Hell must be freezing over- there really *is* common ground at DU on guns:

[friendly_iconoclast]

I find myself in agreement with BainsBane about a proposed law. Yes, you read that correctly...

DUers should support King-Thompson (a restart of Manchin-Toomey), AKA H.R. 1565:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12623636

Support King-Thompson on background checks

Check it out for yourselves:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1565/text

I still think the "family exemptions" on background checks might be problematic, but there are other
parts I like very much indeed:

1) Puts teeth into the requirement for states to enter disqualifying information into the NICS
database, and

2) Puts a kibosh on New York's habit of busting travelers that have secured, unloaded guns in
their baggage.

Seeing as Dianne Feinstein's assault weapons ban is nowhere to be seen this time around,
this might actually get passed and do some good!

[Decoy of Fenris]

1. Bain isn't actually bad, when she's not going apenuts fringe.

She's got solid ideas and a good grasp of the facts, if her interpretation leaves something to be desired. She's worth talking to if you can get her to settle down on the outrageometer for a bit; you may learn a few things.

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. Admittedly, I've overreacted in some of my responses to her.

Aside from that, what's your take on this bill and its chances?

[Decoy of Fenris]

3. I think the bill holds promise.

I don't have the time or inclination to read through any details at the moment, as I'm actually going on 36 hours awake (Go non-union jobs! ~.~). I'll check it out later. From what little I read, I reallly do think it has a solid chance of passing.

[Eleanors38]

13. I think IFOA backs Manchin-Toomey, that may help.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. The ACLU's position against creating a national database seems to be the right one.

[Decoy of Fenris]

5. I don't have a problem with a database of criminals who shouldn't own guns. n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

7. Same here. And I don't have a problem with separating criminals who use firearms away from guns

by keeping them in prison instead of giving early release.

But we know from experience that the gun controllers say one thing while meaning another. They use bait-and-switch. Instead of focusing upon further separating criminals from having access to firearms, or engaging in economic reform so that there are more alternatives that engaging in criminal activities, all too many of them focus upon demonizing gun owners. A signifigant number of the anti-gun advocates have already let it be known that their ultimate goal is to ban the private ownership of firearms currently owned by law-abiding citizens.

I've never seen any of them act in good faith. The nonsense about banning firearms based upon cosmetic features is just one example.

[Decoy of Fenris]

9. I know the feeling, but we need to make the first step.

It's become obvious that the paranoia and irrational terror most Controllers feel towards an inanimate object is tainting any efforts they're making towards ... You know what? I'll write up an OP in a few hours. Sorry to cut convo short.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

10. We've made the first step. It's called the Second Amendment.

[BainsBane]

15. In other words, you prefer to allow criminals to have steady access to guns

because you hate people who advocate for gun control. Lovely.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

20. My words speak for themselves. They don't need to be falsely misinterpreted by you.

[BainsBane]

21. Falsely interpreted?

What I read was a temper tantrum where you display far greater concern with your ego than those killed by allowing criminals to retain access to guns. You insist that you not support background checks because of the irrational animus you hold toward those who dare to propose policies you disagree with, like an AWB. Your solution is keeping criminals in jail permanently: evidently life imprisonment for any and every offense.
And you claim to care about constitutional rights? What a bunch of crap.
Your words do indeed speak for themselves: They are irrational and entirely callous to the rights of your fellow citizens to live. You display a lack of concern toward your fellow citizens that makes Teabaggers look like bleeding heart liberals. Your entire world view appears to be shaped by an intense hatred for those who have the audacity to propose measures that you disagree with.

Here's wishing you reap everything you so richly deserve.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

22. You have to use false representations because the truth doesn't represent what you say.

[BainsBane]

24. In what way?

Did you not say:
1. You oppose the background check bill mentioned in the OP
2. You oppose it because you consider gun control activists untrustworthy and cited the amendment proposing an assault weapons ban as "bait and switch."
3. Your solution to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is to keep criminals in jail.
4. When another poster suggested you take a step toward compromise, you said you already had: the Second Amendment.

What did I get wrong?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

25. You ask "In what way?" You imply that you don't know.

Here' what you said (#15)

"In other words, you prefer to allow criminals to have steady access to guns because you hate people who advocate for gun control. Lovely."

Your "In other words" gives you away.

At no point did I say that I "prefer to allow criminals to have a steady access to guns" for any reason. At no point did I say that I "prefer to allow criminals to have a steady access to guns" for the false reason that you give.

I don't think that you are genuinely ignorant and stupid. I think that you are just pretending to be.

[BainsBane]

27. You made that very point

You said you opposed legislation about background checks and cited your anger with gun control activists as the reason why. You seem to have a great deal of trouble distinguishing interpretation from a lie. When you make clear that gun control activists are the reason you oppose background check legislation, it seems a reasonable conclusion that you are motivated by hatred. What else explains your decision to oppose legislation that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals? Whether you recognize it or not, you have decided your bruised ego is more important than the lives that would be saved my making it more difficult for felons to acquire guns. That is the result of your position. If that is not what you intend, you would do well to rethink your views.

I find it amazing that people here considering anything that derives from a pro-gun script a lie. Being called out on your positions is not a lie. In fact, you have not been able to point to anything untruthful in what I have said. If you are not motivated by hatred, what is it that prompts you to point to "bait and switch" by gun control activists as a reason for opposing background checks? Here you respond with outrage because you refuse to think about the implications of what you promote.

[BainsBane]

18. Yes, the entire gun control movement is designed to hurt AnotherMcIntosh's feelings

It has nothing to do with children slaughtered in Sandyhook or people murdered in city streets. Like everything it life, all that matters is your ego, not keeping criminals from murdering innocent people. The 32,000 people killed every year aren't the victims. You are because you have faced the horror of being exposed to Democratic views on guns on a Democratic website. Obviously that is far more devastating than being the victim of gun violence and homicide. All that ever counts in life is you and your ego. The rest of our desire to live is entirely inconsequential. You could not be clearer on the point.

This bill is about background checks only. You can make every excuse under the sun but your refusal to consider basic measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is unacceptable. When you are to the right of George W Bush, Peter King, the GOP, and even much of the Tea Party, it's time to reflect on your views.

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. The bill explicitly outlaws the creation of a Federal gun registry:

SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to--

(1) expand in any way the enforcement authority or jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; or

(2) allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a Federal firearms registry.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. I understand. All bills can be amended. And even superseded.

If there are those who won't respect the inherent right to self-defense and the Second Amendment, why would they forever respect the language in a particular bill?

[BainsBane]

16. That's a canard

What random people say online has no bearing on US law. You are making excuses.

[Eleanors38]

14. Good firewall, should meet ACLU standards.

[premium]

11. This seems to be a sound bill

one that I can support without reservations.

[Eleanors38]

12. Looks good to me, and yet another example of the reasonableness of 2A advocates.

Perhaps Bains can join in with constructive suggestions on other Gungeon proposals, like measures to better protect in-house children from gun mishandling, and universal background checks.

[BainsBane]

17. I am more than eager to do that

[petronius]

19. In the section on 'transport', the mention of overnight lodging

fills in a big hole in the current federal law, right? It would seem to me that that would cover a person who was delayed at an airport and had to stay overnight in a nearby hotel, and kept their baggage with them - even in NYC or similarly strict environs. Nice to see such a clear-cut statement of the rights of travelers; it will be even nicer to see those rights respected...

‘Sec. 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms or ammunition

‘(a) Definition- In this section, the term ‘transport’--

‘(1) includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, fuel, vehicle maintenance, an emergency, medical treatment, and any other activity incidental to the transport; and

--- Snip ---

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. There are some quite able attorneys that would be ready and willing to...

...show certain localities the error of their ways should this become law.

[tularetom]

26. Specifically mentions in detail the prohibition of a national registry

so that's definitely a plus as far as I'm concerned.

Universal background checks have always been OK with me and nothing I read in here set off any alarm bells.

I'm sure it isn't restrictive enough to satisfy the hard core gun control advocates but c'est la vie. And I haven't checked but I'm guessing the NRA opposes it as well.