompassing; it doesn’t surprise me that this includes controlling the populace to the point of mandating trust. Meanwhile, I think your quotes adequately demonstrated that mistrusting the government has been considered to be the height of patriotism since the foundation of our country. It’s a shame that people seem to feel oppositely now.
I must have missed where I said it had to be all-encompassing. Nor do I get where you think I said that they should mandate trust in the government. These are straw man arguments. But I do disagree that to always distrust the government, no matter what, is “patriotic”, or that it was ever held so. Especially when, as it seems often, the distrust is because one side lost the election.
And where on this planet might that be?
The place must have people, though. Saying there’s no government in a place where there are no humans is a–well I forget what they call that in debate, but it’s an automatic disqualification.
Seriously, show me a place with people but no government.
Interestingly, it seems the water obsession persists even when it is irrelevant.
My wife’s phone died a couple of months ago. We weren’t sure why. They kept asking if it might have been water damage. We said “maybe…we don’t know”. We kept insisting, truthfully, that it might have been water or it might have had nothing to do with water.
Eventually, they just declared that it was water damage. And then they replaced it. Because in _our_ insurance policy, there’s no coverage exclusion for water. But they _still_ had to have a verdict on the whole “water or no water” question, even though they were going to cover the replacement either way.