• 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

The report didn't jump to the far right rail as you did and claim that because guns couldn't be traced to unlicensed buyers, they were not a significant source of guns getting into the hands of criminals in both the US and Mexico.

we dont know that,the atf refuses to list untrackable guns,but from the 90's when they did,illegally manufactured guns and smuggled guns seemed to be a much bigger problem than this straw purchase stuff thats being pushed now,simply refusing to list untrackable guns doesnt mean they dissappeared,it means the batfe doesnt care about them,they care about what guarantees them a paycheck.
 
what you appear not to comprehend is that when the ATF claims that 87% of the guns TRACED came from the USA it makes it sound like most guns used by the cartels in MEXICO came from the USA when in reality guns coming from VENEZUELA, COLUMBIA, RUSSIA, the PRC, etc CANNOT BE TRACED.

So like many things this administration does, the actual facts are far less damning of american gun rights than the gun banning propagandists would have people believe


Thanks for your opinion Mr. Turtledude, but I'll go with the reports by ATF and the GAO which I referenced with their concerns with unlicensed sellers.

I agree with those agencies and 90% of Americans that think it is unwise allow guns to be sold in 40 states without a background check.

It even appears there will be enough congressional GOP support for a bipartisan bill to expand background checks.

Was glad to see John McCain and Peter King show their support for expanded background checks, weren't you? :cool:
 
Thanks for your opinion Mr. Turtledude, but I'll go with the reports by ATF and the GAO which I referenced with their concerns with unlicensed sellers.

I agree with those agencies and 90% of Americans that think it is unwise allow guns to be sold in 40 states without a background check.

It even appears there will be enough congressional GOP support for a bipartisan bill to expand background checks.

Was glad to see John McCain and Peter King show their support for expanded background checks, weren't you? :cool:

of course you will go with propaganda that avoids reality. If you actually were to take into account all the facts, our ability to constantly spew anti gun nonsense would require far greater lack of a sense of shame for proffering dishonesty. McCain is a pimp who does what he thinks will get him votes

Your inane constant spamming of that 90% figure has never included an accurate description of what the polls actually asked and what those polled actually knew

BFD
 
Another Republican Congressman supports universal background checks -

"U.S. Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., said Tuesday that he favors universal background checks for people who buy guns - whether from dealers or individuals - as one way to prevent violent or mentally ill people from getting firearms.

Heck said he backs expanding background checks because law-abiding gun owners who undergo them now when buying firearms from licensed dealers shouldn't worry about the same checks for private sales.


"I think the idea of background checks across the board, I'm not opposed to them," Heck said. "I disagree with people who say that this is going to be the first step to gun registration, which leads to gun confiscation."


Heck said about 40 percent of gun owners already undergo background checks, which are meant to determine whether a buyer is allowed to have a gun in this country. Felons, fugitives, people under domestic restraining orders and those legally judged insane aren't allowed to buy guns.


"For law-abiding citizens that want to own a weapon, I don't see why they would be adverse to undergoing that check just like you would if you walked into the gun store," Heck said."

Heck favors universal background checks for gun buyers - News - ReviewJournal.com
 
Another Republican Congressman supports universal background checks -

"U.S. Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., said Tuesday that he favors universal background checks for people who buy guns - whether from dealers or individuals - as one way to prevent violent or mentally ill people from getting firearms.

Heck said he backs expanding background checks because law-abiding gun owners who undergo them now when buying firearms from licensed dealers shouldn't worry about the same checks for private sales.


"I think the idea of background checks across the board, I'm not opposed to them," Heck said. "I disagree with people who say that this is going to be the first step to gun registration, which leads to gun confiscation."


Heck said about 40 percent of gun owners already undergo background checks, which are meant to determine whether a buyer is allowed to have a gun in this country. Felons, fugitives, people under domestic restraining orders and those legally judged insane aren't allowed to buy guns.


"For law-abiding citizens that want to own a weapon, I don't see why they would be adverse to undergoing that check just like you would if you walked into the gun store," Heck said."

Heck favors universal background checks for gun buyers - News - ReviewJournal.com

Your faith in politicians is amusing. People who have to pander to the low wattage voters are well known for being truthful
 
Your faith in politicians is amusing. People who have to pander to the low wattage voters are well known for being truthful

You mean Republicans aren't willing to commit political suicide based on the unfounded fears of the far right wing of their party. :cool:
 
You mean Republicans aren't willing to commit political suicide based on the unfounded fears of the far right wing of their party. :cool:

Political suicide is going to happen on both sides of the fence. This issue is being pushed way too hard.

Dedicating so much emotion to an item misused to harmful and even lethal effect at a rate of less than 1% is all but a verbatim description of "first world problems."

I'm getting tired of the anti-gun garbage. It'll be nice to see those same short-sighted folk move on to something else to "rabble" about.
 
Political suicide is going to happen on both sides of the fence. This issue is being pushed way too hard.

Dedicating so much emotion to an item misused to harmful and even lethal effect at a rate of less than 1% is all but a verbatim description of "first world problems."

I'm getting tired of the anti-gun garbage. It'll be nice to see those same short-sighted folk move on to something else to "rabble" about.


How do you figure that since a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all support expanding background checks to private sales?
 
How do you figure that since a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all support expanding background checks to private sales?

That one trick is getting old, pony.

I'm still waiting for the methodology of the polls you cite. We've been over this already. I posted polls that were open and honest. They showed the questions they asked (REALLY important) they showed the time-frames and general locations of the sample (also REALLY important) and they showed the method in which that data is analyzed. (Once again, REALLY important!) Yours did none of that.

Although polls are not a complex process, they can be highly doctored to favor agenda A or B. Without the above information there is no way that I can take the poll seriously, and regardless of your opinion on the matter, you shouldn't take it seriously either.

I know I'm reaching here, but I hope that this time that request resonates with you. It's REALLY sad to see someone cling so fervently to something that for all intents and purposes is completely unfounded.
 
That one trick is getting old, pony.

I'm still waiting for the methodology of the polls you cite. We've been over this already. I posted polls that were open and honest. They showed the questions they asked (REALLY important) they showed the time-frames and general locations of the sample (also REALLY important) and they showed the method in which that data is analyzed. (Once again, REALLY important!) Yours did none of that.

Although polls are not a complex process, they can be highly doctored to favor agenda A or B. Without the above information there is no way that I can take the poll seriously, and regardless of your opinion on the matter, you shouldn't take it seriously either.

I know I'm reaching here, but I hope that this time that request resonates with you. It's REALLY sad to see someone cling so fervently to something that for all intents and purposes is completely unfounded.


You are in denial. All the polls show overwhelming support for background checks for all gun sales, which is why you have been unable to post any polls that refute them.
 
You are in denial. All the polls show overwhelming support for background checks for all gun sales, which is why you have been unable to post any polls that refute them.

Why is it so hard for you to cite the methodology for the polls you used? Honestly dude. You are using very juvenile tactics here.
 
Why is it so hard for you to cite the methodology for the polls you used? Honestly dude. You are using very juvenile tactics here.

Dude, no one believes that all the credible polling agencies don't know how to conduct polls. Again, I ask you, where are the "credible" polls that you say refute all the other polls?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom