• 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!

Senators announce bipartisan agreement on gun bill

Pilot

Banned
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
522
Reaction score
270
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Senators announce bipartisan agreement on gun bill - CBS News

A pair of bipartisan senators on Wednesday announced they've reached an agreement over a bill to expand background checks for gun sales, marking a significant first step as Congress attempts to tackle the thorny issue of gun control. While the Senate is now one step closer to actually voting on the legislation, the bill's fate remains far from certain, its authors acknowledged.

"I think this is a fluid situation, and it's hard to predict," said Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., one of the drafters of the background check bill, said of the legislation's chances. He added, however, that the legislation represents common ground and that he's "hopeful" it can pass.

"Criminals and the dangerously mentally ill shouldn't have guns," Toomey said. "I don't know anyone who disagrees with that premise."

Toomey and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., told reporters Wednesday that they have reached an agreement with Sens. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on the legislation, which would expand background checks to cover firearm sales at gun shows and over the Internet. When the Senate votes this week to begin debate on gun legislation, their bill will be the first amendment up for consideration, Manchin said.

The push for new measures to reduce gun violence was sparked by the December shooting in Newtown, Conn., which Manchin said "changed us all."

"This amendment won't ease the pain... but nobody here, not one of us in this great capital of ours in good conscious could sit by and not try to prevent a day like that from happening again," he said.

Manchin and Toomey both receive high marks from the National Rifle Association, which should help make their legislation more palatable to both Democrats and Republicans concerned about looking soft on Second Amendment rights. Of all the proposals up for consideration, expanding background checks may have the best chance of passing because of the overwhelming public support behind the idea.

"I don't consider criminal background checks to be gun control -- it's just common sense," Toomey said. When asked whether he was concerned about losing his strong rating from the NRA, he said, "What matters to me is doing the right thing, and I think this is the right thing." The senator added that most Pennsylvanians would agree with him.

This is just feel good legislation. Would it have prevented Newtown? No. Will it make a difference? Absolutely not.
 
Nobody wants criminals or mentally ill to have guns. That is what the gun control side keeps pushing...as if their way will somehow ensure that they don't them. Haven't stopped them in the past, how could they stop them now? Trying pushing for enforcement and better mental Health care.
 
WIll the bill cost us money? Yes. Is it paid for by offsetting cuts? No. It is thus a bipartisan "crisis" or "emergency" bill, we must just suck it up and pass it, so we can see what is in it. ;)
 
WIll the bill cost us money? Yes. Is it paid for by offsetting cuts? No. It is thus a bipartisan "crisis" or "emergency" bill, we must just suck it up and pass it, so we can see what is in it. ;)

Someone should hide a provision that makes Congress a volunteer position with no benefits in a large bill. I wouldn't be surprised if it went unnoticed until after they passed it.

Or if it was found, at least they would start to look at bills more carefully.
 
Nobody wants criminals or mentally ill to have guns. That is what the gun control side keeps pushing...as if their way will somehow ensure that they don't them. Haven't stopped them in the past, how could they stop them now? Trying pushing for enforcement and better mental Health care.

Don't ban nukes, people will still get nukes!
 
Someone should hide a provision that makes Congress a volunteer position with no benefits in a large bill. I wouldn't be surprised if it went unnoticed until after they passed it.

Or if it was found, at least they would start to look at bills more carefully.

What, so only the already-wealthy can be in congress?
 
What, so only the already-wealthy can be in congress?

I believe that Congress should be a paid position. The point was that no one would pass a bill with such a provision, unless they didn't read it. It was just a hypothetical experiment to see who reads the bill and who blindly votes.
 
Don't ban nukes, people will still get nukes!

And someone quickly jumps into Gun-Godwin the thread.

One, there's a much stronger argument to be made that artillary are seperate from the notion of arms than with something like an "assault weapon".

Two, there's multiple international treaties we're involved in that have legal regulations regarding the obtaining of nuclear material and weapons and treaties are given constitutional weight and thus could cut into the notion of the 2nd amendment even if nukes were covered under it (by the way, this is partially why people are very adverse to signing UN treaties regarding firearms)

Third, it's an inherently massively unrealistic situation. There's a reason why various terrorist groups or despot leaders of countries are routinely trying to garner a nuclear bomb but aren't able to...because it's far from taking a stroll down to the local walmart and picking one up in terms of difficulty. The likelihood of a citizen that poses any kind of threat actually obtaining a nuclear weapon, even if legal, would be ridiculously small.

But nice job gun-godwining
 
What, so only the already-wealthy can be in congress?

Thats the way it works anyway!

You or I don't have enough money to be elected dogcatcher.

As they say about the evil rich-they don't need the money.:mrgreen:
 
And someone quickly jumps into Gun-Godwin the thread.

One, there's a much stronger argument to be made that artillary are seperate from the notion of arms than with something like an "assault weapon".

Two, there's multiple international treaties we're involved in that have legal regulations regarding the obtaining of nuclear material and weapons and treaties are given constitutional weight and thus could cut into the notion of the 2nd amendment even if nukes were covered under it (by the way, this is partially why people are very adverse to signing UN treaties regarding firearms)

Third, it's an inherently massively unrealistic situation. There's a reason why various terrorist groups or despot leaders of countries are routinely trying to garner a nuclear bomb but aren't able to...because it's far from taking a stroll down to the local walmart and picking one up in terms of difficulty. The likelihood of a citizen that poses any kind of threat actually obtaining a nuclear weapon, even if legal, would be ridiculously small.

But nice job gun-godwining

It's not a statement meant to be taken literally. I was being ridiculous to demonstrate how ridiculous "HURR GOTTA BAN KNIVES RIGHT LIBRULS" is.

Nice job completely missing that.
 
I find it hard to believe that the Senate will vote on this bill knowing full well it has no hope of getting anywhere in the House. Usually, it's the Senate sitting back and letting House members hang themselves out to dry on such issues.
 
Why would anyone have a problem with legally having a background check run to putchase a gun, Most gun holders.. I know would accept that, after all Most Good reputable companies run background checks for Employment' nowadays'.
 
It's not a statement meant to be taken literally. I was being ridiculous to demonstrate how ridiculous "HURR GOTTA BAN KNIVES RIGHT LIBRULS" is.

Nice job completely missing that.

Yeah, not sure how I missed a statement that wasn't made in this thread. Strange.
 
It's not a statement meant to be taken literally. I was being ridiculous to demonstrate how ridiculous "HURR GOTTA BAN KNIVES RIGHT LIBRULS" is.

Nice job completely missing that.
I'm pretty sure that it is currently illegal for anyone to posses a nuclear weapon.
 
Why would anyone have a problem with legally having a background check run to putchase a gun, Most gun holders.. I know would accept that, after all Most Good reputable companies run background checks for Employment' nowadays'.

I just posted this in a different thread, I'll ask you as well: How do you feel about requiring background checks before we allow people to assemble?
 
This is just feel good legislation. Would it have prevented Newtown? No. Will it make a difference? Absolutely not.

So why are you so freaked out about it then?

Funny how boomsticklovers constantly say various gun control laws are meaningless, and then they get all bent out of joint trying to prevent them from passing.
 
I just posted this in a different thread, I'll ask you as well: How do you feel about requiring background checks before we allow people to assemble?

Sorry, didn't see the post, I would wonder why a background check was required, IF the assembley was legal.
 
So why are you so freaked out about it then?

Funny how boomsticklovers constantly say various gun control laws are meaningless, and then they get all bent out of joint trying to prevent them from passing.

They say they're meaningless to prevent a specific instance of crime, or in terms of preventing crime in any significant way. That doesn't mean they're meaningless in terms of providing further precedence for government intervention into private ownership of firearms or it doesn't mean they're meaningless in terms of providing additional hassle for legal gun owners aquiring their weapons.

Your argument is like saying that people who claim that the TSA's security methods are "meaningless" should be suggesting we keep the TSA because if they're so meaningless it's okay.
 
Sorry, didn't see the post, I would wonder why a background check was required, IF the assembley was legal.

Sorta like the people who wonder why a background check is required if the gun is legal?
 
Sorta like the people who wonder why a background check is required if the gun is legal?

There is No Sorta"'' you are talking about oranges and apples'
 
Back
Top Bottom