Your argument supports that things need to be way tighter to where those things you say happened can't anymore, this is why the laws on background checks and wait times need to be "expanded". It's not okay that a convicted felon can pass background checks, it's proof the system isn't strict enough.

The idea is that the things actually checked are expanded as well. Taken to where it's going it will flag people with domestic violence records, already there are questions about police records that do not get caught when people lie about that when purchasing guns. Too many states have no wait to where their police records can be run.

Rather than all this obstruction about "what will it do", let's see what it will do.

Some states already have background checks and wait periods, many or most do not, this is about raising standards in states that have none.

I just bought a shotgun and am buying another pistol for concealed carry, waiting ten days was no big deal, nor will 20 be any different, although the one thing I'd say is that I needed the shotgun for mountain lions that are killing livestock.

Who gets to decide whats "reasonable"? Politicians? The same ones who can't run this country are going to decide what a reasonable check is? The ones who put self and party ahead of country? That won't work.

Who decides who is unhinged? What doctor? A psychiatrist? Psychiatrists and psychologists as a group are unhinged themselves. Everyone on this planet can qualify as being unhinged at one time or another. Are you advocating snitching on your neighbor? How will that work if someone gets p.o.'d and decides you are unhinged? Its your word against his. Then when they find that system isn't working all that great they'll come up with even MORE guidelines and even longer waits.

Are we to end up like the movie Minority Report? Deny someone a right just in case they may commit a crime because some bureaucrat deemed them unsuitable?

There are tracking systems in existence we could take advantage of. So when someone is called in for a check everything comes up. If they have a criminal history, drug abuse, run ins with the law it will all be there. There is no need for yet more bureaucracy.

Tucker proves to be another person who just doesn't listen, he was still going on like a fool talking about antique muskets, when 56 seconds into the interview Williams had already explained that they were talking about a NEW muzzle that has been created to silence guns with 50 caliber bullets, that would include M2, M3 and M85 machine guns, and SASR Barrett or M82 rifles.. He wasn't talking about muzzleloading rifles.

What would be the purpose to have this kind of silencer?

Guns are not the problem, (accept in the hands of criminals), what is the problem is our attitudes towards guns. The kids today are inundated with games and TV to empower themselves through guns, a gun solves your problem. They live in an unrealistic world with a very warped sense of society and solving problems.

Why do we have mass shootings, because someone out there can't deal, is frustrated and goes out to solve the problem by killing, as if that's going to solve anything? Look at the guy who was just caught with his hit list of Democrats.

When someone posts something saying they are going to go to school and kill people... time to go take the guns out of their household. False claims are actually easier to counteract than credible allegations are.

My sister was ripping off the estate that she was executor of. She was pissed off about my brother and I challenging her legally. She filed a report that I had threatened to kill her or my father, he had dementia so bad that she could say anything she wanted about what he said or didn't. I had two cops show up on my door in high alert mode because she had represented that I was a dangerous hothead with a lot of guns and that I was subject to "going off".

They talked with me for an hour, my wife came home. Their questions centered on my history and whether I'd ever had any incidents of threatening or acting in a violent manner. I told them about a bar fight that I'd been put in jail for and that I had simply responded to someone attacking me and effectively won having severely hurt the guy. They had the record, and it was the only incident involving violence.

They actually left on good terms, and said they were going to talk to the DA about filing a felony false report on my sister.

That situation would have had a different outcome had I had a history of gun related violence and threats. The fact of the matter is that we need to be weeding people with histories like that out. People who are hotheads and unstable do not have a right to have guns.

Who gets to decide whats "reasonable"? Politicians? The same ones who can't run this country are going to decide what a reasonable check is? The ones who put self and party ahead of country? That won't work.

Who decides who is unhinged? What doctor? A psychiatrist? Psychiatrists and psychologists as a group are unhinged themselves. Everyone on this planet can qualify as being unhinged at one time or another. Are you advocating snitching on your neighbor? How will that work if someone gets p.o.'d and decides you are unhinged? Its your word against his. Then when they find that system isn't working all that great they'll come up with even MORE guidelines and even longer waits.

Are we to end up like the movie Minority Report? Deny someone a right just in case they may commit a crime because some bureaucrat deemed them unsuitable?

There are tracking systems in existence we could take advantage of. So when someone is called in for a check everything comes up. If they have a criminal history, drug abuse, run ins with the law it will all be there. There is no need for yet more bureaucracy.

At the time I was on RW hunting sites posting vote records, and gun bills were receiving solid democratic support. Meanwhile sensible gun bills were rejected by the right. or they got GOP support but they denied that they had supported a bill. I proved on a few bills was that republicans were voting for bills and then going home and stumping with representations that these were "dem" gun bills that they opposed when they hadn't.

The right needs to talk about what is sensible and support it, or the fear of everything is going to create a backlash that goes far farther than the sensible places in the middle.

Your argument supports that things need to be way tighter to where those things you say happened can't anymore, this is why the laws on background checks and wait times need to be "expanded". It's not okay that a convicted felon can pass background checks, it's proof the system isn't strict enough.

The idea is that the things actually checked are expanded as well. Taken to where it's going it will flag people with domestic violence records, already there are questions about police records that do not get caught when people lie about that when purchasing guns. Too many states have no wait to where their police records can be run.

Rather than all this obstruction about "what will it do", let's see what it will do.

Some states already have background checks and wait periods, many or most do not, this is about raising standards in states that have none.

I just bought a shotgun and am buying another pistol for concealed carry, waiting ten days was no big deal, nor will 20 be any different, although the one thing I'd say is that I needed the shotgun for mountain lions that are killing livestock.

Here is how stupid and idiotic anti-gun moonbats are:

NYC’s Jumaane Williams Denounces Muzzle-Loading Guns
To celebrate Jumaane Williams becoming public advocate, positioning himself to be New York’s next mayor, and to prepare us for what comes next, let’s go back and watch a classic interview from November 2017. Here Tucker Carlson tries and fails to keep a straight face while Jumaane explains why 18th-century style muzzle-loading guns should be banned before someone uses one in a mass shooting:

https://youtu.be/3yCRsrd_gHs

Williams is truly at the cutting edge of progressivism. Other progressives bark that when the Founding Fathers drafted the Second Amendment, they meant for us to be allowed only firearms in use at that time. That argument moves the ball, but not into the endzone. In the end, no weapons in private hands will be acceptable in moonbatty utopia.

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/02/27/u-s-house-approves-expanded-background-checks-for-gun-sales.html

By Amanda Becker
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that would expand background checks for gun sales to include firearm purchases at gun shows and over the internet, a measure likely to face Senate and White House opposition.

The background check bill, which was approved by a 240-190 vote, is the first gun control measure taken up by Democrats since they regained control of the House in the 2018 congressional midterm elections.

The bill is likely to face opposition when it goes to the Republican-controlled Senate, however. It would also need President Donald Trump’s signature in order to become law.


The White House said on Monday that Trump’s advisers would recommend the president veto the legislation because it would apply “burdensome requirements” that are “incompatible with the Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to keep arms.”
Trump has previously indicated he supported efforts to extend background checks to all gun sales.

“I will be strongly pushing Comprehensive Background Checks with an emphasis on Mental Health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of Bump Stocks! Congress is in a mood to finally do something on this issue – I hope!” Trump tweeted a year ago, after a shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 dead.

Representative Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 House Democrat, told reporters on Tuesday that Republicans had prevented a vote on a background check bill when they controlled the chamber, and that while there were differences among Democrats about how to curb gun violence, the background check bill had broad support.
“The carnage that we’ve seen perpetrated by gun violence over the last decade has heightened the American people’s concern, and the bill that we’re putting on the floor we believe has the support of 90 percent of the American people,” Hoyer said.

From 2009 to 2017, there were at least 173 shootings in the United States in which four or more people were killed, with at least 1,001 total deaths, according to the advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety.
Representative Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee where the background check bill originated, said on Wednesday that the bill was ineffective because it “foolishly presumes criminals who flout existing laws will suddenly submit themselves to background checks.”


The House is set to vote on Thursday on a second bill that would extend the time it takes to conduct a background check before a gun sale to 10 days from minutes.