• 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!

House approves bill tightening background checks on guns

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
54,713
Reaction score
60,082
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

I haven't found a roll call posted yet and as I understand it this would require 60 votes in the Senate to pass so it isn't a done deal.

For those of you who have been squawking about "nobody is trying to take away your rights", that's EXACTLY what this bill does. There is nowhere in the Constitution that affords the federal government the right to micromanage intrastate commerce and this overreach does exactly that.
 

Strengthening background checks for weapons doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights.

THere isn’t a single anti-constitutional thing about this legislation. Ya’ll scream everything is a violation of the constitution when what you really mean is “We don’t like this”
 
Would it infringe on your rights if the federal government required a background check before you sold a kitchen knife, a baseball bat, a chainsaw, a car, a rope or any other personal device to a friend, neighbor or anyone else that shows up at your garage sale?
 

No, it wouldn’t.

What else?
 
If you're against basic background checks, you're asserting that a convicted felon should be able to buy a machine gun, otherwise his constitutional rights are being violated.

Total nonsense. We have every right to control WHO gets WHAT kind of weapon, and your claim that it should be a free for all without any regulation is unrealistic and ridiculous.
 

Do you think ineligible people, like minors, illegal aliens, convicted felons etc, should be able to buy guns ?
If not, why would you oppose this bill ?

If you're eligible to buy a gun, how does this bill prevent you from doing so ?


If you grow marijuana and sell it in the same state, laws passed by Congress still apply don't they ?
 
The people you're talking about are already prohibited from owning firearms. A background check doesn't change that.
 
Lutherf said:
The people you're talking about are already prohibited from owning firearms. A background check doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

A background check ascertains that - should they attempt to buy a firearm (from a reputable dealer).
 
Lutherf said:
The people you're talking about are already prohibited from owning firearms. A background check doesn't change that.
Click to expand...
If there's no background check, what mechanism prevents a violent, convicted felon from walking into a gun store and buying a gun?

Just admit the consequence of your opinions would be a violent felon being able to buy a gun at Walmart, and you want it that way.
 
I would call this legislation "half-useless". By that I mean, it is helpful that people who should rightfully be barred from firearms purchases on account of prior unexpunged criminal convictions or domestic violence restraining orders. However, unless those same people who try to purchase firearms in violation of the law are then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, this is only a half-measure.
 
I haven't read the bill but what does "strengthening existing background checks" even mean? Is this mainly pertaining to private sales?
 
Rich2018 said:
A background check ascertains that - should they attempt to buy a firearm (from a reputable dealer).
Click to expand...
So "reputable dealer" is the caveat here, right? Do you agree that a disreputable dealer isn't going to abide by the law anyway? If that's the case then how does this background check law effect anyone other than those already inclined to obey the law?
 
Artymoon said:
I haven't read the bill but what does "strengthening existing background checks" even mean? Is this mainly pertaining to private sales?
Click to expand...
It's universal background checks. Makes it a criminal act to sell (or even give) a firearm to your neighbor that you've known for 40 years. It makes liquidating firearms owned by a deceased relative a total pain in the ass.
 
Lutherf said:
It's universal background checks. Makes it a criminal act to sell (or even give) a firearm to your neighbor that you've known for 40 years. It makes liquidating firearms owned by a deceased relative a total pain in the ass.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Yep, that's a bunch a crap for sure.
 

Yes

ie: someone who will carry out a background check and not sell a gun for cash in a deserted parking lot

Such a (illegal) dealer will not abide by the law

But using an illegal dealer is harder and more dangerous. So improved background checks make it harder, for ineligible people, to buy firearms


Would you actually prefer a situation where ineligible people (illegal immigrants, felons etc) can simply walk into a gun shop and buy whatever they want ?
 
FWIW, people that know they are prohibited don't generally buy weapons from an FFL. If they do then they usually send someone that isn't prohibited in to buy the firearm. For example, if Luigi has a record and isn't allowed to own firearms because of a history of Mafia activity he would send Mario, who doesn't have a record, in to make the purchase.

In other cases Luigi might just buy the firearm from a local drug dealer that traded some crack for it last week. He might buy it from Greasy Tony's Guns On The Down Low Emporium because old Greasy Tony just DGAF.

This law will do NOTHING to stop transfers of firearms to prohibited persons, will cause more black market sales to take place and will infringe ONLY on the rights of the law abiding. Then again, the politicians that voted for it can all pat themselves on the back and collect votes from the useful idiots that keep electing them so maybe that has something to do with it.
 
Lutherf said:
FWIW, people that know they are prohibited don't generally buy weapons from an FFL....
Click to expand...

And why is that ?

Could it be because of background checks I wonder ?

If so, why would you object to improving these check ?
 
Rich2018 said:
And why is that ?

Could it be because of background checks I wonder ?

If so, why would you object to improving these check ?
Click to expand...
I think you're missing the point. Just because the prohibited person doesn't buy through an FFL (directly) doesn't mean that they aren't getting guns and keeping prohibited people from getting guns is the point, right? Or is it just that you like feeling better about yourself by ****ing with people that obey the law anyway because you hate guns?
 

More importantly there IS somewhere in the constitution which prohibits the govt from infringing on the right to bear arms. The govt requiring their permission for me to purchase a gun is a clear violation of this.
 
So you think there should be no regulation of any kind and violent felons should be able to buy guns at Wal Mart. Luckily this is a nutty fringe opinion that won't happen.
 

Ill assert a convicted felon should be able to buy a machine gun. If theyre dangerous they should be in jail, not walking around buying things. If they have served their time they have a right to defend themselves same as anyone.

You dont have the right to control who gets what kind of weapon. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Its pretty clear. If you dont like it, amend it.
 

These constant attempts by certain elements in the Federal government to violate the 2A up, down, and in between are not only annoying, but they are going to be unenforceable absent increased police powers given to Federal agencies. I.e., MORE power for the Federal government to police our lives.

This never ceases to amaze me. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard for so many people to understand?

I still don't own a single firearm. But if this law passes, I will simply consider it "un-Constitutional" and ignore it.
 
Nuttery. Background checks are constitutional and you won't be changing that.
 
Sorry, the Commerce clause does exactly that.

Overview of Interstate Commerce Clause | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

An annotation about Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States.
constitution.congress.gov
 
A massive majority of gun transfers already come under NICS background checks. Gangsters and crooks aren’t going to run checks before they give or sell gun to another crook. This is just another LW masturbatory bill that makes them feel good about themselves and produces no long term benefit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…