Who believes the government will really get rid of all traces of gun registration info?

I don't give damn.

And they have and will continue to oppose gun registration on privacy grounds.

And I fully support them.

Why not issue a federal firearms ID card after a background check? If the government has determined that you are not barred from owning a gun, why do they need to know anything more? Specifically, why is there any need for the government to know what you bought or if you even bought anything?

Personally, I have zero trust in the government and not just on this issue.

I don't have a Senator, though: feel free to call yours.

I don't have to have any purchase I make called in for a background check. I have been thoroughly vetted by the FBI and ATF for this and my C&R license. I have an FFL 03 . I think anyone that is willing to jump thru the hoops as I have to get these licenses should have 50 state reciprocity.

Like you I dont need to have a background check and there is also no waiting period other than demand imposed ones.

The states rights gropups aka Dixie will have a cow saying that they do not want the feds involved in any way;some of them sell the idea that you can have an arsenal.

Until you can answer that you won't get anywhere.

And if that isn't at least worth considering than fuck those guys.

Bryant

will help keep guns out of the hands of people who don't need them. As would closing the gunshow loopholes.

Bryant

rather than complaining about how awful it is that they never pass. So, what are they worth to us?

as they've shown again and again.

More to the point, if you, as a representative of Gun Rights groups, would like a compromise, here's an idea - Suggest a fucking compromise! Stop waiting for us to do it. This is the equivalent of Republicans trying to force Democrats to cut social security.

Why don't you say what you want in exchange for saner gun laws?

Bryant

I support universal background checks and a near-ban on handguns.

Why don't you say what you want in exchange for saner gun laws?


Why don't you ask somebody who opposes background checks rather than asking me?

Do I have to spell out everything for you guys?

again and again, like a broken record, than you are shilling for them - don't you understand that? You are telling us we should consider and adjust to their position.

On this board you have chosen to represent the poor sad sacks at the NRA who despite getting everything they want all the time, are apparently the victims of our intransigence and unwillingness to compromise. If only we were willing to give them something . . anything they might be willing to compromise. But because of our mulish stubbornness there is no way to compromise.

You choose to represent our benighted brethren of the NRA, and as such, it behooves you to propose the compromise you think they would accept (or, more accurate, pretend to accept until it is actually on the table and then decide to oppose). I'm not the one defending our misunderstood friends in the NRA - you are. So you have to do the legwork.

Bryant

... is better than holding out for everything and winding up with nothing.

I'm a pretty strong RKBA defender and I'd be willing to give up on background checks (with no possible gun registry) and I'd even throw in a reasonable magazine limit (say 10 rounds). I would, however, want something in return. Are you saying you wouldn't try to make a deal for that?

In exchange for me being checked by both the FBI and the ATF are you willing to allow 50 state reciprocity for my concealed carry license?

Most of those who feel strongly about the issue live and explore their hobby in gun friendly or at least tolerant states.

Basically they don't need to change and are ok with the status quo. There are ways to expand their rights, such as 50 state reciprocity, but it doesn't have the drive of the anti-gun folks.

Anti-gunners on the other hand want things to change and so the onus is on them to submit a compromise. We think X is important and so we are willing to loosen restriction on Y.

That's the only way laws are going to change on a federal level.

Kids "killed by gun violence" is more inclusive than intentional homicide from all causes, "bro".

Cheers!

The statistic I provided includes all child deaths by gun violence, which was what was specifically mentioned upthread. The statistic you provided not only doesn't include all child deaths by gun violence, but also includes lots of other methods which have nothing to do with guns. In other words, its far less relevant for statistical analysis.

So by "we" you don't speak for me, "bro". I have no argument for your own claim of statistical ignorance as this appears to be quite clear.

Cheers!

The option is offering the gun lobby something to get this passed, or the status quo.

So far we're choosing the status quo.

I would say it's you that is in a small group.

More than 9 in 10 Americans (91 percent) support the idea of universal background checks for purchasing firearms, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll. But nearly half of those polled also said they thought the establishment of such checks would result in the government confiscating guns that had been purchased through legal channels.

Just 38 percent of those polled said background checks wouldn’t lead to such confiscations, compared to 48 percent who said they would.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/04/90-percent-of-americans-back-universal-background-checks-for-gun-purchases/?wprss=rss_politics

I'm fine with the government checking my backgrouind and determining that there is no reason I shouldn't own a gun. The government does not need to know what firearms I own or acquire in the future in order to do that. If they don't know what I have, it is far more difficult to seize it or tax it and if they don't intend to do that, they can get by without that information. As dkf has pointed out, a substantial number of Americans understand that.

How about the fact that you have to tell the government how much money you earned every year. Do you trust it with that information?

There is a good reason for the government to track guns, and this is to trace and prevent illegal trafficking and straw purchases. Those are much more important than any kind of libertarian paranoia about the "evil government".

Social security is not a good example to cite when it comes to trust. The government spent the money as fast as it came in and now they are cutting benefits because of the deficit. If the government had truly acted as fiduciary with Social Security we would have much better benefits and there would not be the issues we are having now. If a private company did what the government did with retirement money, they would have been thrown in jail.

Is there anything you don't agree with Rand Paul about? If people can opt out, some people will end up making bad investments or not saving enough, and will end up with no money for retirement, which defeats the purpose of Social Security, which is supposed to ensure that that doesn't happen.

Also, private companies actually do go broke and raid employee pensions, you know.

I believe they are called superannuation funds. The managers of those funds act like true fiduciaries: the money stays in your account and they can't spend it with a promise that money will be there when you retire. They also don't control the money supply and can't print trillions of dollars on currency so that the dollars paid in benefits are worth far less than the dollars you paid in when you were working.

Private comapny pension plans are irrelevant to me and to this discussion. (I only get one modest pension) I'm very comfortable with the risk of managing the money myself. I've been doing that with IRA and 401k money for myself and my my wife for about 30 years and our retirement assets are quite substantial. ETA: Private companies raiding pension funds is also wrong. You're bringing that up reminds me of when I was a kid and I got caught doing something wrong - I used say, "but Johnny was doing it too". That never cut any ice with my folks and it doesn't cut any ice here.

Getting back to the original issue, i.e. trust, I'm amazed that you can look at the government's handling of social security money and say it engenders trust. I think it's been criminal.

You're railing about the government printing money.

I gotta be honest. I'm struggling to find a trace of progressive thought in your ideology. This is all straight Heritage Foundation stuff.

Social security keeps millions of people out of poverty. It may not matter to you, because you are well-off, but without it many seniors would suffer. And privatizing it would put the retirement income of seniors at the whims of the market, while at the same time making huge profits the finance industry. The whole point of SS is to guarantee that seniors don't have to live in poverty, rather than to leave that it to chance.

And, by your own admission, you are doing pretty well, so obviously SS hasn't caused you much hardship. Do to your personal wealth, it hasn't helped you much either, but it's not really there to help wealthy people.

What is not progressive about thinking outside the box for a fund that is destined for eventual failure. This fact alone will lead to the seniors and folks of very modest means essentially having their meager lifestyles diminished to near nothing..

I also think the handling of Social Security has been borderline criminal.

And the "government" prints NO money....That's the Federal Reserve which is a quasi private bank..

Social security has been a huge success in lifting people out of poverty, and has never defaulted on its obligations. You would rather that money be invested with Wall Street, where it is at the whims of the market, and where fund managers take a huge cut?

The thing is, you can already invest the rest of your money in mutual funds, or bonds, or gold, or whatever you want to. Social Security is a safety net, designed to guarantee a minimum decent standard of living to seniors.

You are correct about the Fed printing money (thank you for pointing that out). That puts the government in a serious conflct of interest situation. As a debtor to Social Security, the government benefits from being able to repay its Social Security obligations with cheaper dollars. As a fiduciary, the government should be managing Social Security for the best interests of its beneficiaries which means (among other things) investing its assets to protect them from the inevitable consequences of the Fed's non-stop printing presses (i.e inflation). Who do you think the government is looking out for?

The question to ask is how would a competent, independent fund manager invest the money. Would it be exclusively Treasury obligations whose value will evaporate in an inflationary environment or would it be a balanced portfolio of equities, hard assets and various debt instruments (including some Treasuries). I'm not an expert, but I've done very well over the years with that approach. It's obvious to me that the government is not managing the money for my benefit. Once you understand that, why would you trust them and why would you want to keep sending them more FICA?

Sorry to be pointing this out, but with Social Security, the government has been screwing us for decades. It does not deserve our trust.

What planet do you live on?

Have you been paying attention to inflation for the past few years. All the right-wingers who predicted impending inflation have been proven wrong over and over again.

The SS funds have been invested conservatively, in Treasuries, which is entirely appropriate given the nature of Social Security. Sure, some competent, independent fund managers may have done better. Other competent, independent fund managers, though, have lost a lot of money. That kind of risk is not appropriate for something like Social Security, because the livelihoods of millions of people are at stake.

Treasuries, by the way, have outpaced inflation. All assets have some risk associated with them, but the risk associated with treasuries is lower than anything else. The risk profile appropriate for an individual retirement account is very different than for something like SS.

Again, all of this "screwing" that SS has been doing is pure fiction. It has paid out 100% of its obligations, and it has invested the surplus in safe, non-speculative assets, as is required by law.

As I see it, significant inflation is inevitable in the future, but we obviously see things very differently. I'm very happy with my investment results; good luck with yours.

We're not going to agree about Social Security and the larger question about trusting the government. Good discussion, though.

You might think that significant inflation is inevitable, but there isn't any sound economic reasoning behind this, and the people who have been warning about massive inflation for years have been proven wrong over and over. Check out Paul Krugman's blog for explanation of the macroeconomics of QE, interest rates, and the liquidity trap.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

Look up the word fiduciary and tell me if you think the government has acted that way with socail security

The government has not defaulted on its social security obligations, by the way. Even when the market crashed, and a lot of people lost a lot in private investments, social security kept on paying according to schedule.

Social security is not broke. It has been hugely successful in lifting people out to poverty, and the only threat to it is people like you and Rand Paul who want to get rid of it, and leave seniors to fend for themselves.

From a blurb in a Senate Banking Committee hearing, Greenspan said: "We can always guarantee cash benefits...But we CANNOT guarantee purchasing power"

Any potential social security beneficiary should be distrustful for that reason. Just because the government has not defaulted does not mean it has been ethical in managinbg the funds.

It hasn't defaulted, and it has invested the surplus in treasuries. Above you said that if a private company did that, they would be in jail. What's the crime?

You accused the government of criminal mismanagement of Social Security funds. Please explain what crime this is. Where is the malfeasance you are talking about.

They haven't stolen any money. They have paid all their obligations, and the surplus has been invested in the safest assets in the world: US Treasuries.

They can't just spend the money and write IOU's to the retirement fund. If they did, they would be breaking the law, but the government does it all the time.

They are the closest thing to "risk-free" that exists. The SS funds could not possibly be invested more prudently. What you are actually asking is for the SS funds to be invested less prudently -- to seek out more risk in order to increase returns.

Private companies have been looting and diluting private retirement funds for ages, perfectly legally. Every time the stock market goes down, every time a company goes bankrupt, or the slow drip of "administrative fees" applied against investment accounts...nobody goes to jail.

The government invests the money paid into SS in special treasury bonds, which are, by design, more secure than any other financial instrument. You have to misunderstand the whole concept of money to object to how SS funds are handled.

"Now they are cutting benefits" is false. Last month they were discussing reducing the CPI adjustments to future benefits in some cases, and the firestorm that predictably unleashed makes it very unlikely that any reduction will ever happen - politically, its practically untouchable.

And that the fund is less than a generation from being totally broke?

It is not less than a generation from being "totally broke". It is fully funded for 20 years, and raising the payroll tax cap (for example) would guarantee that it would be funded indefinitely.

Thanks, I've heard the right-wing talking points before.

...to manage my retirement (SS), to be there if I lose my job (unemployment insurance), to manage my kids' education, to make sure the food I eat is safe, to provide fresh and clean water to my house, to maintain the roads and make sure the cars we drive are safe, to enforce the laws and keep my community safe, etc.

Government is just people, and most people are good, honest, hard-working, well-intentioned. Many of the problems we have are more from not having enough people (enough funds for people) to do the jobs that need to be done.

I already trust the government to do background checks to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have guns. The legislation was about making that more effective, which would be a very good thing.

...as you enjoy your clean government drinking water, safe streets, middling-to-good education system, well-ordered workplaces, safe food supply, your abundant legal protections, more-or-less fair and predictable marketplace. And so forth. The point being, people who "don't trust the government" actually trust them implicitly all day long, they just don't recognize that they do.

Its not that I am naive, I just haven't closed my eyes to block out how the world works. Do you think private investors would do as well providing all of the services above? Do you think they would treat us all fairly without government oversight - that the quality of services would be the same?

And how long do you think it would be before you and your money parted company in an unregulated marketplace (recalling a different thread), and if there were no government and legal system in place to back you up? Once parted company, what then?

...after campaigning for an entire year that Social Security was untouchable? How about Obama extending the Bush tax cuts after swearing it wouldn't happen? How about the way various governments treated the OWS demonstrators? How much trust do you think various public employee unions have in government when their pension benefits are involved? How many tax increases have been signed into law by politicians who swore they would never do that? (Remember "Read my lips"?). How truthful was Bill Clinton about his affair? How about what Bush said and did following 9/11 to get us into a war in Iraq? How about the 2000 election? or the 2004 election? How about no-bid contracts or cushy appointments that somehow get awarded to big campaign contributors? Do you really trust the people who would do those things? I'm sorry if it hurts, but if you answer yes, then I'll stand by my naive comment.

I could go on, but by now, I hope you see my point. It's about being able to believe what the government is telling you and I'm sorry, but I'm 63 and I've seen more politicians renege on campaign promises, more corruption and more outright lies than I can count. In my opinion, very few people have any expectation that politicians will honor a commitment after it's made unless it's to their advantage. I certainly don't. So when I hear politicians swearing up and down that they won't use background checks to establish a national gun registry and that they'll honor the commitment to destroy gun purchase records after a period of time, I don't trust them.

And you have to keep your guns secret and safe because...you can't trust a politician?

Of course, trust is one thing, and good governance works best when one goes to the ballot box with high expectations, and then pays attention. But I suspect we are talking from completely different pages.

I'm a law abiding citizen and I can't see any reason why the government needs to know what I have. The issue is whether gun owners can trust the government not to abuse that information. Tell me why they should.

to be responsible an law abiding. And to have no ability to know whether that is the case or not, while the death toll keeps rising.

As with the government, trust is one thing, but one must also pay attention. The problem is that without a good background check, all of us have to trust our lives to people we decide to be legislatively blind to. Its an idiotic situation. What doesn't work is "free guns for all" so I can arm myself and shoot down anyone I feel threatened by because everybody - criminal or not, sane or not - has all the guns they can buy, because the government has covered its eyes, ears and mouth to the situation, simply to calm some people's paranoia.

Most legislation arises to address a problem, and this has arisen to address the problem of various mass killings. The least we can do is have a better background check.

The government doesn't need to know what guns you own in order to check your background. I'm OK with the background check part.

like the way we license people to drive, I suppose, setting a fairly high standard of competence and then staying out of what kind or how many cars they drive.

It was the rest that did not. In a simple majority this would be law...alas democracy was defeated

Do you really think a majority of senators believed the government was coming for people's guns?
or that a majority of senators believed that a majority of the public believed that the government was coming for people's guns by closing loop-holes in the background check system?

This time the senate listened to the people?

Seriously?

We can't even pass background checks when they don't matter. That's how little we're listening to the other side here.

It was legislators in the pockets of the NRA and appeasers of
freekky paranoid gun-nuts.

The right wing sure milks those voter databases for everything they can and they see nothing wrong with it. Why the about face with gun databases?

that voter registration is designed to determine who may vote, not not to track if they vote or how they vote?

This is in sharp contrast to gun registries where the goal is to determine who owns what weapons. As stated by previous posters, there is prudence in background checks to determine who may own guns as demonstrated by the 90% support of those checks. There is risk in tracking who owns what, as there is risk in knowing how people vote. That's why we have anonymous ballots, and that's why there is little support for gun registries.

With how a person votes. Having a database that says person X owns a gun is no different. There is no rational reason for voter registries and but not for gun registries. NRA and gun nut fear mongering are why gun registries do not exist.

, the NRA and the mindless psychopaths who see nothing wrong with owning devices whose only purpose is to murder human beings.

And that distrust is earned.

As for this specific bill, who cares? Despite all the hysteria here, the weeping and knashing of teeth and the talk of slaughtered children, the bill in question was simply feel-good candyfloss designed to convince the perpetually fearful and gun-phobic that our party wants to "Do Something." It was never going to pass the House, and if it had it wouldn't have done anything to stop the bi-annual horror show.

It is pointless to try to do anything as it will always fail. The 8 hour work day is a failure and should be undone due to evil unions, the Civil Rights Act will NEVER change anyone's behavior so we shouldn't try. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme and wealth redistribution. The repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't tell" will never happen -- the military will never stand for it. The EPA is needless hinderance of business. Clean water and clean air?

And smoking. Don't forget smoking! Bah!

Anarchy will win every time! I for one welcome our new government distrusting overlords!

Dude, you really need to start posting to Downer's Underground instead.

Most "government distrust" I've seen started in....what year was that again? Oh yeah, really early in 2009. Before that, those same people who are so busy telling me how they distrust government were abusing the US flag on their car antennae and were telling me how traitorous I was to even suggest that our leadership was heading in the wrong direction.

So let's hear it. How exactly is "that distrust" earned?

Want an example?

Obama and Biden spent all of 2012 touring the country promising that they would be the guys who would protect social security. It was HANDS OFF, WE PROMISE! the entire time.

After the vote count was in Obama didn't even wait until he was sworn in for his second term before offering it up as a sacrifice, and he has done so repeatedly ever since. We cannot even trust our own guy to do the one thing he spent a year vowing to do. In my opinion, we cannot trust our guy to do ANYTHING he says. Hell, if it's even somewhat left and he promised it, it's a safe bet he will do the opposite.

And it's not just us or our guys. Bush was exactly the same. They all are, and the American people damn well know it. There's a good reason the American people do not trust politicians. So yes, it comes down to trust. The gun rights folks don't trust the clowns in Washington any more than we do. They would be foolish to do so.

As for this issue, I really do not care. It's not even on my radar and I rarely bother to post about it here. There's too much emotion and too little rational discussion. And in any case, I care about issues that matter to millions -- things like hungry kids and the unemployed. When I consider tragedy on that scale, and the economic devistation a hundred-million Americans are facing, feel-good pandering to anti-gun activists doesn't make the grade.

I will carry on caring about the things that affect millions, things that only require a simple majority to accomplish. You can concern yourself with whatever you like.

If guns really were your issue, you wouldn't have time to mention hungry kids and economic devastation.

But in the end, you have to either believe government exists for a positive reason or a negative reason. Believing the latter is what the cool kids do, but that doesn't make the premise a universal truth.

It is either a servant or a master, but even at its best it should never become a TRUSTED servant.

I suspect we agree on that.

Personally, I tire of people who whine and complain and distrust government yet never participate in any way.

Seems to me that by doing so they got the government they were asking for...

but the lack of trust in government.

Worldwide, according to Edelman Insights, there is a growing level of distrust in governments.

of the 25 countries included in their survey, the number of countries in the "distrusted" nearly doubled (6 in 2011, 11 in 2012).

Interestingly, 8 of the 11 countries in the distrusted bracket are European countries (which mirrors this report which says there was 50%+ loss of trust in the Eurozone).

inside the lines as defined by the constitution regardless of what the clamoring masses want?

A 24 million dollar bill that allows the police/militia to go after people who own guns, if they have felonies, or if they are mentally ill.

But since between 15 to 25% of all Americans are mentally ill, that means the SWAT teams they send out to get the guns away from the gun owners have mentally ill among them as well.

And furthermore, there is no - ABSOLUTELY NO - oversight on these SWAT teams. Every year dozens of innocent Americans get killed when SWAT folks arrive at the WRONG ADDRESS. So at 3 in the morning, your elderly grandma, living in a rough area of Baltimore, brings a baseball bat to the door when these ski masked individuals arrive at her front door - and guess what happens when the SWAT types see Grannie with her baseball bat?

Patch-able holes in a boat rather than a sunk ship.

The issue is not over... it continues.

Every discussion takes something away from law abiding gun owners and gives nothing back in return. I think this goes hand in hand with the point being made on .gov overreach.

What would you take in exchange for registration AND UBC?

What do you think gun owners deserve?


It was fairly common before this year to hear about how gun laws were loosening - shall-issue, CCW, Heller etc.
Did controllers get anything in exchange?

UBC, magazine limits, AWB, limitations on ammo purchases, online ammo purchase bans, regulations or bans on gunpowder, bans on certain rifle stocks, child abandonment charges for leaving a child alone at a gun show...even for them to go to restroom, prohibit transfer of magazines over ten rds, creation of a 250ft no gun zone around congressmen, make it a ten year felony to carry a gun within 1000ft of a building where a congressman is, make it a crime if a gun show promoter does not inform every patron of a gun show of his responsibility under the Brady bill, banning all private transfers by requiring them to go thru an FFL.

This list was put together by a qwik google search.

What would be acceptable in exchange for:

Registration? Nothing.

UBCs? I have already been fully vetted by the FBI and ATF. I think 50 state reciprocity for my CCL would be a good swap.

There is an old saying that trust is earned. So what has the Government done to earn our trust? I can think of dozens of things off the top of my head about why they've lost that trust, and will probably not get it back for at least a generation. But why should we trust the Government?

1. Lies.
2. Cowardice
3. Stupidity.

All on the part of gun humpers, the NRA, and fucking repukes.

And they have done absolutely nothing to earn that trust back.

It will take generations to come back.