Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-19-2019, 02:40 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
In a bit of an awkward moment a couple of days ago, the Dems rejected the idea of notifying ICE when illegal immigrants fail a background check to buy a gun:

Democrats reject push to alert ICE when illegal immigrants fail firearm background checks
If ICE's mission was to enforce gun laws, that would indeed be awkward. But since the people failing background checks were presumably prevented from buying guns, I'd say mission accomplished. Why the fuck would ICE care?
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #102  
Old 02-19-2019, 06:08 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
In a bit of an awkward moment a couple of days ago, the Dems rejected the idea of notifying ICE when illegal immigrants fail a background check to buy a gun:

Democrats reject push to alert ICE when illegal immigrants fail firearm background checks
Huh, I didn't know that there was a notification system in place. So, when someone ineligible to buy a gun tries to buy a gun, the ATF or FBI or some such agency is notified, correct?
  #103  
Old 02-20-2019, 10:38 AM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Huh, I didn't know that there was a notification system in place. So, when someone ineligible to buy a gun tries to buy a gun, the ATF or FBI or some such agency is notified, correct?
The FBI runs the system. ATF is notified when a flag is raised and typically nothing ever happens after that point. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-440
  #104  
Old 02-20-2019, 10:43 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
If ICE's mission was to enforce gun laws, that would indeed be awkward. But since the people failing background checks were presumably prevented from buying guns, I'd say mission accomplished. Why the fuck would ICE care?
Even if you think ICE should be focusing on the criminal illegal aliens, that's who these people are! WTF do you mean 'why would they care'?!? Because illegal aliens are trying to illegally purchase a weapon, that's why.
  #105  
Old 02-20-2019, 10:44 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Huh, I didn't know that there was a notification system in place. So, when someone ineligible to buy a gun tries to buy a gun, the ATF or FBI or some such agency is notified, correct?
Yes, that's correct.
  #106  
Old 02-20-2019, 11:10 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
In a bit of an awkward moment a couple of days ago, the Dems rejected the idea of notifying ICE when illegal immigrants fail a background check to buy a gun:

Democrats reject push to alert ICE when illegal immigrants fail firearm background checks
I get that's what the headline says, and I even get that that is what some republican lawmakers and pundits have said, but I do not see any facts supporting that assertion, just the assertion that "Democrats hate ICE so much..." followed by a person's opinion on how their mortal enemy would behave due to their hatred.

Their presumption of hatred is unjustified, and their conclusion based on that unjustified presumption is ridiculous.

Do you have any democrats saying that the reason that they voted against the amendment was to keep ICE from being informed? If so, go ahead and quote. If not, then any assertions as to why they voted against this amendment are simply figments of a right winger's fevered imagination.

The way that you worded it, which to be fair, could be influenced by the rather dishonest reporting at Fox, is that democrats are carving out an exception in an already existing reporting rule, which is not in any way what actually happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yes, that's correct.
JXJonh's link didn't work for me. I took it, from the fact that part of the bill was to report when people failed a background check, that currently, if someone doesn't pass a background check, there is no report. What does this amendment supposed to change, if there is already a report of a failed check? What does its defeat to go on a bill (a bill that republicans will almost certainly not allow to pass, with or without this amendment, I may add [had this amendment gone on, and the republicans voted against the final bill, would that mean that republicans are "reject[ing] the idea of notifying ICE when illegal immigrants fail a background check to buy a gun"?]) mean as far as reporting failed checks?
  #107  
Old 02-20-2019, 12:27 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... Do you have any democrats saying that the reason that they voted against the amendment was to keep ICE from being informed? If so, go ahead and quote. If not, then any assertions as to why they voted against this amendment are simply figments of a right winger's fevered imagination. ...
I'm not aware of any commentary by any of the Dems explaining their vote one way or the other. What the amendment does is direct that ICE be notified. A vote against it IS a vote "to keep ICE from being informed".

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... The way that you worded it, which to be fair, could be influenced by the rather dishonest reporting at Fox, is that democrats are carving out an exception in an already existing reporting rule, which is not in any way what actually happened.
My wording doesn't imply that at all. It says nothing about the existing notification requirement. You are imagining things here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... JXJonh's link didn't work for me. I took it, from the fact that part of the bill was to report when people failed a background check, that currently, if someone doesn't pass a background check, there is no report. What does this amendment supposed to change, if there is already a report of a failed check? ...
ICE is not notified currently if the failer is an illegal immigrant. This amendment would have changed that.
  #108  
Old 02-20-2019, 01:54 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,393
Sorry for the bad link:

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-440
  #109  
Old 02-20-2019, 02:24 PM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
I had an uneasy feeling about the US military buying guns from other countries.
Which Sig Sauer is the military buying?
The Modular Handgun System is a customized version of the P320. As I understand it, all of the DoD units will be built in SIG's factory in Exeter, NH, rather than being imported.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
We agreed to take the gun debate elsewhere.
When did I agree to that, and where did we agree to take it?
  #110  
Old 02-20-2019, 02:28 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm not aware of any commentary by any of the Dems explaining their vote one way or the other. What the amendment does is direct that ICE be notified. A vote against it IS a vote "to keep ICE from being informed".
So, if the amendment had gone on the bill, and the republican majority senate voted against the bill, would you say that "A vote against it IS a vote "to keep ICE from being informed"."?
Quote:
My wording doesn't imply that at all. It says nothing about the existing notification requirement. You are imagining things here.
Your wording is that this is about informing ICE, when the amendment was not about informing ICE about an immigrant faling a check, but about informing authorities about anyone failing a check. The way you talk about it, it is like you think that this was just about notifying ICE, and if someone were to only listen to your description of it, then they would think that it is only about informing ICE as well.

Your wording would be more accurate and less misleading if you *did* speak of the existing notification requirement, and how it would be changed, rather than making the completely unsupported and unjustified claim that the "Democrats reject[ed] push to alert ICE when illegal immigrants fail firearm background checks"
Quote:

ICE is not notified currently if the failer is an illegal immigrant. This amendment would have changed that.
It would have changed a few things, notably:
Quote:
"Florida Rep. Greg Steube's proposed amendment to require that law enforcement be notified "when an individual attempting to purchase a firearm fails a federal background check."
Now, I am a bit curious as to what was in the amendment that caused the democrats to vote against it, but I would not go to the lengths of making the presumptions that the article that you linked to does.

they also did not vote to give everyone a pony, so the headline "Democrats reject[ed] push to give everyone a pony" is exactly as accurate and useful as the one that you have linked to and cited.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017