|
Post by imkat on Jun 15, 2016 1:35:03 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:10:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2016 1:38:50 GMT
I tend to agree and have no idea if there's an organization out there that can compete with the reach and pockets of the NRA. I hope there will be one, though--and the sooner the better.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 15, 2016 1:47:03 GMT
The problem is that there is no money in *not* selling guns. No one benefits financially. The NRA has deep pockets precisely because it is backed by people who have something to sell. It's American corporatism dressed up as an organization designed to protect your rights.
|
|
happymomma
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Aug 6, 2014 23:57:56 GMT
|
Post by happymomma on Jun 15, 2016 1:51:13 GMT
I would think that with so many feeling so passionately about this subject, if they are serious they would be happy to donate money, form an organization, hold events, etc. for the cause. It's a great idea for those seeking change and I'm quite surprised that one doesn't already exist.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:10:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2016 1:52:51 GMT
I would think that with so many feeling so passionately about this subject, if they are serious they would be happy to donate money, form an organization, hold events, etc. for the cause. It's a great idea for those seeking change and I'm quite surprised that one doesn't already exist. See Merge's post above.
|
|
happymomma
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Aug 6, 2014 23:57:56 GMT
|
Post by happymomma on Jun 15, 2016 2:04:09 GMT
I would think that with so many feeling so passionately about this subject, if they are serious they would be happy to donate money, form an organization, hold events, etc. for the cause. It's a great idea for those seeking change and I'm quite surprised that one doesn't already exist. See Merge's post above. Well, MADD isn't selling anything either, as far as I know. There are other like organizations that band together for a cause such as GLAAD, NAACP, etc. as well as celebrity-led groups like Farm Aid and a host of others. I'm sure there are rich people and celebrities who feel the need for gun control that can band together and use their influence and money to start this movement. Not to mention the many many citizens that feel strongly about this. There is strength in numbers and this is an excellent idea.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 15, 2016 2:09:19 GMT
Well, MADD isn't selling anything either, as far as I know. There are other like organizations that band together for a cause such as GLAAD, NAACP, etc. as well as celebrity-led groups like Farm Aid and a host of others. I'm sure there are rich people and celebrities who feel the need for gun control that can band together and use their influence and money to start this movement. Not to mention the many many citizens that feel strongly about this. There is strength in numbers and this is an excellent idea. None of the organizations you name has anywhere close to the political clout of the NRA.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 15, 2016 2:13:38 GMT
Not sure if this is your article link, I could not open it, but here is one:
"What will it take to counter the NRA? Jun 12, 2016 11:45pm EDT by mnkh Comment large8 4 After this latest horror, we know that reasonable gun control steps are desperately needed.
But we have been here before -- after Sandy Hook, after Gabby Giffords -- too many times to count.
But even when the public outcry has been at its highest, efforts to produce even modest legislative steps have been blocked by the NRA.
The NRA has for decades been the most powerful and most feared lobbying organization in Washington. Lawmakers considering gun control legislation are scared to death of NRA retaliation. Any major legislation that the NRA opposes stands little or no chance of passage.
The NRA has blocked a ban on assault weapons and a ban on high-capacity magazine clips. The NRA has been able to defeat universal background checks despite the fact that there is overwhelming popular support for them even among gun owners -- even among NRA members.
How is this possible and what can be done to change it?
The NRA is an incredibly effective machine for controlling gun policy. It boasts five million dues-paying members. It has hundreds of millions in annual revenue. It spends tens of millions on every election cycle. It pays for at least a half-dozen federal lobbyists and funds lawsuits and legal actions across the country to block and oppose any steps to regulate guns. In 2010, the NRA spent more than $240 million dollars more than the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the biggest spender among gun control groups.
The NRA keeps close track of friends and enemies, takes names and makes lists, identifying which legislators are with them or against them. They can swarm local, state, or Congressional offices with phone calls with a single rallying cry sent to its membership.
They have a relationship with its members that makes them a key part of their members' lives. While few people vote for candidates simply because they are pro-gun control, the NRA can deliver millions who will vote against candidates on that issue alone.
So how can we expect to get the kind of improvement in gun laws we need under these circumstances?
In my opinion, we will never achieve progress unless we have an organization to counterbalance the NRA -- an organization with a comparable size and commitment of membership, with comparable revenue and spending, and with the hardball tactics that the NRA excels at. In other words, an entity that lawmakers can fear when they don't support gun control as much as they fear the NRA when they do.
1. We need to reduce the fragmentation of the pro-gun control movement.
While there are other pro-gun groups, the NRA is clearly the alpha dog on that side. On our side, things are divided between the Brady Center, Moms Demand Action, Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Gabby Giffords' Americans for Responsible Action.
I have to believe that this diffuses the effort and that some way to effectively combine forces is needed.
2. We need an organization with committed dues-paying members.
Can we not get an NRA-like organization where people who support reasonable gun legislation can commit $40 or $50 a year in dues to fund this effort? If the NRA can get 5 million such members, can our side not get 5 to 10 million who have a similar commitment?
We should have a membership that can counter the NRA with our own automobile decals proudly proclaiming our support for reasonable gun laws. We should have a culture that -- like the other side -- takes pride in such a membership as a way of expressing our views and asserting our influence on the society we live in.
3. We need to match the discipline of the NRA.
Their side has the benefit of a certain simplicity of strategy. They oppose anything that would restrict gun ownership and usage. Our side will have to discipline itself to agree to support one single initiative at a time and commit ourselves to vote for candidates on the basis of that commitment.
4. We need to embrace tactics that will make lawmakers afraid.
We need to commit to identify lawmakers as enemies, go after them without mercy, spend aggressively, and commit to organized, orchestrated shows of force via telephone and email campaigns.
5. We need to be persistent.
We have to play catch up. We have to maintain consistent passion in between peaks of public interest. We have to know that the other side will only redouble their efforts in the face of a challenge and expect it to back down -- as it has in the past.
How can this happen?
I don't know. I don't mean to disparage the groups that have made the efforts they have to support gun control activities.
But I want to say to them that I am ready to be part of an army of supporters to match -- and hopefully exceed -- the army that the NRA has on hand.
If an organization will step forward and embrace an NRA-type movement with no-back-down tactics, I'll be there -- dues, phone calls, bumper stickers and all. "
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:10:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2016 2:13:45 GMT
happymomma I understand some of what you're saying, but I do think that the difference with MADD and some of the other groups you mentioned is that they didn't start out with huge corporate interests and deep corporate pockets against them. I do agree that it's time for anyone who wants a change to work harder and do more. Just not sure that sure that the $ of private citizens can outfund corporate $.
|
|
Sarah*H
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,973
Jun 25, 2014 20:07:06 GMT
|
Post by Sarah*H on Jun 15, 2016 2:18:45 GMT
Moms Demand Gun Sense is the organization that many of my liberal friends talk about.
|
|
happymomma
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Aug 6, 2014 23:57:56 GMT
|
Post by happymomma on Jun 15, 2016 2:28:44 GMT
happymomma I understand some of what you're saying, but I do think that the difference with MADD and some of the other groups you mentioned is that they didn't start out with huge corporate interests and deep corporate pockets against them. I do agree that it's time for anyone who wants a change to work harder and do more. Just not sure that sure that the $ of private citizens can outfund corporate $. All I can say is...gotta start somewhere, I guess. It surely won't succeed if it doesn't exist, right? I understand your point as well, but unless I'm misjudging the amount of people that are clamoring for change, I think an organization like this, if started, would quickly pick up steam and support. Just my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:10:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2016 2:35:45 GMT
Moms Demand Gun Sense is the organization that many of my liberal friends talk about. I have given to them and to Everytown. I think they are affiliated or work together. I need to get more active and involved with them beyond just donations. happymomma , I don't disagree with you about starting somewhere. I think Everytown/MomsDemandGunSense is an excellent start but just doesn't have the political pull and money that the NRA has. I hope that changes ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by mirabelleswalker on Jun 15, 2016 3:35:39 GMT
Every Town for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense, and Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns are all part of the same organization.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Jun 15, 2016 7:14:36 GMT
Every Town for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense, and Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns are all part of the same organization. I despise the NRA, yet I have never heard of any of these counter groups
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 15, 2016 14:44:33 GMT
Every Town for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense, and Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns are all part of the same organization. I despise the NRA, yet I have never heard of any of these counter groups I've heard conversation (suggesting) that these kinds of groups merge to have more impact .
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jun 15, 2016 16:15:26 GMT
Personally, I think the problem is the bias and propaganda that goes into this topic from both sides. So much so that real discussion is very difficult.
Consider how people here on this forum blame the NRA for the lack of passage of many "reasonable" gun control bills. The problem is that the bills are not being represented correctly or fully. Case in point is HR 226:
That sounds perfectly reasonable. I know I would vote for that. But "the devil's in the details" as they say. The bill went on to include a component to "reduce the number of privately owned weapons" ... "have law abiding U.S. citizens “surrender” their legally owned firearms in exchange for a $2,000 tax credit spread out over 2 years ($1,000 per year)" The bill would amend the IRS code. (Now we have a federal agency with the power of confiscation involved.) The inclusion of words that encourage law-abiding citizens to turn in their legally obtained weapons is not designed to get NRA support. And the authors of the bill know this.
So, now they can hold a press conference and tell their constituents "hey, we tried" and once again talk down that evil NRA and the evil Republicans all while making brownie points to their constituents.
It happens on the other side of the aisle as well. I keep wondering when these idiots are going to start proposing bills with a very narrow focus so they can get passed.
I can only encourage people to look a little deeper than the articles in Mother Jones or Slate or Fox for their information on legislation of all types. It is not always as represented.
Let's talk about the discussion to tie gun sales to the no-fly list. I can only say that this is another media circus grab, accompanied by an "are you kidding?" How many times have we seen evidence of the ridiculously sloppy work that the no-fly list represents? Babies, toddlers, and people who have no business being on the list are included. Even the ACLU is against using it for anything serious. They have a big article "Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms" on their site: www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms
I believe you also need to look at the sensitivity involved in the resistance that you see. Remember the IRS targeting conservative groups and how that was denied, denied, denied? Until they finally admitted it. Yes, about 400 groups were targeted by this administration's IRS, they finally admitted.
And how about the State Department trying to cover up their tracks in the Official Government Record of the Iran talks? They erased 8 minutes of tape. (I believe they were caught in the last few days in another erasure, but don't have time to go look it up.) At first it was just a "glitch" and then they admitted it had been ordered. thehill.com/policy/national-security/283105-iran-video-dispute-part-of-pattern-at-state-department
This administration has earned a great deal of distrust by a whole lot of people, so looking to tie gun laws into lists will be met with a great deal of well-deserved resistance. After all, how many people would be put on the list "by accident" or as part of a "glitch" and how long (if ever) would it take to clear your name?
|
|
|
Post by Meri-Lyn on Jun 15, 2016 16:23:42 GMT
Moms Demand Gun Sense is the organization that many of my liberal friends talk about. Everytown for Gun Safety is another, that I follow. Everytown
|
|
|
Post by mirabelleswalker on Jun 15, 2016 16:29:19 GMT
Every Town for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense, and Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns are all part of the same organization. I despise the NRA, yet I have never heard of any of these counter groups They have a large presence on social media. You can follow them on Facebook or subscribe to their emails. They send out a lot of action alerts and sponsor marches and rallies. In fact, there is a lobby day planned for next Wednesday in Sacramento.
|
|
happymomma
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Aug 6, 2014 23:57:56 GMT
|
Post by happymomma on Jun 15, 2016 18:29:29 GMT
Personally, I think the problem is the bias and propaganda that goes into this topic from both sides. So much so that real discussion is very difficult.
Consider how people here on this forum blame the NRA for the lack of passage of many "reasonable" gun control bills. The problem is that the bills are not being represented correctly or fully. Case in point is HR 226:
That sounds perfectly reasonable. I know I would vote for that. But "the devil's in the details" as they say. The bill went on to include a component to "reduce the number of privately owned weapons" ... "have law abiding U.S. citizens “surrender” their legally owned firearms in exchange for a $2,000 tax credit spread out over 2 years ($1,000 per year)" The bill would amend the IRS code. (Now we have a federal agency with the power of confiscation involved.) The inclusion of words that encourage law-abiding citizens to turn in their legally obtained weapons is not designed to get NRA support. And the authors of the bill know this.
So, now they can hold a press conference and tell their constituents "hey, we tried" and once again talk down that evil NRA and the evil Republicans all while making brownie points to their constituents.
It happens on the other side of the aisle as well. I keep wondering when these idiots are going to start proposing bills with a very narrow focus so they can get passed.
I can only encourage people to look a little deeper than the articles in Mother Jones or Slate or Fox for their information on legislation of all types. It is not always as represented.
Let's talk about the discussion to tie gun sales to the no-fly list. I can only say that this is another media circus grab, accompanied by an "are you kidding?" How many times have we seen evidence of the ridiculously sloppy work that the no-fly list represents? Babies, toddlers, and people who have no business being on the list are included. Even the ACLU is against using it for anything serious. They have a big article "Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms" on their site: www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms
I believe you also need to look at the sensitivity involved in the resistance that you see. Remember the IRS targeting conservative groups and how that was denied, denied, denied? Until they finally admitted it. Yes, about 400 groups were targeted by this administration's IRS, they finally admitted.
And how about the State Department trying to cover up their tracks in the Official Government Record of the Iran talks? They erased 8 minutes of tape. (I believe they were caught in the last few days in another erasure, but don't have time to go look it up.) At first it was just a "glitch" and then they admitted it had been ordered. thehill.com/policy/national-security/283105-iran-video-dispute-part-of-pattern-at-state-department
This administration has earned a great deal of distrust by a whole lot of people, so looking to tie gun laws into lists will be met with a great deal of well-deserved resistance. After all, how many people would be put on the list "by accident" or as part of a "glitch" and how long (if ever) would it take to clear your name?
If I could give this post something bigger than a thumbs up I would. BeckyTech, your posts are always respectful and chock full of common sense and logic. If only everyone here would calmly and reasonably debate in such a way it would be a much better place. Instead people want to go off half cocked and full of misinformation in an attacking way. That's why brainstorming for a solution can't happen. Thank you for this post and your other sensible posts.
|
|
|
Post by gmcwife1 on Jun 15, 2016 20:21:20 GMT
Personally, I think the problem is the bias and propaganda that goes into this topic from both sides. So much so that real discussion is very difficult.
Consider how people here on this forum blame the NRA for the lack of passage of many "reasonable" gun control bills. The problem is that the bills are not being represented correctly or fully. Case in point is HR 226:
That sounds perfectly reasonable. I know I would vote for that. But "the devil's in the details" as they say. The bill went on to include a component to "reduce the number of privately owned weapons" ... "have law abiding U.S. citizens “surrender” their legally owned firearms in exchange for a $2,000 tax credit spread out over 2 years ($1,000 per year)" The bill would amend the IRS code. (Now we have a federal agency with the power of confiscation involved.) The inclusion of words that encourage law-abiding citizens to turn in their legally obtained weapons is not designed to get NRA support. And the authors of the bill know this.
So, now they can hold a press conference and tell their constituents "hey, we tried" and once again talk down that evil NRA and the evil Republicans all while making brownie points to their constituents.
It happens on the other side of the aisle as well. I keep wondering when these idiots are going to start proposing bills with a very narrow focus so they can get passed.
I can only encourage people to look a little deeper than the articles in Mother Jones or Slate or Fox for their information on legislation of all types. It is not always as represented.
Let's talk about the discussion to tie gun sales to the no-fly list. I can only say that this is another media circus grab, accompanied by an "are you kidding?" How many times have we seen evidence of the ridiculously sloppy work that the no-fly list represents? Babies, toddlers, and people who have no business being on the list are included. Even the ACLU is against using it for anything serious. They have a big article "Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms" on their site: www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms
I believe you also need to look at the sensitivity involved in the resistance that you see. Remember the IRS targeting conservative groups and how that was denied, denied, denied? Until they finally admitted it. Yes, about 400 groups were targeted by this administration's IRS, they finally admitted.
And how about the State Department trying to cover up their tracks in the Official Government Record of the Iran talks? They erased 8 minutes of tape. (I believe they were caught in the last few days in another erasure, but don't have time to go look it up.) At first it was just a "glitch" and then they admitted it had been ordered. thehill.com/policy/national-security/283105-iran-video-dispute-part-of-pattern-at-state-department
This administration has earned a great deal of distrust by a whole lot of people, so looking to tie gun laws into lists will be met with a great deal of well-deserved resistance. After all, how many people would be put on the list "by accident" or as part of a "glitch" and how long (if ever) would it take to clear your name?
If I could give this post something bigger than a thumbs up I would. BeckyTech, your posts are always respectful and chock full of common sense and logic. If only everyone here would calmly and reasonably debate in such a way it would be a much better place. Instead people want to go off half cocked and full of misinformation in an attacking way. That's why brainstorming for a solution can't happen. Thank you for this post and your other sensible posts. I completely agree
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 15, 2016 21:26:25 GMT
Personally, I think the problem is the bias and propaganda that goes into this topic from both sides. So much so that real discussion is very difficult.
Consider how people here on this forum blame the NRA for the lack of passage of many "reasonable" gun control bills. The problem is that the bills are not being represented correctly or fully. Case in point is HR 226:
That sounds perfectly reasonable. I know I would vote for that. But "the devil's in the details" as they say. The bill went on to include a component to "reduce the number of privately owned weapons" ... "have law abiding U.S. citizens “surrender” their legally owned firearms in exchange for a $2,000 tax credit spread out over 2 years ($1,000 per year)" The bill would amend the IRS code. (Now we have a federal agency with the power of confiscation involved.) The inclusion of words that encourage law-abiding citizens to turn in their legally obtained weapons is not designed to get NRA support. And the authors of the bill know this.
So, now they can hold a press conference and tell their constituents "hey, we tried" and once again talk down that evil NRA and the evil Republicans all while making brownie points to their constituents.
It happens on the other side of the aisle as well. I keep wondering when these idiots are going to start proposing bills with a very narrow focus so they can get passed.
I can only encourage people to look a little deeper than the articles in Mother Jones or Slate or Fox for their information on legislation of all types. It is not always as represented.
At your encouragement, BeckyTech , I have indeed looked a little deeper. I found some information that seems to conflict with what you're saying above, which I'm hoping you can clarify. First, I found the summary of HB 226, introduced in early 2015, which appears to have died in committee. It is title the Keeping Guns from High Risk Individuals Act and includes the language you quote above. It does not, however, seem to say anything about a tax credit to surrender weapons. Here's the full text of the bill from the congress website. It does not appear to have had any amendments. Maybe you can point out or link me to the part you mention about tax credits and gun surrender, because I seem to be missing it. Now, I did find an HB 226 that was introduced by a different member of congress in 2013 that proposes tax credits for voluntary surrender of certain types of weapons, but as far as I can tell, it's not related to or tied to the 2015 bill except in the coincidence of sharing the same number. It also died in committee. Here's the text of that bill.I'll admit that I'm not an expert on congressional procedures, so maybe you can explain to me how a completely separate bill that died in committee in 2013 played a part in the death of what you term a completely reasonable bill introduced by a Democrat in a Republican-controlled house in 2015. Thanks for any clarification you can provide.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 16, 2016 0:01:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jun 16, 2016 0:02:01 GMT
At your encouragement, BeckyTech , I have indeed looked a little deeper. I found some information that seems to conflict with what you're saying above, which I'm hoping you can clarify. First, I found the summary of HB 226, introduced in early 2015, which appears to have died in committee. It is title the Keeping Guns from High Risk Individuals Act and includes the language you quote above. It does not, however, seem to say anything about a tax credit to surrender weapons. Here's the full text of the bill from the congress website. It does not appear to have had any amendments. Maybe you can point out or link me to the part you mention about tax credits and gun surrender, because I seem to be missing it. Now, I did find an HB 226 that was introduced by a different member of congress in 2013 that proposes tax credits for voluntary surrender of certain types of weapons, but as far as I can tell, it's not related to or tied to the 2015 bill except in the coincidence of sharing the same number. It also died in committee. Here's the text of that bill.I'll admit that I'm not an expert on congressional procedures, so maybe you can explain to me how a completely separate bill that died in committee in 2013 played a part in the death of what you term a completely reasonable bill introduced by a Democrat in a Republican-controlled house in 2015. Thanks for any clarification you can provide. Well now I'm all red-faced because I did indeed make an error. You're right, there are two bills, both called HR 226, one from the 113th Congress: www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr226/BILLS-113hr226ih.pdf and one from the 114th: www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr226/BILLS-114hr226ih.pdf, both dealing with guns. A couple of different searches, and I accidently conflated the two. I hope my error was not one that nullified the remainder of my comments. I did spend more time than I had trying to find out if the 2015 HR 226 Act was reintroduced or made any sort of headway, but I was unable to figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jun 16, 2016 0:06:35 GMT
Thank you, @happymomma and gmcwife1 for your very kind comments. I get a lot out of discussions here and have been swayed in the past to take another look at different viewpoints from another angle when the author is polite. :-)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:10:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2016 1:15:12 GMT
Thank you, @happymomma and gmcwife1 for your very kind comments. I get a lot out of discussions here and have been swayed in the past to take another look at different viewpoints from another angle when the author is polite. :-) I have too.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 16, 2016 2:13:51 GMT
At your encouragement, BeckyTech , I have indeed looked a little deeper. I found some information that seems to conflict with what you're saying above, which I'm hoping you can clarify. First, I found the summary of HB 226, introduced in early 2015, which appears to have died in committee. It is title the Keeping Guns from High Risk Individuals Act and includes the language you quote above. It does not, however, seem to say anything about a tax credit to surrender weapons. Here's the full text of the bill from the congress website. It does not appear to have had any amendments. Maybe you can point out or link me to the part you mention about tax credits and gun surrender, because I seem to be missing it. Now, I did find an HB 226 that was introduced by a different member of congress in 2013 that proposes tax credits for voluntary surrender of certain types of weapons, but as far as I can tell, it's not related to or tied to the 2015 bill except in the coincidence of sharing the same number. It also died in committee. Here's the text of that bill.I'll admit that I'm not an expert on congressional procedures, so maybe you can explain to me how a completely separate bill that died in committee in 2013 played a part in the death of what you term a completely reasonable bill introduced by a Democrat in a Republican-controlled house in 2015. Thanks for any clarification you can provide. Well now I'm all red-faced because I did indeed make an error. You're right, there are two bills, both called HR 226, one from the 113th Congress: www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr226/BILLS-113hr226ih.pdf and one from the 114th: www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr226/BILLS-114hr226ih.pdf, both dealing with guns. A couple of different searches, and I accidently conflated the two. I hope my error was not one that nullified the remainder of my comments. I did spend more time than I had trying to find out if the 2015 HR 226 Act was reintroduced or made any sort of headway, but I was unable to figure it out. With all due respect, the mistake does kind of nullify your point that the reason good bills don't get through congress is because Democrats append unreasonable things onto them. It doesn't appear that was the case here. So why does a reasonable bill, designed to keep guns out of the hands of people at high risk of using them for criminal purposes, die in committee in a Republican-controlled congress? Your point above seemed to be that the lack of action was not necessarily the fault of NRA-funded Republicans. Who else might be responsible for this very moderate and logical bill dying in committee, and what might their motivation be?
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 16, 2016 2:25:42 GMT
Well now I'm all red-faced because I did indeed make an error. You're right, there are two bills, both called HR 226, one from the 113th Congress: www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr226/BILLS-113hr226ih.pdf and one from the 114th: www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr226/BILLS-114hr226ih.pdf, both dealing with guns. A couple of different searches, and I accidently conflated the two. I hope my error was not one that nullified the remainder of my comments. I did spend more time than I had trying to find out if the 2015 HR 226 Act was reintroduced or made any sort of headway, but I was unable to figure it out. With all due respect, the mistake does kind of nullify your point that the reason good bills don't get through congress is because Democrats append unreasonable things onto them. It doesn't appear that was the case here. So why does a reasonable bill, designed to keep guns out of the hands of people at high risk of using them for criminal purposes, die in committee in a Republican-controlled congress? Your point above seemed to be that the lack of action was not necessarily the fault of NRA-funded Republicans. Who else might be responsible for this very moderate and logical bill dying in committee, and what might their motivation be? I thought so too! I hate when the lawmakers tack on stuff to bills to try to sneak stuff in ( on any side)!!
|
|
|
Post by BeckyTech on Jun 16, 2016 22:58:39 GMT
With all due respect, the mistake does kind of nullify your point that the reason good bills don't get through congress is because Democrats append unreasonable things onto them. It doesn't appear that was the case here. So why does a reasonable bill, designed to keep guns out of the hands of people at high risk of using them for criminal purposes, die in committee in a Republican-controlled congress? Your point above seemed to be that the lack of action was not necessarily the fault of NRA-funded Republicans. Who else might be responsible for this very moderate and logical bill dying in committee, and what might their motivation be? Oh man, I had a nice reply all typed out and it went kerfluey. Bah! At the base of my (unintended) poor example was the point that a whole lot of what goes on in Washington is for show. Both sides do it all the time! When Harry Reid was the Senate majority leader he was an absolute master at it. Right now he is loudly proclaiming the NRA and Republicans to be evil, but his past history and voting record show how much he has supported individual gun rights and what a friend he has been to the second amendment and individual gun ownership. On Monday he tweeted this: According to his own website, though, that may be a bit hypocritical: www.harryreid.com/ee/index.php/sportsmen/rightsThe Democrats rudely and disrespectfully walked out of a moment of silence on Monday, claiming it was the time for action. I have to ask, did their 15-hour filibuster actually accomplish anything more than the moment of silence? No. But it made for a lot of noise and theatre. It may surprise you but gun control is not Democrat vs. Republicans. Have you asked why, when the Democrats held the majority, there were no special gun laws that passed? Well, Harry Reid isn't the only democratic gun enthusiast. But he reminds me of the cheating husband who points his finger at the wife as the cheater. He didn't want a lot of things coming to a vote that might endanger his Democratic colleagues from losing their jobs. - nypost.com/2015/04/25/it-turns-out-the-gridlock-was-all-about-harry-reid/ (if you don't like that link, you will find many other articles about Reid blocking activity): -- www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304081804579560251530777852 So, he prevents any dissention except the filibuster and then complains about how the Republicans are obstructionists with the filibuster. At any rate, you have a lot of reasons why they don't pass anything but try to make it look like the other guys' fault: fear of getting reelected is one of the main things, fear of showing party division, or, sometimes they just don't have the votes. As near as I can tell, a whole lot of what goes on in Washington is for show. And they wonder why we're angry. How about both sides now buckle down and actually do something? The good news is that I heard that Tim Murphy's bill is going places. If I understand correctly, it's about mental health and contains provisions that could actually prevent another Aurora theatre shooting. Tim Murphy "relies on his three decades as a psychologist to advocate for meaningful reforms in the U.S. healthcare system." Since the Democrats know a "no-fly no-buy" bill isn't going to get anywhere, I wonder why they don't push that nice simple 2-pager we talked about above? I would think that in the current atmosphere, it would be better for all of Washington to pass something like that than to do nothing. But I'm hardly a Washington expert.
|
|
|
Post by coaliesquirrel on Jun 17, 2016 0:26:46 GMT
But "the devil's in the details" as they say. The bill went on to include a component to "reduce the number of privately owned weapons" ... "have law abiding U.S. citizens “surrender” their legally owned firearms in exchange for a $2,000 tax credit spread out over 2 years ($1,000 per year)" The bill would amend the IRS code. (Now we have a federal agency with the power of confiscation involved.) The inclusion of words that encourage law-abiding citizens to turn in their legally obtained weapons is not designed to get NRA support. And the authors of the bill know this. I know we've determined that this wording isn't in the bill you thought you were talking about, but it was in a prior bill, so I'd like to ask an honest question: why would a tax credit for turning in guns be a bad thing for the general public? You point out we've got an "agency with power of confiscation" involved, but that's a rather obvious red herring. There are currently mortgage interest deductions/credits, there are or used to be credits for electric vehicles, etc.; yet none of those result in the confiscation of houses and cars. I imagine the gun return credit would work in much the same way - that is, that people would turn their gun into whatever authorized type of intake place (could be law enforcement, could be licensed gun dealers) and would get some sort of receipt or documentation that they could keep as backup to justify the credit taken if audited. There's as much chance of the IRS themselves wanting to collect the guns on their premises as of them opening electric car dealerships and mortgage loan offices - none. Just like in the "cash for clunkers" program, you didn't turn in your crappy old car to the IRS! Why would it be so terrible to have a way for people with unwanted guns to dispose of them in a way that's beneficial but also works to keep them out of the hands of bad guys? Think of someone who inherits a gun but has no use for it or desire to keep it - but doesn't know how to legally, safely get rid of it, or an LEO who's retired and aged and knows he can no longer safely use it and wants to ensure it's not stolen from his residence or vehicle. Wouldn't there be some merit to getting weapons out of the hands of people who don't WANT them (and thus potentially less likely to store them safely, either from lack of knowledge, inability (don't have/can't buy a gun safe), or just plain lack of interest? Isn't it better to have some nitwit who inherits a gun turn it in responsibly and not just sell it to anyone (potentially a felon, terrorist, domestic abuser, etc.) who responds to an ad on Facebook? There isn't any indication that anyone's coming for the guns of people who don't WANT to be rid of them. I'm sorry, but I don't even see "fewer potential NRA members" as a downside to this bill, because people who don't want the guns anyway aren't likely to be members I wouldn't think. Is there something other than just a flat refusal to do anything that might hurt the gun lobby (fewer ammo sales than if the unused, unwanted guns get stolen by people who WILL use them) or complication of the tax code (and let's be honest - that ship sailed long ago) that's a downside to this sort of provision? I guess I can see the expense of it, but IF such studies were allowed, I'd bet a solid case could be made for such a program paying for itself in lower law enforcement & judicial system costs, less public $$ paying for medical costs of injuries, and other lower general societal costs.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 4, 2024 14:10:58 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 13:29:59 GMT
|
|