One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Come together': US Dems introduce gun background check bill
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 next>>
Jan 9, 2019 13:53:25   #
Bad Bob
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/come-together-us-dems-introduce-gun-background-check-001438461.html

Washington (AFP) - Democrats unveiled landmark gun safety legislation Tuesday five days after regaining the US House majority, seeking swift action on a measure to expand background checks on firearm sales.
A similar bill was introduced last year by Democrats, but Republican leaders declined to bring it to a vote.
The new bill -- which has the backing of former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who survived being shot in the head eight years ago to the day and is now one of the nation's leading gun control advocates -- has a handful of Republican co-sponsors, and is likely to pass the chamber.
But it is not expected to advance in the Senate, which is under Republican control.
Giffords joined House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and congressman Mike Thompson, who heads a Democratic task force on gun violence, in introducing the bill, calling for "courage" among lawmakers.
"Now is the time to come together, be responsible. Democrats, Republicans, everyone," she said. "We must never stop fighting."----MORE----

| Reply
Jan 9, 2019 14:00:49   #
Wonttakeitanymore (a regular here)
 
How about drug screens? They all inbibe of the same psychotropic drugs!! The mass murderors

| Reply
Jan 9, 2019 14:11:11   #
archie bunker (a regular here)
 
Bad Bob wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/come-together-us-dems-introduce-gun-background-check-001438461.html

Washington (AFP) - Democrats unveiled landmark gun safety legislation Tuesday five days after regaining the US House majority, seeking swift action on a measure to expand background checks on firearm sales.
A similar bill was introduced last year by Democrats, but Republican leaders declined to bring it to a vote.
The new bill -- which has the backing of former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who survived being shot in the head eight years ago to the day and is now one of the nation's leading gun control advocates -- has a handful of Republican co-sponsors, and is likely to pass the chamber.
But it is not expected to advance in the Senate, which is under Republican control.
Giffords joined House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and congressman Mike Thompson, who heads a Democratic task force on gun violence, in introducing the bill, calling for "courage" among lawmakers.
"Now is the time to come together, be responsible. Democrats, Republicans, everyone," she said. "We must never stop fighting."----MORE----
https://www.yahoo.com/news/come-together-us-dems-i... (show quote)


OK Bob. So, if I want to pass down my grandad's old two row 12 gauge to my son, I need to go to someone with a FFL to background check him before he can take possession of it.
I can deal with that, but how is it going to stop some lunatic bent on killing?

| Reply
Jan 9, 2019 14:28:24   #
woodguru (a regular here)
 
archie bunker wrote:
OK Bob. So, if I want to pass down my grandad's old two row 12 gauge to my son, I need to go to someone with a FFL to background check him before he can take possession of it.
I can deal with that, but how is it going to stop some lunatic bent on killing?


Do you know that this is the case? California has background check rules and inherited firearms are not required to go through that.

Background checks and watch list laws won't stop all, but they can make a difference, so can a lot of other things, such as laws requiring guns to be stored safely and lock mechanisms. California had a substantial number of kids being killed with parent's guns before laws requiring secure storage.

I personally think that the ridiculous hard resistance to the sensible aspects of gun laws is going to have created a backlash where the resulting wave will be encompassing harsher laws than if the right had engaged and been a part of keeping them sensible. An example is that a magazine size restriction is a small price to pay to be able to get AR style rifles. I have one and I have and can take out four coyotes out of a group where two was the norm with a bolt action. Ten shots...four coyotes, and I can put in another magazine quickly enough to get off more shots at runners. So yeah, I get pissed off at a resistance to anything that actually results in more prohibitive laws (like no AR's at all).

I would rather have sensible laws passed at federal level than a state like California that crosses beyond the sensible point.

| Reply
Jan 9, 2019 15:08:50   #
archie bunker (a regular here)
 
woodguru wrote:
Do you know that this is the case? California has background check rules and inherited firearms are not required to go through that.

Background checks and watch list laws won't stop all, but they can make a difference, so can a lot of other things, such as laws requiring guns to be stored safely and lock mechanisms. California had a substantial number of kids being killed with parent's guns before laws requiring secure storage.

I personally think that the ridiculous hard resistance to the sensible aspects of gun laws is going to have created a backlash where the resulting wave will be encompassing harsher laws than if the right had engaged and been a part of keeping them sensible. An example is that a magazine size restriction is a small price to pay to be able to get AR style rifles. I have one and I have and can take out four coyotes out of a group where two was the norm with a bolt action. Ten shots...four coyotes, and I can put in another magazine quickly enough to get off more shots at runners. So yeah, I get pissed off at a resistance to anything that actually results in more prohibitive laws.

I would rather have sensible laws passed at federal level than a state like California that crosses beyond the sensible point.
Do you know that this is the case? California has ... (show quote)


Why not aggressively enforce the background check that we already have? Form .....is it 4473?
Anyway, why not aggressively go after people, and dealers who lie on it? It happens a lot, don't you know?

| Reply
Jan 9, 2019 15:20:06   #
woodguru (a regular here)
 
archie bunker wrote:
Why not aggressively enforce the background check that we already have? Form .....is it 4473?
Anyway, why not aggressively go after people, and dealers who lie on it? It happens a lot, don't you know?


It's states that have lax to non existent laws that contribute. Mental health laws were gutted after Trump took office.

The GOP and NRA effectively sent a message that they think mentally unstable people have the right to own guns.

| Reply
Jan 9, 2019 15:26:10   #
archie bunker (a regular here)
 
woodguru wrote:
It's states that have lax to non existent laws that contribute. Mental health laws were gutted after Trump took office.

The GOP and NRA effectively sent a message that they think mentally unstable people have the right to own guns.


You're full of crap! Trump hasn't gutted mental health laws!! You're full of buzzard vomit!

| Reply
Jan 9, 2019 18:07:36   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
woodguru wrote:
It's states that have lax to non existent laws that contribute. Mental health laws were gutted after Trump took office.

The GOP and NRA effectively sent a message that they think mentally unstable people have the right to own guns.


I have heard this argument too many times...
Back up your words if possible...
Which laws were 'gutted'?

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 13:46:35   #
Smedley_buzkill (a regular here)
 
woodguru wrote:
Do you know that this is the case? California has background check rules and inherited firearms are not required to go through that.

Background checks and watch list laws won't stop all, but they can make a difference, so can a lot of other things, such as laws requiring guns to be stored safely and lock mechanisms. California had a substantial number of kids being killed with parent's guns before laws requiring secure storage.

I personally think that the ridiculous hard resistance to the sensible aspects of gun laws is going to have created a backlash where the resulting wave will be encompassing harsher laws than if the right had engaged and been a part of keeping them sensible. An example is that a magazine size restriction is a small price to pay to be able to get AR style rifles. I have one and I have and can take out four coyotes out of a group where two was the norm with a bolt action. Ten shots...four coyotes, and I can put in another magazine quickly enough to get off more shots at runners. So yeah, I get pissed off at a resistance to anything that actually results in more prohibitive laws (like no AR's at all).

I would rather have sensible laws passed at federal level than a state like California that crosses beyond the sensible point.
Do you know that this is the case? California has ... (show quote)

You just defeated your own argument. You just stated how quickly you can change magazines. Do you actually think there is a real difference in the amount of rounds you can put out using ten instead of 30 round magazines? I mean a realistic difference. It could even be more with a ten round, since they are less likely to experience feeding malfunctions. A rifle with a pistol grip is illegal, but that same rifle with a thumbhole stock is just fine? A bayonet lug makes a rifle illegal? Tell us, how many people in the last ten years have been killed by a bayonet equipped rifle?
Background checks? Universal? In 2014, there were a little over 76,000 stops on purchases from FFL dealers. Less than 100 were prosecuted, resulting in less than 30 convictions.
Since the mid sixties, there have been fewer than 1200 people killed in mass shootings in this country. That's more than fifty years, to get to a fraction of the number of people who are killed retail every year.
Most of the people who committed mass shootings passed background checks. As for the others, according to the BATFE the average gun recovered from a criminal is several years old and stolen. So expanding background checks will accomplish......what? An even greater number of non prosecutions?
The right says enforce the laws we have. The left says pass more laws that won't be enforced either.

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 14:31:45   #
carlajones
 
Out of the gate Democrats demand ENSLAVEMENT OF AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR FOREIGN INVASION, FOREIGN COUNTRIES, Death of Americans by REFUSING TO PROTECT AMERICA FROM FOREIGN INVASION, Planned Parenthood! All Forms Of Death Of American Citizens! They are Traitors, Treasonous, Domestic ENIMIES OF AMERICA DEMANDING FOREIGN INVASION! They lied in their Oathes of office and there is consequences for lying when taking the oath. It states they SWEAR TO PROTECT AND SERVE AMERICAN CITIZENS and The Constatution !

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 14:34:36   #
Crayons
 
Criminal Cartels aren't subject to background checks...they just contact Eric Holder fer free weapons

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 14:41:13   #
Bad Bob
 
carlajones wrote:
Out of the gate Democrats demand ENSLAVEMENT OF AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR FOREIGN INVASION, FOREIGN COUNTRIES, Death of Americans by REFUSING TO PROTECT AMERICA FROM FOREIGN INVASION, Planned Parenthood! All Forms Of Death Of American Citizens! They are Traitors, Treasonous, Domestic ENIMIES OF AMERICA DEMANDING FOREIGN INVASION! They lied in their Oathes of office and there is consequences for lying when taking the oath. It states they SWEAR TO PROTECT AND SERVE AMERICAN CITIZENS and The Constatution !
Out of the gate Democrats demand ENSLAVEMENT OF AM... (show quote)



| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 15:22:04   #
Liberty Tree (a regular here)
 
archie bunker wrote:
OK Bob. So, if I want to pass down my grandad's old two row 12 gauge to my son, I need to go to someone with a FFL to background check him before he can take possession of it.
I can deal with that, but how is it going to stop some lunatic bent on killing?


Gun laws are for the law abiding citizens. Those intent on evil do not care about them.

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 16:39:31   #
woodguru (a regular here)
 
archie bunker wrote:
You're full of crap! Trump hasn't gutted mental health laws!! You're full of buzzard vomit!


A mental health law was set to go into effect and it was repealed...

No point in being personally insulting because you are ignorant, keep it civil there buddy.

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 16:40:33   #
woodguru (a regular here)
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
Gun laws are for the law abiding citizens. Those intent on evil do not care about them.


Silly rhetoric, tightening up on who can get them makes it harder

| Reply
Page: 1 2 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.