• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bipartisan deal close on expanded background checks

I go along with the bipartisan bill for background checks as outlined so far above.
You OP didn't outline anything. It gave the general impression that some kind of bill was being worked on. That's not an outline. My English instructor would never accept that if I were to turn it in.
 
I go along with the bipartisan bill for background checks as outlined so far above.



I care more about preventing innocent people being shot than about those that sell guns being able to profit without the requirement for background checks.



"Bad people" can buy guns in 40 states without a background check. Most people think its stupid to continue to allow that practice.

If you really cared about innocent people being shot, you would be better served advocating for more enforcement in high crime areas and not the country as a whole...
 
Only the far right thinks it makes little difference.
I was thinking about cracking open MS Paint and making a Catawba argument flow chart. It would naturally be circular.

No one takes you seriously bro, we use you as a stepping off point to say what we want.
 
Only the far right thinks it makes little difference.

Yes and the left thinks it will make a big difference...but have yet to explain the logic behind their beliefs OR the details...
 
If one proposal for limiting background checks is requiring a concealed weapon/handgun license then that's like having to pay a poll tax to vote. If that's going to be the case then a concealed carry firearms license holder from any state should be able to legally carry a firearm in every state in the union and purchase a firearm in every state in the union.

It would be a federal law after all, applicable to all states.
 
"The bipartisan group of four Senators who are negotiating over a proposal to expand the gun background check system privately met this week to discuss where things stand, according to sources familiar with ongoing talks. One source tells me the four Senators are “95 percent of the way there.”
This isn’t to say that the last five percent can’t scuttle the emerging compromise. As one source put it, that remains the “hardest part.” But there is reason for optimism that the four Senators — Republicans Tom Coburn and Mark Kirk, and Democrats Chuck Schumer and Joe Manchin — may be able to bridge remaining differences.

Here’s where things stand, according to several sources. There is general agreement on the concept of expanding the background check to cover most private sales, and on the concept of improving state mental illness data-sharing with the feds — which is important, because it means the four more or less agree on the fundamental policy goal here. The four Senators are in discussions about exemptions — sales among family members — and about tweaking the way background checks are performed for private sales in certain rural areas. But sources say those are unlikely to be sticking points. The four Senators are discussing yet another possible exception designed to make the deal more palatable to gun rights lawmakers: Exempting those who have already obtained “conceal and carry” permits, the idea being they’ve already undergone a background check.

One thing that still needs to be resolved is how to ensure that an expanded background check does not create some kind of national gun registry — again, in order to mollify gun rights lawmakers. The law as currently configured explicitly forbids the creation of any such registry, and it requires that any data collected during a legal gun transfer be destroyed within 24 hours. Despite this, the four Senators are discussing ways to write in new legislative language that would add additional safeguards against any data collection.

“There is complete agreement, among Democrats and Republicans in the talks, that nothing will be by law or look in any way like a national gun registry”

Bipartisan deal close on expanded background checks

Well, I'll be damned, Cat.

I am seeing calm, logical, and non-lambasting comments from you in this thread.

Keep this up, and we can have some good, honest debates around here.

Glad to see the restraint, and the good discussion.
 
They are NOT performed except by FFL dealer sales in most states, that is now known as the "gun show" loophole. About 40% of all gun sales are now not through FFL dealers.

Yes, I know that also but I find the 40% 'statistic' somewhat specious...
 
It would certainly be better than the allowing people to buy guns in 40 states without a background check.

If the law passes the only people doing that will be crooks who do it in all 50 states
 
If you really cared about innocent people being shot, you would be better served advocating for more enforcement in high crime areas and not the country as a whole...

That is not a federal issue, but rest assured that Demorats will try to make it so. ;)
 
Yes, I know that also but I find the 40% 'statistic' somewhat specious...
That 40% number comes from a small survey in CA in 1994. It doesn't represent the current state of affairs nationally in 2013.
 
Getting a bill passed is a matter of negotiation and compromise.

And after that, IF it passes, the Federal government have to hire lots of new people to keep track of all that paperwork, wouldn't it?

Sounds like a larger, rather than a smaller, central government to me... :(
 
And after that, IF it passes, the Federal government have to hire lots of new people to keep track of all that paperwork, wouldn't it?

Sounds like a larger, rather than a smaller, central government to me... :(

NOt surprisingly almost all the gun restrictionists are those who want more and more government.
 
NOt surprisingly almost all the gun restrictionists are those who want more and more government.

Nope, not surprising at all! No telling how many databases each of us are already on...they just want to add another, I guess. Why does the book "1984" keep popping up in my mind?
 
Nope, not surprising at all! No telling how many databases each of us are already on...they just want to add another, I guess. Why does the book "1984" keep popping up in my mind?

Unfortunately, being part of a database goes along with what I do... :2usflag:
 
Nope, not surprising at all! No telling how many databases each of us are already on...they just want to add another, I guess. Why does the book "1984" keep popping up in my mind?

If everyone who owned a gun joined the NRA, The GOA or the SAF, Chuck Schumer would be calling Wayne LaPierre up and asking him how to vote on a gun bill
 
Unfortunately, being part of a database goes along with what I do... :2usflag:

I have no problem with or being in a database that all legal citizens are part of. The mark on the photo ID or Licence is perfect. Either you can or can't own a weapon. No need to know what you own outside of class III weapons or explosives anyway. I have no problem with background checks as long as it does not cost the state an arm and a leg we have to pay for. Or it puts us on a "he owns this gun" list.
 
If everyone who owned a gun joined the NRA, The GOA or the SAF, Chuck Schumer would be calling Wayne LaPierre up and asking him how to vote on a gun bill

:funny !! And it would give him the opportunity to get on TV, and say something like "the latest data conclusively confirms that......" :)
 
UOTE=AlabamaPaul;1061470622]Yes, are you a grandmother yet?[/QUOTE]

Yes, and that's why I asked. I had hoped to see her in a few days, but..... :)
 
That 40% number comes from a small survey in CA in 1994. It doesn't represent the current state of affairs nationally in 2013.

I didn't know that but I always found it an odd number especially considering it seems like an educated guess. Considering we don't have UBC's or registry to track them now what would the statistic be based on?
 
Back
Top Bottom