Gun Control Advocates Win A Rare Victory In Budget Deal

[onehandle]

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- Gun control advocates won a rare victory this past Friday when congressional negotiators removed a provision from the final budget deal that would have made it much harder for the government to regulate firearm sales along the Mexico border.

The amendment, offered by Reps. Dan Boren (D-Ok) and Denny Rehberg (R-MT), would have prevented federal funds from being used by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to track bulk sales of long guns in Southwest states. Up until late moments in the negotiations, sources familiar with the discussions say, it remained in the text of the final continuing resolution.

But sometime before the final deal was announced on Friday night, lawmakers stripped the rider from the bill, in the process providing an incredible rare event during the gun policy debates: a win for the control advocates.

The move came after concerned lawmakers and even Mexico’s Ambassador to the U.S. (many guns sold on the border end up in Mexico) lobbied congressional leadership and the White House to strip the language from the bill.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/13/gun-control-advocates-win_n_848603.html

[xchrom]

1. Awesome. nt

[SkyDaddy7]

2. Chirp Chirp! The Crikets prevail! HOWEVER...

Had the opposite happened it would have been off the Greatest Thread page with another who can trash the ONLY THE PRESIDENT the best!

[zipplewrath]

25. Well, I'm not sure what you want people to say

It is claimed to be a victory for gun control advocates, but then the predominate advocate and benefactor was said to be Mexico and its ambassador. It isn't even clear if the White House was particularly involved in its removal, as various congress critters from along the border also had vested interests in this legislation. Truth is, this is the same administration which signed into law the carry of weapons in federal forrests, so I'm a bit dubious it was particularly involved in this issue, other than as a response to the Mexican government, or as an aggregate objection to any non-fiscal based issues. I'm glad it was removed, but this is hardly anything for anyone to crow about, whether you are impressed with Obama or not.

[villager]

3. in these rightwing times, victories for common sense are indeed rare...

They are, however, still welcome...

[sharesunited]

4. Why would anyone want to prevent tracking sales of guns?

[Recursion]

5. Particularly large-scale aggregate data like this

I'm generally on the anti-gun-control side and unless this has some hidden poison pill nobody's mentioning I don't see anything wrong with it.

[Ter]

7. Because the federal government has no right to know what I purchase

F' 'em.

[booley]

9. Does that include...

nitrogen based fertilizers and dynamite and large quantities of sudafed?

Because while there should definitely be an expectation for privacy for many things, a few items might have a good reason for some control.

Your response seems a tad bit knee jerk.

[Kolesar]

11. AM-FO, using the vernacular of the Michigan Militia

well played

[sharesunited]

12. Does the federal government have a right to know if you possess child porn?

Are guns or child porn more harmful to society?

[Atypical Liberal]

13. No.

The government has no right to know anything about you on a whim. We are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. They have to have probable cause.

Additionally, the entire analogy of firearms and child pornography fails.

Firearms have redeeming value, as they can, and often are, used for good. Child pornography is never useful.

[sharesunited]

15. Sorry, but if CP isn't protected by the 1A, then how can guns and ammo proliferate under the 2A?

That's inconsistent public policy, particularly when guns and ammo place all your actual rights at risk through the convenient infliction of death.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. There is no legitimate reason for government to posess and traffic in CP, as there is with guns

And the right to possess child pornography has not been specifically acknowledged by the Supreme Court- but the right to possess guns

has.

You fail at both analogy and Constitutional law.

[Atypical Liberal]

21. As I said.

As I said - child pornography has no redeeming value, while firearms do. Consequently one enjoys no constitutional protection, while the other does.

[defendandprotect]

19. Firearms have no redeeming value -- they can only be used for violence ---

We can either become Mexico -- or we can end this gun insanity now --

This is the way the right wing rises -- on violence -- it's the only way they can rise!

[Atypical Liberal]

22. They can also be used for defense.

Without firearms, every victim of a violent assault will be at the mercy of anyone stronger than they are. Without firearms, every victim will have three choices: run if they are fast enough, submit if they can survive submission, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attacker if they are strong enough.

Without firearms, the weak are always at the mercy of the strong.

Violence is often required to counter violence. Firearms simply allow the weak to be able to stand up to the strong.

[defendandprotect]

24. The right wing is attempting to make this a more violent society ... the likelihood

that you will be assaulted increases as the right wing pressures on the

economy continue to rise --

The Drug War also increases everyone's chances of being assaulted -- for the

profit of the few controlling drugs -- and certainly that isn't those running

drugs -- it is the elites behind this corruption profiting from the Drug War in

myriad ways.

Again -- violence is the only way the right wing can rise -- and GOP radicalization

of the NRA was a primary tool in moving America to a more violent society.

[Atypical Liberal]

26. All of this is beside the point.

Most of your points are true, but they are entirely beside the point.

You said that firearms have no redeeming value. They do have a redeeming value. They allow the weak to resist the strong.

Without firearms, every violent assault puts the weak at the mercy of the strong.

[defendandprotect]

28. Excuse me, you're right -- a gun provides you the way to shoot someone!!

:eyes:

[Atypical Liberal]

30. Yes, they do.

Excuse me, you're right -- a gun provides you the way to shoot someone!!

Yes, they do. They allow bad people to shoot good people, and they allow good people to shoot bad people.

If you take away the ability for good people to shoot bad people, even if you could get the guns out of the hands of bad people, you would still put every single victim of violent crime at the mercy of anyone stronger than them.

A world where the common man has no access to firearms means every single violent crime inflicted on the common man puts him at the mercy of anyone stronger than they are. Victims of violent crime will have 3 choices: Run, submit, or fight in a physical contest of strength.

The weak would be at the mercy of the strong.

Yes, guns are used for bad things. But they also are the equalizer that allows the weak the chance to stand up to the strong.

[Ikonoklast]

16. But they do have a right to regulate those purchases.

Your rights are not unlimited, no matter which one you may pick.

[AndyTiedye]

10. The People Who are Wholesaling the Guns to the Drug Runners Might Not Want Sales to be Tracked

They make a lot of money selling all those guns, and some of that money is probably finding its way to the Republicans, who tried to slip that provision in.

Good that Obama caught it and got it outa there.

[WatsonT]

6. So we need to trust the ATF to regulate guns on the border?

Didn't they just get caught . . . running guns across the border?

[LanternWaste]

20. "getting caught" implies a degree of efficiency and effectiveness

"Didn't they just get caught . . ."

I believe so; however I also believe "getting caught" implies a degree of efficiency and effectiveness in those doing the catching.






Word games and bumper sticker philosophies have a place somewhere I imagine.

[booley]

8. Yay?!

Not that this isn't' good. But are we really counting Progress as "not getting worse"?

[Atypical Liberal]

14. I don't really have a problem with this.

If someone goes through NICS more than 5 times in a month, it is probably worth some kind of follow-up or at least noting by the ATF.

I can't believe that the amount of people with disposable income to purchase 5 firearms a month through an FFL is that high.

[defendandprotect]

18. Let's bill the GOPs/NRA for these gun-tracking expenses --

We need universal gun control -- fewer guns, not more --

Guns and violence will always work to the advantage of the right wing and their allies --

it's the only way they can rise.

[Atypical Liberal]

27. What fewer guns means.

Fewer guns means that fewer people will have them. Of course, the government, corporations, and rich people will always have access to them. Only the common man will be deprived of firearms.

What this means is that whenever the common man faces a violent crime, he will be at the mercy of anyone stronger than he is. He will have three choices: He can flee if he is fast enough, he can submit if he can survive submitting, or he can try to engage in a physical contest of strength against his attacker.

The elderly, disabled, small, or otherwise weak people will always be at the mercy of anyone stronger than they are who wish to abuse them.

The weak will always be at the mercy of the strong.

This is the antithesis of progressive.

[defendandprotect]

29. What we are all threatened with is weapons -- they make diplomacy less likely ....

and if you're reading anything of the Libyan Revolution you understand the

problems caused by Gaddafi having been armed to the teeth -- !!

Problems which we may one day experience as we face the rise of the right and

fascism having crossed our own threshold.

Any argument with your government now will be based on fighting the MIC and

whomever controls it --

Violence is not a solution to violence --

[Straw Man]

31. Diplomacy?

and if you're reading anything of the Libyan Revolution you understand the

problems caused by Gaddafi having been armed to the teeth -- !!

Gaddafi is a head of state and the commander or Libya's armed forces. Show me a head of state anywhere in the world who is not similarly "armed to the teeth," and then we'll talk about diplomacy.

[defendandprotect]

32. You think rather narrowly ... "diplomacy" can mean a discussion between two drivers

faced with an accident and one of them in a really bad mood -- and armed!

Gaddafi is a head of state and the commander or Libya's armed forces. Show me a head of state anywhere in the world who is not similarly "armed to the teeth," and then we'll talk about diplomacy.

W Bush was also a head of state -- and CIC of our armed forces -- and that reality is exactly

what I'm talking about! What if he had refused to leave office -- let's say declared a

"National emergency" -- cancelled elections?

The reality is we now have fascism in America -- corporations controlling our military --

Koch Bros. controlling the Dem Party --

What if we, like Libyans had to challenge our own government?




The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414


If you knew about this, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know -- pass it along -- !!

:)

[Atypical Liberal]

33. You need to take a look at recorded history.

Man has been violent throughout all of recorded human history, well before firearms became commonly available in the last 400 years.

Diplomacy has been of very little help to the common man for all of that recorded history prior to the advent of firearms. Prior to then, the common man was at the mercy of anyone stronger than they were or better with a sword, knife, or club in a physical contest of strength than they were.


Violence is not a solution to violence --

When you are being assaulted, violence very much is a solution to violence!

Unless, of course, you are content with trying to run away if you are fast enough, or submit to the demands of your attacker if you are strong enough to survive it.

[Sonoman]

23. It really doesn't matter.

That weaponry is going to cross the border one way or another.

Sonoman

[-..__...]

34. "Incredible rare event during the gun policy debates...

a win for the control advocates".

While I'm somewhat indifferent about the decision to remove the rider; I can't help but smile when I read that it was

"a rare incredible event" for gun control advocates".

It just reaffirms my belief that the anti's are that much closer to their dying breath.

B-)