Background check? Only if you want to buy a gun.

[wmw999 2,447]

Dunno. I think that some people are capable of different levels of disapproval for different situations, of thinking that people might be right on some things and wrong on others, and of thinking that just because someone is wrong once doesn’t make them the worst human being in he world, or being right doesn’t make them the best. Likewise, if someone is wrong on something, that doesn’t mean that everything they do is wrong, and if they’re right on something (especially something you agree with) doesn’t necessarily make them an authority.

Wasserman appears to be a hypocrite. Not surprising; she seems like the type who thinks that because she thinks something is right or best, she’s justified in doing anything that is marginal to get it accomplished. After all, her superior discernment () means that she can’t be wrong. That doesn’t mean, however, that every single thing she’s in favor of is therefore evil. If nothing else, she might like puppies. . Judge the individual, or the individual act, don’t agglomerate just because it’s convenient or someone told you to.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,991]

>Only if you put students out with no AAD.

OK. So Wasserman is a hypocrite because she wants background checks for some people but not others. But an instructor who wants mandatory AAD's for some people but not others is just fine.

[nolhtairt 0]

DJL

******

Quote

Are you seriously defending this POS?

I'm still confused. In what way do you see Bill defending anyone? In any case I agree that better pre-employment checks should have been done here. How does that affect gun background purchase checks? Are you trying to make a case against Wasserman or against background checks?

I don't know if this was the original reason for the post, but you can bet that the next time someone suggests a database of gun owners this will be called out as an excellent reason not to. A legitimate concern about gun databases is letting criminals know who in their neighborhood has guns to steal.

I think that's really an issue that's not an issue. There are all sorts of ways of figuring out who has guns and that doesn't change the fact that gun owners need to take the steps to keep their weapons safe from robberies. My weapons are not in a safe but there are two people on this planet who know where they are and they would never be found in the course of a robbery without the use of an xray imaging device.

Besides, the big ole "The house protected by Smith and Wesson" sticker can be a dead giveaway for some folks.

Not just on the house, but also your vehicles.

[billvon 2,991]

>>Besides, the big ole "The house protected by Smith and Wesson" sticker can be a dead
>>giveaway for some folks.

>Not just on the house, but also your vehicles.

Agreed. The "database of gun owners is dangerous" argument doesn't fly, given how many gun owners advertise their ownership of said guns as a deterrent.

[kallend 2,027]

billvon

>>Besides, the big ole "The house protected by Smith and Wesson" sticker can be a dead
>>giveaway for some folks.

>Not just on the house, but also your vehicles.

Agreed. The "database of gun owners is dangerous" argument doesn't fly, given how many gun owners advertise their ownership of said guns as a deterrent.

Or flaunt them in open carry to advertise how small their dicks are.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bob_Church 7]

The mind boggles.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Just so I'm clear...Wasserman and her ilk are beating the drum for background checks for ammunition purchases. However, she waived a background check on several IT aides. Those aides were were logging into servers of members they didn’t work for, logging in using congressmen’s personal usernames, uploading data off the House network, and behaving in ways that suggested “nefarious purposes” and that “steps are being taken to conceal their activity.”

Ok, let's try this tack: leave aside the hypocrisy or double standard for one post - looking at the IT aide situation purely on its own merits, do you think there should have been background checks performed before hiring them?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DJL 235]

Yes. Absolutely. No doubt about it. I have no idea how anyone had the authority to allow them to work without one. That said, I've done work inside of the Capital Building and inside of politician's offices and I was very surprised at the lack of oversight I received. After the glam had worn off I got into the habit of just walking into an office and sitting down at the desk to do my work, I realized in one instance that I was sitting at the desk of the Speaker of the House.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

jakee

Ok, let's try this tack: leave aside the hypocrisy or double standard for one post - looking at the IT aide situation purely on its own merits, do you think there should have been background checks performed before hiring them?

That was part of the article.

That there were supposed to be background checks of these individuals that never happened.

Also that had those checks been properly performed, there would have been info found that may well have disqualified these guys from being hired.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 2,991]

Quote

Ok, let's try this tack: leave aside the hypocrisy or double standard for one post - looking at the IT aide situation purely on its own merits, do you think there should have been background checks performed before hiring them?

Definitely; she screwed up bigtime by not doing them.

[jakee 1,489]

wolfriverjoe

That was part of the article.

That there were supposed to be background checks of these individuals that never happened.

No there weren't. Background check or vouchsafed by another qualified person. A loophole that massive isn't a loophole, but a second equally valid option (procedurally speaking anyway, not common sense wise). So, you could have them background checked, or you could just have your friend say "yeah these guys are cool" and either one fulfils the requirement of what is supposed to happen.

Anyway, that wasn't really the point of the question, and I'd quite like him to answer.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[airdvr 210]

jakee

Quote

Just so I'm clear...Wasserman and her ilk are beating the drum for background checks for ammunition purchases. However, she waived a background check on several IT aides. Those aides were were logging into servers of members they didn’t work for, logging in using congressmen’s personal usernames, uploading data off the House network, and behaving in ways that suggested “nefarious purposes” and that “steps are being taken to conceal their activity.”

Ok, let's try this tack: leave aside the hypocrisy or double standard for one post - looking at the IT aide situation purely on its own merits, do you think there should have been background checks performed before hiring them?

Yes. People have to be checked in any number of situations.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne