Senate rejects Universal Background Checks

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

You've got Koolaid stains on your upper lip...

The issue with this argument is that if you believe the government will never follow laws that are passed, then what are we arguing about here? There has to be some basic trust that when we debate a bill, whatever language goes in there is intended to go in effect. It's like saying let's pass gun legislation because the government doesn't have to follow it and it can do anything it wants. Let's declare ware because it's just on paper. We don't actually have to do any killing, etc.

So I think ivwshane brings up a legitimate point: If the bill did prevent a registry from being established, there really is no point arguing that it can happen. If you can't take the language of the bill seriously, what are you voting for then?

At the end of the day gun owners vote, and gun victims vote. The former vastly outnumber the latter.

As a gallup poll from two days ago shows, the vast majority of Americans have bigger fish to fry.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/161813/few-guns-immigration-nation-top-problems.aspx

I don't think anyone really believes gun control is the top issue. Economy is always going to be #1. Really economy includes the job situation and somewhat fiscal policy. While immigration and guns are big on the radar, they're always second priority.

 

[Jadow]

Background checks are absolutely required at gun shows.

There is no "gun show loophole". This is the problem, people having an opinion on something they know nothing about.

not in my state

 

[irishScott]

The issue with this argument is that if you believe the government will never follow laws that are passed, then what are we arguing about here? There has to be some basic trust that when we debate a bill, whatever language goes in there is intended to go in effect. It's like saying let's pass gun legislation because the government doesn't have to follow it and it can do anything it wants. Let's declare ware because it's just on paper. We don't actually have to do any killing, etc.

So I think ivwshane brings up a legitimate point: If the bill did prevent a registry from being established, there really is no point arguing that it can happen. If you can't take the language of the bill seriously, what are you voting for then?

You're overgeneralizing, much as ivwshane did. We're not talking about "all laws." Can the government be trusted to stick to its word on some things? Yes, to a point. Is gun control one of those things? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

It's too unstable and too controversial an issue. Public opinion on gun control spikes and plummets with every mass shooting. The only stabilizing influence on gun rights at present is the lobbying power of the NRA, which is a sad reflection of how many of our elected officials succumb to bullshit emotional pleas.

Gun owners can't even unite behind their elected leaders, they have to pay off professional lobbyists to protect their rights. It's really quite sad, and I wish our elected officials were more concerned about upholding the Constitution and logically solving problems.

 

[ivwshane]

You're overgeneralizing, much as ivwshane did. We're not talking about "all laws." Can the government be trusted to stick to its word on some things? Yes, to a point. Is gun control one of those things? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

It's too unstable and too controversial an issue. Public opinion on gun control spikes and plummets with every mass shooting. The only stabilizing influence on gun rights at present is the lobbying power of the NRA, which is a sad reflection of how many of our elected officials succumb to bullshit emotional pleas.

Gun owners can't even unite behind their elected leaders, they have to pay off professional lobbyists to protect their rights. It's really quite sad, and I wish our elected officials were more concerned about upholding the Constitution and logically solving problems.

Can you name all of the legal instances where our government has taken our guns? Can you name any instances where guns were taken illegally and no one was held responsible?

 

[irishScott]

Can you name all of the legal instances where our government has taken our guns? Can you name any instances where guns were taken illegally and no one was held responsible?

You mean besides the Clinton assault weapons ban, the dozen or so state bans, the New York SAFE act, and the Senate's attempt to do so yesterday?

And don't say grandfather clauses mean they "aren't taking anyone's guns." A ban is a very blunt way of attempting to eliminate something from society, aka "take our guns away."

 

[ivwshane]

You mean besides the Clinton assault weapons ban, the dozen or so state bans, the New York SAFE act, and the Senate's attempt to do so yesterday?

And don't say grandfather clauses mean they "aren't taking anyone's guns." A ban is a very blunt way of attempting to eliminate something from society, aka "take our guns away."

So you don't have any instances of government taking our guns? It was a pretty simple question, how you went from trusting government to not take our guns to meaning banning certain types of weapons is beyond me.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Why?

How about the first and fourth? Are those OK to diminish as well? Don't worry, your government is there for you. No need to think or protect any rights.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Well I guess it will take the blowing away of ones spouse, child, mother, father for you to wake up.
So my only advice is to stay home, never go out, never go to a movie, never send your child to school, and most of all... DUCK!
Congress is on high security lockdown. They are safe.
You the general public, on the other hand, not quite so.

And it will probably take more laws that make protesting in the presence of the President a felony and more laws that advocate warrantless searches of Americans homes. Yea that should do it. It's all for our protection though....just like the twisted logic trying to negate and water down the second amendment.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Can you name all of the legal instances where our government has taken our guns? Can you name any instances where guns were taken illegally and no one was held responsible?

Katrina....

 

[RampantAndroid]

You mean besides the Clinton assault weapons ban, the dozen or so state bans, the New York SAFE act, and the Senate's attempt to do so yesterday?

And don't say grandfather clauses mean they "aren't taking anyone's guns." A ban is a very blunt way of attempting to eliminate something from society, aka "take our guns away."

I don't know why you responded to him (at least, in this manner. You're absolutely correct, but it's not the way to deal with his question.) This is a pretty clear attempt to get the chance for a "SO THEY NEVER TOOK UR GUNZ?!?!" response. That is to say, he's sidestepping the issue completely.

The appropriate response was to point to Katrina...where this did happen.

 

[Angry Irishman]

I don't know why you responded to him (at least, in this manner. You're absolutely correct, but it's not the way to deal with his question.) This is a pretty clear attempt to get the chance for a "SO THEY NEVER TOOK UR GUNZ?!?!" response. That is to say, he's sidestepping the issue completely.

The appropriate response was to point to Katrina...where this did happen.

I did....thanks

 

[RampantAndroid]

I did....thanks

Heh, beat me by a few seconds

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Look, here are the simple facts...which will probably be ignored or ridiculed like everything else I say but whatever. The truth is that they never needed to ban magazines or register everyone to take the guns away. This would have just made it a little easier for them.

You see, we signed a bill some time ago that basically said that if the UN passed a resolution then our President could sign an Executive Order making it law in this country. So, you see, all the UN has to do is tell all countries to disarm and any President can sign an EO forcefully removing our gun rights.

What this debate has really been, it looks like, is a smoke screen for the Internet Censor bill they are trying to pass. Did you know that the finish line of the Boston Marathon was right at the first Boston Public Library? Did you also know that the BPL was about to launch the Digital Public Library of America, making many great pieces of history available for public consumption and allowing all Americans access to one of the greatest libraries ever available on the internet?

All very interesting stuff I have learned while researching the latest alleged tragedy to befall this country. So, like I said, beware the wolf for it lurks in the shadows. Censoring the internet will be the biggest blow this government could ever land on this country because it will allow them to spoon feed disinformation just like they do in our schools and on TV everyday.

 

[frowertr]

not in my state

You are incorrect.

We will say it again since you are not listening. ALL people purchasing firearms from FFL dealers (this includes gunshows) must fill out ATF form 4473 which also necessitates a background check run through NICS. This is valid for EVERY STATE!!!!

Why is this so hard to understand??

 

[fskimospy]

You are incorrect.

We will say it again since you are not listening. ALL people purchasing firearms from FFL dealers (this includes gunshows) must fill out ATF form 4473 which also necessitates a background check run through NICS. This is valid for EVERY STATE!!!!

Why is this so hard to understand??

Yes but not every person selling firearms at a gun show is required to have a FFL.

How is this so hard to understand???

There is absolutely a "gun show loophole", although a more accurate statement is that there is a generalized loophole that happens to impact gun shows.

 

[sao123]

Yes but not every person selling firearms at a gun show is required to have a FFL.

How is this so hard to understand???

There is absolutely a "gun show loophole", although a more accurate statement is that there is a generalized loophole that happens to impact gun shows.

'
Private citizen to private citizen sales are not a loophole.
That is the fundamental premise of First right of sale doctrine.

 

[fskimospy]

'
Private citizen to private citizen sales are not a loophole.
That is the fundamental premise of First right of sale doctrine.

Huh? First sale doctrine relates to copyrighted works, not guns. Regardless, nothing in the first sale doctrine says that they must be immune from generalized regulations on sales.

The goal of background checks is to prevent unauthorized individuals from purchasing firearms. If unauthorized people can purchase firearms simply by buying them from someone else, that's pretty much the definition of a loophole.

 

[frowertr]

Yes but not every person selling firearms at a gun show is required to have a FFL.

How is this so hard to understand???

There is absolutely a "gun show loophole", although a more accurate statement is that there is a generalized loophole that happens to impact gun shows.

By your logic then there is a "loophole" everywhere! I mean, there is a loophole if I sell you my gun in my home driveway. There is a loophole if you buy a gun from a private citizen in a church parking lot. Oh, and there is another loophole if you buy a gun at a liquor store, etc...

What do all of those have in common? The fact they you are buying a gun from through a private sale that doesn't require a 4473 because the seller isn't a FFL.

It has nothing to do with gun shows, yet the left continues to lie and say there is a "gun show loophole" when that is a fallacy. In reality, the left would be fine if gun shows (and guns themselves!!) went the way of the dodo. By lying to the public they can attempt to get laws passed to further this very agenda!

 

[fskimospy]

By your logic then there is a "loophole" everywhere! I mean, there is a loophole if I sell you my gun in my home driveway. There is a loophole if you buy a gun from a private citizen in a church parking lot. Oh, and there is another loophole if you buy a gun at a liquor store, etc...

What do all of those have in common? The fact they you are buying a gun from through a private sale that doesn't require a 4473 because the seller isn't a FFL.

It has nothing to do with gun shows, yet the left continues to lie and say there is a "gun show loophole" when that is a fallacy. In reality, the left would be fine if gun shows (and guns themselves!!) went the way of the dodo. By lying to the public they can attempt to get laws passed to further this very agenda!

I agree, it should be called the private sale loophole. Doesn't change the fact that it's a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

If you're going to have background checks they should apply to everyone. No exceptions.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I know the gun shows in Houston only allows sellers with FFL's. Police watch the parking lots for anyone trying to sell guns outside of the event.

 

[irishScott]

So you don't have any instances of government taking our guns? It was a pretty simple question, how you went from trusting government to not take our guns to meaning banning certain types of weapons is beyond me.

I listed obvious examples. You're just either lacking in basic logical ability or are trolling. Probably the latter.

 

[PokerGuy]

Glad to see we have at least some rational people left in the senate to put a stop to these attempts by the gun grabbers.

The fact is that nobody has been able to provide any evidence how these proposed bills would prevent crimes or the tragedies like Sandy Hook, but yet all those pushing the bills resorted to emotional pleas of victims of these crimes .... that would not have been affected at all by the bills. It's rampant stupidity and / or hypocrisy, the left just wants to take away your right to defend yourself, plain and simple. These bills were just attempts to pave the way to do so.

 

[OutHouse]

40 votes actually, but still a clear majority against.

all 40 of them need to be impeached and be labeled as traitors to the country.

 

[MagickMan]

I am, but everything else died with it. I can live with that. Momentum is, although only slightly, in a pro-gun direction. We'll have other opportunities for national CC reciprocity.

I have to say though, there is valid perspective that universal CCW will lead to registration as well.

I'd rather go with it piecemeal rather than at a federal level, too many chances that it can be screwed with.

 

[Matt1970]

So you don't have any instances of government taking our guns? It was a pretty simple question, how you went from trusting government to not take our guns to meaning banning certain types of weapons is beyond me.

You were told of them, you chose to ignore it. Being directly effected by the NY Safe Act I can tell you I will have to give up half my handguns that were previously legal and register one rifle.