Wasserman Schultz wants background checks for ammunition buyers

[Neonred 3,562]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-florida-school-shooting-wasserman-schultz-legislation-20180323-story.html

 

“I really think it’s important to underscore that without bullets a gun is just a hunk of useless metal, and a would-be killer lacks the means to actually kill or maim,” she said Monday.

It’s already illegal for convicted felons, domestic abusers and dangerously mentally ill people to buy firearms and ammunition. Background checks also are required for some firearms purchasers, but nothing prevents anyone from buying ammunition."

 

"You do not have the right to bear bullets,” Wasserman Schultz said at a news conference

 

Here we go with the idea that if the left can't ban or tightly control guns, then bullets are the next best thing.  I think I have heard this one before.....

[Merle 458]

I have enough reloading components to last quite a while. 

[Dashinka 24,493]

Didn't W-S collude with Hillary to screw Bernie Sanders?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Didn't W-S collude with Hillary to screw Bernie Sanders?

Yes . She is corrupt as they come 

[bcking 3,157]

Technically don't we only have the right to bear arms?

 

Perhaps it was a typo and this whole time they meant "bare arms". We have the right to wear tank tops.

 

EDIT:

 

In all seriousness I don't see why anyone would mind background checks for all firearms in all situations and all ammunition. The "responsible gun owners" should have nothing to fear from the background checks. If it is really just for protection/hunting even if it delays purchasing equipment can't you just plan ahead a bit? Doesn't seem like it would impact the safe gun using crowd much.

Edited March 28, 2018 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

23 minutes ago, bcking said:

In all seriousness I don't see why anyone would mind background checks for all firearms in all situations and all ammunition. The "responsible gun owners" should have nothing to fear from the background checks. If it is really just for protection/hunting even if it delays purchasing equipment can't you just plan ahead a bit? Doesn't seem like it would impact the safe gun using crowd much.

i don't get it either.

 

 

[Dashinka 24,493]

23 minutes ago, bcking said:

Technically don't we only have the right to bear arms?

 

Perhaps it was a typo and this whole time they meant "bare arms". We have the right to wear tank tops.

 

EDIT:

 

In all seriousness I don't see why anyone would mind background checks for all firearms in all situations and all ammunition. The "responsible gun owners" should have nothing to fear from the background checks. If it is really just for protection/hunting even if it delays purchasing equipment can't you just plan ahead a bit? Doesn't seem like it would impact the safe gun using crowd much.

While I agree, responsible gun owners can plan ahead, but I think it comes down to the fact that the Federal government doesn't get anything right.  Look how many folks end up on the "No Fly" list that don't belong.  My understanding is that it is a nightmare to get removed.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

While I agree, responsible gun owners can plan ahead, but I think it comes down to the fact that the Federal government doesn't get anything right.  Look how many folks end up on the "No Fly" list that don't belong.  My understanding is that it is a nightmare to get removed.

My mom now routinely gets the "SSSS" when she flies international. Not quite as bad as the No Fly, but still annoying. She visits Germany too much and books a lot of one way flights (she finds deals). She's a 65 year old woman that frequently travels with a small chihuahua...not really a security risk.

 

Yes I can see your concern. If I wanted to keep/collect/use a deadly weapon (responsibly, of course), I think I would be willing to put up with a few extra hoops knowing how badly the weapons can be abused by other people. Stricter mental health checks, more consistent background checks. I know I would pass all that, but I would still take that inconvenience because of the nature of what I'm trying to own.

 

Same thing with driving a car - I would gladly put up with a much harder driving test, and much stricter rules for driving a car. I'm a responsible driver so why should I have to deal with all that? Because I figure it is probably in the best interest of society as a whole.

[Dashinka 24,493]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

My mom now routinely gets the "SSSS" when she flies international. Not quite as bad as the No Fly, but still annoying. She visits Germany too much and books a lot of one way flights (she finds deals). She's a 65 year old woman that frequently travels with a small chihuahua...not really a security risk.

 

Yes I can see your concern. If I wanted to keep/collect/use a deadly weapon (responsibly, of course), I think I would be willing to put up with a few extra hoops knowing how badly the weapons can be abused by other people. Stricter mental health checks, more consistent background checks. I know I would pass all that, but I would still take that inconvenience because of the nature of what I'm trying to own.

 

Same thing with driving a car - I would gladly put up with a much harder driving test, and much stricter rules for driving a car. I'm a responsible driver so why should I have to deal with all that? Because I figure it is probably in the best interest of society as a whole.

What is interesting is that I believe a lot of that already exists, but of course in the case of Parkland, the authorities failed ahead of time.  The blood is on their hands, not the NRA as if this guy had been dealt with, he would not have been able to legally purchase a gun.  Live and learn.

 

Sorry for your Mom's travel woes.  It can be a PITA sometimes.  Whenever Katya and I go visit family it takes us almost 45 minutes to check in because we fly through China.  China has 24-48 hr visa free transit for US and Russian citizens, but since we fly two different airlines that are not partners, Delta only sees their side and they think we are going to be in China for however many days until our return flight and we do not have a Chinese visa.  We always bring our other flight information, but each time, it is still the same when we check in.  I understand the reasons, as an airline can get into a lot of trouble if they allow someone on the plane that isn't properly documented, but it would be nice if their systems were easier. 

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

What is interesting is that I believe a lot of that already exists, but of course in the case of Parkland, the authorities failed ahead of time.  The blood is on their hands, not the NRA as if this guy had been dealt with, he would not have been able to legally purchase a gun.  Live and learn.

 

Sorry for your Mom's travel woes.  It can be a PITA sometimes.  Whenever Katya and I go visit family it takes us almost 45 minutes to check in because we fly through China.  China has 24-48 hr visa free transit for US and Russian citizens, but since we fly two different airlines that are not partners, Delta only sees their side and they think we are going to be in China for however many days until our return flight and we do not have a Chinese visa.  We always bring our other flight information, but each time, it is still the same when we check in.  I understand the reasons, as an airline can get into a lot of trouble if they allow someone on the plane that isn't properly documented, but it would be nice if their systems were easier. 

No system is perfect. One way to help reduce the "failures" is to have more systems in place. So if each system has a failure rate of 20%, if you have three independent systems then the rate would be 0.8%.

 

Your issues sound even more annoying...sorry. I am spoiled when I visit my wife's family. UK makes it so easy.

[Dashinka 24,493]

19 minutes ago, bcking said:

No system is perfect. One way to help reduce the "failures" is to have more systems in place. So if each system has a failure rate of 20%, if you have three independent systems then the rate would be 0.8%.

 

Your issues sound even more annoying...sorry. I am spoiled when I visit my wife's family. UK makes it so easy.

So decrease efficiency to reduce the failure rate?  Is that why the Federal government has so many departments?  Seems like the feds (FBI) along with a lot of local redundancies failed in the case of the Parkland shooter.

 

We go through China since we want to avoid flying through Europe and Moscow plus it is a two flight vs a 3-4 flight option.  Customs and immigration at China is not too bad, but they recently introduced a new form for transits to fill out.  The only issue is a 12 hr layover (both ways), but we get a nearby hotel room.  This may change in a few months when Beijing opens its new airport.  Rumor has it that one of our airlines will use the new airport and the other will stay in the old airport.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So decrease efficiency to reduce the failure rate?  Is that why the Federal government has so many departments?  Seems like the feds (FBI) along with a lot of local redundancies failed in the case of the Parkland shooter.

 

Having multiple safety checks in place isn't always a decrease in efficiency. It depends on the impact of the combination of safety checks.

 

I agree things went wrong leading to Parkland. However things have been "going wrong" quite frequently with mass shooting events. So the entire system should be reevaluates. Both the systems in place and how they failed, as well as additional fail-safes that may help to plug those failures.

 

Unfortunately with so much emotion on both sides, and the extremes of each scaring each other ("Repeal the 2nd amendment", "give everyone a gun"), we may not be able to have that thorough eval.

[Dashinka 24,493]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

Having multiple safety checks in place isn't always a decrease in efficiency. It depends on the impact of the combination of safety checks.

 

I agree things went wrong leading to Parkland. However things have been "going wrong" quite frequently with mass shooting events. So the entire system should be reevaluates. Both the systems in place and how they failed, as well as additional fail-safes that may help to plug those failures.

 

Unfortunately with so much emotion on both sides, and the extremes of each scaring each other ("Repeal the 2nd amendment", "give everyone a gun"), we may not be able to have that thorough eval.

I am not too worried about the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.  Besides, if the 2nd was ever repealed, I am sure there would be several sanctuary cities created.

 

As to the other items, yes things have been going wrong in these mass shooter incidents, but the question is why?  Is it a lack of laws, or the inefficiency/incompetence of the departments enforcing those laws.  If the latter, then I don't see what new laws will change. 

[bcking 3,157]

17 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I am not too worried about the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.  Besides, if the 2nd was ever repealed, I am sure there would be several sanctuary cities created.

 

As to the other items, yes things have been going wrong in these mass shooter incidents, but the question is why?  Is it a lack of laws, or the inefficiency/incompetence of the departments enforcing those laws.  If the latter, then I don't see what new laws will change. 

For sure, there would probably be "gun owning states" with many passing their own laws confirming the right in their state.

 

I also see some of the opposing suggestions as troublesome though. if indeed our current systems are inefficient, flawed and ineffective, I worry about focusing on arming more people, giving more people guns. Wouldn't that create even more opportunities for our current system to miss key red flags?

 

Arming more "good citizens" assumes the system to identify between good and worrisome citizens is working. That doesn't seem to be the case.

Edited March 28, 2018 by bcking

[Steeleballz 7,550]

18 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I am not too worried about the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.  Besides, if the 2nd was ever repealed, I am sure there would be several sanctuary cities created.

 

As to the other items, yes things have been going wrong in these mass shooter incidents, but the question is why?  Is it a lack of laws, or the inefficiency/incompetence of the departments enforcing those laws.  If the latter, then I don't see what new laws will change. 

 

    How would this work? If it takes 2/3 of the senate or house to repeal an amendment or 2/3 of the state legislatures, where is the support for all these sanctuary cities going to come from? Maybe a bunch of compounds in the hills or something if that's what you were thinking of.