Skip to main content

View Diary: Quinnipiac Poll: 91% Support Universal Background Checks (48 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think you would (5+ / 0-)

    find that folks here amenable to changing the rules as to who gets on the 'no guns' list, but it would likely add some groups and remove others.

    But first, I want universal background checks.  And even if the law doesn't change in terms of who is on the list, I still want universal background checks.

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:31:43 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I want them too (4+ / 0-)

      But not by infringing on the rights of someone who may not be me or may not be you. It's way harder to fix something than to do it right the first time. In our haste to push this we aren't asking the questions that we need to be asking, IMO.

      A recreational user of pot can just lie, a MM patient has a prescription and is on a list, they are screwed.

      Some older gay guy or woman who was turfed out of the military by homophobes doesn't deserve to be in the same category as a violent criminal.

      The same with many people who carry non-violent felony convictions, many for drugs.

      "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

      by high uintas on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:48:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You aren't dishonorably discharged for being gay. (4+ / 0-)

        It's an OTH, or Other than Honorable.

        Not good, but you are not considered a felon like you are for a Dishonorable.

        And I consider the Drug war in this country to horribly taint anything it touches.  Justice in that context is already pretty far removed from anything resembling reasonable.

        I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

        by detroitmechworks on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 06:59:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The problem with people (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RiveroftheWest, ericlewis0

        Being convicted as felons,for small quantities,of weed is,not that they can't,later buy a gun, it's that they were thrown in jail in the first place. It should never have been a felony.

        I'm actually good with non-violent felons being denied guns.  I mean do we really want Martha Stewart armed?  Basically non-violent means drugs and white collar crime.  While I sympathize with the drugs, the white collar assholes get nothin' as far as I'm concerned.

        I expect that in the next decade we will decriminalize weed, at which time we need to do some serious retroactive pardons.  But, we aren't there yet.  At this point if we try to get dope felons their gun rights back, universal gun checks will die in congress.

        I get your point about not wanting to come back to fix bills, but at least in weed felons catagory, there really is no choice, and I am not willing to wait to get universal background checks until weed is legalized.

        "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

        by Empty Vessel on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 07:09:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ericlewis0

          Non violent felony convictions can be pretty wide ranging, I have a niece who got involve in a check kiting scheme with an asshole boyfriend when she was 18. When she really realized what this was she went to the cops and told them what was going on and of course she was the only one who went down with more than one felony. That was 15yrs ago, she is a mother of two now.

          We have a prominent Kossack who would fall into the "non-violent" felon slot, someone most respect and wouldn't want to see further punished. (not my job to out anyone, even tho he's outed himself before). And why couldn't Martha Stewart have a gun? She's more precise and organized than most mere humans.

          "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

          by high uintas on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 07:33:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  We are not going to get UBC regardless. Even if (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      noway2

      somehow and I really mean somehow, it makes it out of the Senate..... there is not a snowball chance in hell of it getting out of the House.  You would see massive riots.  No way.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site