• 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!

Senate overcomes filibuster, votes to open debate on gun bill

"Hard work starts now" as Senate takes up gun control

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate cleared the way on Thursday for debate on proposals to curb gun violence, rejecting an effort by conservative Republicans to block consideration of gun-control legislation prompted by the Newtown school massacre.

The Senate voted 68-31 to open what will likely be weeks of emotional debate on President Barack Obama's proposals to expand background checks for gun buyers, tighten restrictions on gun trafficking and increase funding for school security.

That margin easily cleared the 60-vote hurdle needed to break a Republican filibuster on a bill that has sparked intense lobbying on both sides, including by families of the victims of the December 14 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, as well as the powerful gun lobby led by the National Rifle Association.

"The hard work starts now," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said after the procedural vote to open debate, which was watched by some family members of the 20 children and six adults killed by the gunman in Newtown four months ago.

The measure, which would be the first major gun-control legislation to pass Congress since 1994, still faces significant hurdles, including weeks of expected debate in the Senate featuring many amendments that could make the bill unacceptable to senators who now support it.

If it clears the Democratic-led Senate, it would face a tough reception in the Republican-led House of Representatives.

Republican House Speaker John Boehner would not promise a House vote on any gun bill produced by the Senate, saying it probably would be sent to the House Judiciary Committee for review.

"I fully expect that the House will act in some way, shape or form," Boehner told reporters on Thursday. "But to make a blanket commitment without knowing what the underlying bill is, I think, would be irresponsible on my part."

Sixteen Republicans joined 50 Democrats and two independents in voting to open Senate debate on the gun-control measure."

"Hard work starts now" as Senate takes up gun control
 
danarhea said:
I think our gun laws do need to be discussed, and here is how I would like to see it turn out:

1) Limiting availability of certain types of weapons? NO!! Whatever guns are made illegal, it won't stop the criminals from continuing to obtain them. So why shouldn't law abiding Americans have the same access to them, LEGALLY? Therefore, I am against any form of gun control. I do not see what the problem is with those who call themselves Liberal here.

2) Background checks - YES!! After all, we do want to make it harder for crazies and criminals to obtain guns, and provide very stiff penalties to those who obtain guns illegally. I am very much in favor of background checks. Does this stance go along with the Second Amendment? Of course it does. Criminals and insane people do not have Second Amendment rights. It's very much like the states who take away voting rights of criminals. Felons, especially violent felons, should not be allowed to own firearms. Period. I don't see what the problem is with people who call themselves Conservative here.
Click to expand...

We have background checks now. Care to proffer an estimation on how many "criminals" or those with "criminal intent" would undergo a "background check"??? Again, please explain to me how "background" checks will do a SINGLE thing to prevent crime? I don't see why someone who takes a self label of "conservative" would regurgitate inane asinine liberal "talking points".
 
iguanaman said:
After 20 years we will finally be getting a vote on significant gun legislation. The NRA juggernaut is weakening and we will hear from the people instead.
Click to expand...

I'm a bit of a cynic so I'd say your statement is a bit an over-reach about the NRA's having a loosening stanglehold over politicians.
 
Lachean said:
Revel in your confidence now, 1996 and 2000 will happen again. Your lot are foolish for ignoring the warning of Bill Clinton.

But please, celebrate the fight against our rights more and may posterity forget you were our countryman.
Click to expand...

Could you be more mean please? I don't think you are hating your own countrymen enough.
 
Catawba said:
How background checks might be used for internet sales by private sellers:



Gun sales without background check easy on Internet, mayors group says

"The Internet has become a convenient marketplace for illegal gun sales.

That's the conclusion of an undercover investigation commissioned by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office into online gun sales on 10 websites in 14 states, including Ohio."

"Mayors of more than 50 Ohio cities, including Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati, belong to the coalition, which supports a bill in Congress to close a loophole that allows private gun sales without background checks."

"The act would require all gun sellers, licensed or unlicensed, to determine if a buyer is legally able to purchase a gun, Glaze said.

One way would be to request a buyer to present a gun permit that required a background check within the previous five years or to have a licensed gun dealer or the police perform a background check on the buyer.

Consequently, if police recover a gun used in a crime and find that previous owner had not taken those steps, he could face prosecution for a misdemeanor."

Gun sales without background check easy on Internet, mayors group says
Click to expand...

The study made by low information voters for low information voters. Please good sir explain to me how an internet transaction of a firearm proceeds. Of course I'm seeking PRECISELY how you buy a firearm online without a background check. .....I'll be waiting...but not holding my breath.
 
:lamo


This bill has a LONG way to go to get out of the Senate, and then there's the House.


Better wait for your chickens to hatch first...
 
I pop some popcorn and get an iced down drink when liberals start speaking gun control. It's very entertaining. I just love the "logic". Let's see, planned parenthood commits the equivalent of Sandy Hook, 46 times EVERY day, but that's ok. Heck if Adam Lanza would have committed his acts on the same kids just six or seven years earlier we'd call him a hero for helping women's choice. We can't keep drugs out of prisons with laws but we're going to make us all safer by making law abiding citizens undergo moronic hoops to buy a firearm. Let's see, the same people who say we can't ask people for ID to vote will put us in jail if we don't buy government approved health insurance. Yep the same people who use a two decades old narrow study to say 40% of gun sales occur without a background check are the same ones who said "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in no financial danger". In fact the same people that tell us 90 percent of Americans are for "universal background checks" are the ones who tell us there's a social security lockbox. Heck we even have the current occupier of the White House making speeches in which he says........"our kids are going to be gunned down, shouldn't we make it just a little bit harder for them to be gunned down"?

Ahhhhhhhhhh long live the low information voters.
 
Oceandan said:
The study made by low information voters for low information voters. Please good sir explain to me how an internet transaction of a firearm proceeds. Of course I'm seeking PRECISELY how you buy a firearm online without a background check. .....I'll be waiting...but not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

Here's how it works:

A Private gun dealer knows that he can advertise guns on sites like Armslist and other internet sites for gun buyers and bypass the requirement of FFL dealers to perform a background check. So all this "private" dealer has to do is arrange for him or someone to meet the buyer and exchange a gun for cash, no questions asked.
 
iguanaman said:
After 20 years we will finally be getting a vote on significant gun legislation. The NRA juggernaut is weakening and we will hear from the people instead.
Click to expand...

I need something funny to read

tell me how it is i"significant"
 
iguanaman said:
Again with that nonsense. There is no need in the amendment for a specific exclusion of minor children, felons OR the insane. It is called settled law and it has been on the books for years. Talk about living in the past.
Click to expand...

translation, the left wing gun banners have no use for the constitution
 
iguanaman said:
You act like picking a gun up from a seller is difficult or something. Finding a gun you want nearby and drive there. You now bought a gun thru the internet with no background check. It's all the rage now.
Click to expand...

no you did not. you contacted a seller and you have to meet him face to face and its only legal if you both reside in the same state

you continually demonstrate you have no real experience with buying guns
 
Catawba said:
Here's how it works:

A Private gun dealer knows that he can advertise guns on sites like Armslist and other internet sites for gun buyers and bypass the requirement of FFL dealers to perform a background check. So all this "private" dealer has to do is arrange for him or someone to meet the buyer and exchange a gun for cash, no questions asked.
Click to expand...

another lie-its not a bypass.
 
TurtleDude said:
another lie-its not a bypass.
Click to expand...

Are the "private" gun dealers who advertise on gun buyer sites, required to run a background check like the FFL dealers are? If not, then it is a bypass that this bill would address.
 
Oceandan said:
We have background checks now. Care to proffer an estimation on how many "criminals" or those with "criminal intent" would undergo a "background check"??? Again, please explain to me how "background" checks will do a SINGLE thing to prevent crime? I don't see why someone who takes a self label of "conservative" would regurgitate inane asinine liberal "talking points".
Click to expand...

No - We do NOT have background checks at gun shows, or sales on the internet. This bill would close both of those loopholes. As for your idiotic ad hom attack, this thread is not about me.
 
Catawba said:
Are the "private" gun dealers who advertise on gun buyer sites, required to run a background check like the FFL dealers are? If not, then it is a bypass that this bill would address.
Click to expand...

for over 200 years no one had to do a check. In 1993 congress decided only those engaged in INTERSTATE Commerce could be complied to do that.

its like requiring those who engage in commercial driving to have a CDL. No one with half a brain says us drivers who drive family cars-even if my niece gets 5 dollars a day driving another kid to the same school, is operating under the CDL "loophole" or that she has engaged in "bypassing" the CDL requirement
 
danarhea said:
No - We do NOT have background checks at gun shows, or sales on the internet. This bill would close both of those loopholes. As for your idiotic ad hom attack, this thread is not about me.
Click to expand...

wrong again-the sales of guns is the same no matter if it is at a Gun show, on the "internet" or at a K of C meeting hall

those engaged in interstate commerce and operating as dealers have to do the check

if you are engaged in commercial gun sales and don't have an FFL you violate the US Code
 
danarhea said:
I think our gun laws do need to be discussed, and here is how I would like to see it turn out:

1) Limiting availability of certain types of weapons? NO!! Whatever guns are made illegal, it won't stop the criminals from continuing to obtain them. So why shouldn't law abiding Americans have the same access to them, LEGALLY? Therefore, I am against any form of gun control. I do not see what the problem is with those who call themselves Liberal here.

2) Background checks - YES!! After all, we do want to make it harder for crazies and criminals to obtain guns, and provide very stiff penalties to those who obtain guns illegally. I am very much in favor of background checks. Does this stance go along with the Second Amendment? Of course it does. Criminals and insane people do not have Second Amendment rights. It's very much like the states who take away voting rights of criminals. Felons, especially violent felons, should not be allowed to own firearms. Period. I don't see what the problem is with people who call themselves Conservative here.
Click to expand...

:roll: .
 
Lachean said:
They fight against my rights and my opposition is merely mean? Obviously I've not been mean enough.



They are NOT my countrymen.
Click to expand...

Let me tell ya... That'll teach them to ever politically disagree with you.
 
Catawba said:
Here's how it works:

A Private gun dealer knows that he can advertise guns on sites like Armslist and other internet sites for gun buyers and bypass the requirement of FFL dealers to perform a background check. So all this "private" dealer has to do is arrange for him or someone to meet the buyer and exchange a gun for cash, no questions asked.
Click to expand...

Like they all didn't know that.
It's just like Rand Paul telling black history students that the NAACP was started by Republicans. They think they are being smart and come off as ignorant hicks. I have nothing against them except when they try to be "smart".

I'de really like to do something about the fellas that come down here to Fl. and load their trunks up with guns and sell them in every major city in the North but no..... that's too big a market I guess.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
wrong again-the sales of guns is the same no matter if it is at a Gun show, on the "internet" or at a K of C meeting hall

those engaged in interstate commerce and operating as dealers have to do the check

if you are engaged in commercial gun sales and don't have an FFL you violate the US Code
Click to expand...

And this distinction is WHY?
I don't get it...sometimes a criminal can buy a gun and sometimes he can't? Sometimes an insane person can do the same?
Are we at "The Mad Tea Party" or something?

`
Have some wine,' the March Hare said in an encouraging tone.
Alice looked all round the table, but there was nothing on it but tea. `I don't see any wine,' she remarked.
`There isn't any,' said the March Hare.
`Then it wasn't very civil of you to offer it,' said Alice angrily.
`It wasn't very civil of you to sit down without being invited,' said the March Hare.


At any rate I'll never go THERE again!' said Alice as she picked her way through the wood. "It's the stupidest tea-party I ever was at in all my life!”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong again-the sales of guns is the same no matter if it is at a Gun show, on the "internet" or at a K of C meeting hall

those engaged in interstate commerce and operating as dealers have to do the check

if you are engaged in commercial gun sales and don't have an FFL you violate the US Code
Click to expand...

Actually, you are wrong on that point. I know from real life. I got my .25 Beretta at the gun show held at the George Brown Convention Center, right here in Houston. Here's the deal. Gun dealers do need to do the background checks at gun shows. Individuals do not.

Note: I would like to see background checks strictly enforced. However, if that comes at the expense of banning certain weapons, then I am not in favor of this bill.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom