Watching the Republicans - Runaway Train

[IamSam]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But if they are doing traffic surveillance, or a bunny population count, and happen to see someone being bad, can they shoot? I mean with a camera of course.

They can only shoot bunnies gone bad. The Supreme Court is still out on whether they can shoot people who are still driving Gremlins.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Hey now, there's nothing wrong with Gremlins. I put 140,000 miles on one then gave it to a needy teenager. I saw it going the other way a couple years later (recognized my paint job), and all the lights were working, it had license plates, but I don't know if it way inspected because it didn't have a windshield to put the stickers on.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I saw it going the other way a couple years later

It still keeps running away from you? What did you do to it?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Oy, I'm glad it couldn't talk.

[glatt]

Gremlins were ok cars. My cousin had one. Huge engine in a smallish car. Lots of power. Kind of ugly in hindsight, but most cars back then look ugly today.

And you flicked on the high beams by stepping on a button on the rusted out floor. Made it a challenge when the floor was getting spongy from rust, and pressing on the button would just push the whole assembly into the floor.

[infinite monkey]

A guy friend in HS had a Gremlin he 'souped up.' Nowadays I guess you'd say he pimped his ride.

Sometimes he had to clutch start it. I remember being at the fair and all of us pushing his car trying to get some speed up.

I remember cars having the high beam thing on the floor.

[tw]

I took a friend's Gremlin for a day to fix it. One immediate task was to get rid noise inside the dashboard. I eventually removed the entire front panel. And still could not get to bolts that held the entire dash board to the frame. They were only finger tightened for good reason. It was virtually impossible to get a wrench on it.

Well I made something to eventually tighten it. Then learned another lesson about AMC. They used same connectors for multiple harnesses. ( No good car makes that mistake.) Got two connectors mixed up. Fortunately, my friend's uncle owned the AMC dealer. So they gave me access to the wiring diagrams.

The car was fun to drive. But I found reams of problems (and noises) all directly traceable to bad design and manufacturing practices.

BTW, all domestic cars back then had high beams on the floor.

By the time Courts decide it is legal to shoot Gremlins, those cars definitely will no longer exist.

[Lamplighter]

The News Tribute

A poll released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center
found that around 8 in 10 of both gun owners and people without guns favor
extending background checks to private gun sales.
Majorities of gun owners oppose banning assault weapons,
while most without firearms favor the prohibition.

About 3 in 10 Republicans said they own guns, about double the rate of Democrats.
It also found that two-thirds of NRA members support expanded background checks.

So then ...

Senate Committee Approves Expanding Background Checks For Gun Sales

The Associated Press reports that the committee cast a 10-8 party-line vote, with all Republicans opposed,
on the measure to expand a requirement of background checks for gun sales between private parties.
<snip>
The panel also voted 14-4 for a measure providing an additional $40 million annually
for school safety improvements like classroom locks and training for teachers.
Four Republicans joined Democrats in backing that measure,
which initially called for a higher figure that was reduced in bargaining
between Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Susan Collins, R-Maine.

NPR

Last week, the committee voted 11-7 for a bill that would make
gun trafficking a federal crime carrying long prison terms.
Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa was the sole Republican supporter.

That measure would also crack down on straw purchasers,
people who buy a firearm for criminals or others forbidden to buy one.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The cognitive dissidence built up between being an obstructionist and doing the logical thing, must cost them any pleasure from the first two martinis of the day.

The Associated Press reports that the committee cast a 10-8 party-line vote, with all Republicans opposed, on the measure to expand a requirement of background checks for gun sales between private parties.

I heard most of the bitching in the wilderness was about the two private party sales. Obviously this would nail straw purchasers selling to street thugs. But it also meant if Joe Sixpack agrees to sell one of his guns to his son, neighbor, or hunting buddy, they both have to travel to an FFL holder, do the paperwork/background check, pay for this service, and possibly pay sales tax on the deal.

[Undertoad]

If legitimate sales are made more difficult, there will be more illegitimate sales. More guns will be reported stolen or lost, and the market for untraceable guns and saturday night specials will increase.

[IamSam]

I agree that if good old boy Charlie wants to sell a gun to good old boy Bubba who just wants a shotgun to go 'coon hunting, the paperwork that would be required is ridiculous. But what if Bubba is actually a member of the Mexican Mafia?

As the saying goes "Only a good man with a gun can stop a bad man who wants to buy that gun."

The market for untraceable guns will increase - no question. But honest gun owners or just those who fear imprisonment by the Feds, will not be selling their guns under the table to shady characters - especially shady characters who pretend that they haven't just crawled out from underneath a rock.

The laws of supply and demand will ensure that the cost of an illegal gun will sky rocket. I was listening to a report on NPR about gang violence in the schools. Several gang members said that they got their guns for free, just for joining a gang. These kids were like 13 or 14 years old!

If higher gun prices on the black market makes it too costly to hand out a free gun to a 13 year-old, the background check law will not have been enacted in vain.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The reality is most guns are untraceable, even legally bought guns that haven't changed hands.

"There is a perception -- even among law enforcement agencies -- that if you send a serial number from a gun up here, that we plug it into a computer and the name of a gun owner pops out, as if there's a national registration system," says Charles Houser, who has been chief of the center since 2005. "There's no such thing."

No such thing, because federal law prohibits the creation of a national database of gun purchases. That ban was first slipped into an appropriations bill in Congress in 1979 and became permanent law in 1986, in a law sponsored by two strong supporters of gun rights, Idaho Republican James McClure and Missouri Democrat Harold Volkmer. Both men passed away in 2011.

The ban on a federal gun sale database has been strongly supported by the powerful National Rifle Association. The NRA told us it "is opposed to any registry of law abiding gun owners."

So workers at the National Tracing Center are left with an antiquated system to trace 350,000 guns a year, requiring them to review by hand tons of paper records and 500 million entries on microfilm. Critics say it's the law enforcement equivalent of the horse and buggy.

This is outrageous.

[piercehawkeye45]

That is a great point. The big difference between guns and drugs (often used as an analogy for failed prohibition/regulation) is that guns start out legal and can be registered. Drugs start out illegal and remain illegal, making them impossible to trace.

[Lamplighter]

Is this hypocrisy, Republican politics du jour, or just a man
whose "sacred values" only apply to other families, and not his own ?

NY Times
By JEREMY W. PETERS
Published: March 15, 2013
G.O.P. Senator Says He Has a Gay Son, and Backs Gay Marriage

WASHINGTON — Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, a rising national star in the Republican Party,
announced on Friday that he has a gay son and could no longer justify his opposition to same-sex marriage.
<snip>
In a series of interviews and an op-ed article published in The Columbus Dispatch,
Mr. Portman, at times nervously wringing his hands, said that he did not want his son Will,
who is 21, treated any differently because of his sexuality.
<snip>
Mr. Portman was a sponsor of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act
that is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court, with arguments scheduled for this month.
That case, he said, was a factor in his decision to speak out.<snip>

“At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted
in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman,” he wrote in the op-ed.
“Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective.”
<snip>

I realize this is how things often work in legislatures...
a person is elected to office and then is confronted by a situation in their own family.
and is then willing to change their support for particular legislation.
I have seen this happen with funding for research and/or support
for rare diseases, mental health services, suicides, etc.

I am very glad Senator Portman has changed his mind,
but at the same time it makes me angry that he did not think
about the children of other parents when he advocated for DOM.

Then again, maybe Mr Portman is being used this time
as a stalking horse by the Republican leadership.
.

[DanaC]

The experiences of theoretical others are never as powerful as those of people close to us. If it's not a stalking horse move then it's a brave one. he could have just gone quiet about these issues. If it's your own kid it personalises it. You can sympathise with someone else and their children but you don't feel their pain in the same way.