• 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!

Joe Manchin says on verge of gun deal

Jerry said:
FFL have to use ATF form 4473 to conduct a transfer, and that creates a registry, so that's not acceptable.
Click to expand...

Only to the far right.


Just do that in the first place to test private sellers if they're selling to people who they think may not pass a NICS and forget all about any kind of new law then.
Click to expand...

They've already done that, its why police and Mayors decided a law was needed to prevent it.
 
the far wrong thinks this will be more successful in stopping mopes from getting guns than the war on drugs has been in stopping people smoking reefer
 
Jerry said:
What's in the deal for pro-gun? What are we getting that we didn't have before? Anti-gun gets background checks, and pro-gun gets... assault rifles?....national reciprocity for CCW permits?....elimination of some gun-free zones?....silencers without any paperwork? What?
Click to expand...

The only thing I have heard is the background checks on all commercial setting sales.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Government has too much power, which it has already abused, as far as determining who are “mentally unstable and felons” for the purpose of denying a basic Constitutional right, which the Constitution asserts as belong to all of “the people”, without any stated exception for “mentally unstable and felons”.
Click to expand...

Sooo its okay for "mentally unstable people" to have firearms at will?
 
humbolt said:
What the hell are you talking about?
Click to expand...

"First, you beat them to death with political correctness. Then, you accuse them of every vile thing on earth and spread it across the media. Finally, you point out that they are old, white, and reactionary, they don't pay their fair share, and they hide money somewhere. That ought to do it."

:confused:
 
Jerry said:
Background checks don't touch the ways criminals get their guns.
Click to expand...
"Between 2002 and 2005, more than 400 guns legally purchased at gun shows from licensed dealers in the city of Richmond, Virginia, were later recovered in connection with criminal activity.
The Department of Justice reports, "after reviewing hundreds of trace reports associated with guns used in crime recovered in the New Orleans area and interviewing known gang members and other criminals, ATF Special Agents identified area gun shows as a source used by local gang members and other criminals to obtain guns.
ATF's Columbus Field Division conducted its anti-trafficking operations based on intelligence from Cleveland police that "many of the guns recovered in high-crime areas of the city had been purchased at local gun shows.
many gun shows attracted large numbers of gang members from Mexico and California. They often bought large quantities of assault weapons and smuggled them into Mexico or transported them to California."
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0707/final.pdf

And this is just from not doing background checks at gun shows..



You and I agree that guns should be kept out of the hands of the unstable and violent felons, we just disagree on how to do it. I'm not disagreeing with your goal, I'm disagreeing with your strategy.
Click to expand...
What other logical legal strategy is there? Because its pretty clear that this "i think you might be a felon" law isnt working.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
"Between 2002 and 2005, more than 400 guns legally purchased at gun shows from licensed dealers in the city of Richmond, Virginia, were later recovered in connection with criminal activity.
The Department of Justice reports, "after reviewing hundreds of trace reports associated with guns used in crime recovered in the New Orleans area and interviewing known gang members and other criminals, ATF Special Agents identified area gun shows as a source used by local gang members and other criminals to obtain guns.
ATF's Columbus Field Division conducted its anti-trafficking operations based on intelligence from Cleveland police that "many of the guns recovered in high-crime areas of the city had been purchased at local gun shows.
many gun shows attracted large numbers of gang members from Mexico and California. They often bought large quantities of assault weapons and smuggled them into Mexico or transported them to California."
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0707/final.pdf

And this is just from not doing background checks at gun shows..




What other logical legal strategy is there? Because its pretty clear that this "i think you might be a felon" law isnt working.
Click to expand...
Make federal guidelines for state CCW and require the CCW to posses, buy or sell any gun. The Federal CCW will check the permit holder though the NICS every month rather a gun is bought or not. The permit is to be shall-issue, require a 16hr familiarity course to include range qualification, and knowledge test.

No CCW, no gun.
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
WE already have those.
Click to expand...
No we don't.

Currently every state just makes up their own rules. There are no federal guidelines. States enter into Reciprocity agreements with each other at-will. My driver's licence followes federal guidelines and therefore is honored in every state. My South Dakota CCW dose not, and is not honored in every other state. In order to carry while visiting family in OH, I had to get a Utah non-resident CCW because OH honors Utah but not SD. I've never been to Utah in my life but I had to get their permit in order to carry in Ohio. WTF? In contrast all states honor my SD drivers licence. I don't have to worry about another state having reciprocity with my state in order to drive there. All states follow the same federal guidelines and therefore honor every other state's licence. That's how it should be with CCWs.
 
Last edited:
How in the hell is it possible there there is bipartition support on gun control? Just another reason republicans suck.

What part of "the second amendment is not open to debate" do republicans not get exactly?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes we do. Gun control act of 1968, LEOSA
Click to expand...
Quote the relevant portion.

Section§ 923. Licensing

(a) No person shall engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or importing or manufacturing ammunition, until he has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Secretary....
Click to expand...
This regards dealers, not private owners who have a couple guns for personal use.

No part of the Gun Control Act provides for ConcealedCarryWweapons permits (also called "Concealed Handgun Permits, Concealed Pistol Permit" depending on the state).
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Quote the relevant portion.
Click to expand...

Gun control act of 1968 lists felons, illegal aliens, and other codified persons as prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. During the application process for concealed carry states carry out thorough background checks to prevent these individuals from obtaining permits.
LEOSA is a federal law allows two classes of persons – the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer" - to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of any state or local law to the contrary, with certain exceptions.
 
This reminds of an e-mail I got from my representative last week that provided for me two choices on how we can change the second amendment.

1. Modernize it.
2. Rewrite it so it doesn't allow for "assault weapons".

Notice that wonderful bull**** term "assault weapons"? Yeah, that was republican that send me this that all but left out "the nothing is wrong with the second amendment as it is" choice. What a ****ing asshole. After I chewed his ass out and apparently a million other people did in kind he send out another e-mail with new choices that included keeping it as is, but I ignored it and sent him another angry letter.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Gun control act of 1968 lists felons, illegal aliens, and other codified persons as prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. During the application process for concealed carry states carry out thorough background checks to prevent these individuals from obtaining permits.
LEOSA is a federal law allows two classes of persons – the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer" - to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of any state or local law to the contrary, with certain exceptions.
Click to expand...
And that's not at all what I was talkin about.

Jerry said:
No we don't.

Currently every state just makes up their own rules. There are no federal guidelines. States enter into Reciprocity agreements with each other at-will. My driver's licence followes federal guidelines and therefore is honored in every state. My South Dakota CCW dose not, and is not honored in every other state. In order to carry while visiting family in OH, I had to get a Utah non-resident CCW because OH honors Utah but not SD. I've never been to Utah in my life but I had to get their permit in order to carry in Ohio. WTF? In contrast all states honor my SD drivers licence. I don't have to worry about another state having reciprocity with my state in order to drive there. All states follow the same federal guidelines and therefore honor every other state's licence. That's how it should be with CCWs.
Click to expand...
No part of the Gun Control Act provides federal standards for the normal regular person who has a couple guns for personal use.
 
Jerry said:
And that's not at all what I was talkin about.
Click to expand...

There are clear federal guidelines on who can get a CCW and who can own a firearm: "lists felons, illegal aliens, and other codified persons as prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms."
 
TheDemSocialist said:
There are clear federal guidelines on who can get a CCW and who can own a firearm: "lists felons, illegal aliens, and other codified persons as prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms."
Click to expand...
And that's not at all what I was talking about.

I'm talking about beefing up all state permits so as to meet a yet-to-be-written Federal standard, just like drivers licences do. Make all state permits meet Brady NICS exemption. That does not currently happen. Make all states require 16/40hr training class, to include practical operation and knowledge test. That does not currently happen.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
And that's not at all what I was talking about.
Click to expand...

You said there were "There are no federal guidelines". There are.
But then again this whole debate is simply not about concealed and carry. Its about background checks on all firearms.
 
Catawba said:
“I don’t consider criminal background checks to be gun control; it’s just common sense,” Toomey said. “It’s the people who fail a criminal or mental-health background check that we don’t want having guns.”
Click to expand...

Another reason Toomey is worthless pile of ****. It doesn't matter what we want. They have a right to own and buy a gun. Period.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
You said there were "There are no federal guidelines". There are.
But then again this whole debate is simply not about concealed and carry. Its about background checks on all firearms.
Click to expand...
That whole post was only about state permits and nothing else. There are no federal guidelines for state permits.

Make federal guidelines for state permits. Beef up every state permit so that it's Brady NICS exempt. Require all state permits to have you take 16/40hr training class, just like drivers licences. Make every state permit have you take a knowledge test, just like drivers licences. Make every state permit have you take a practical handling test, just like drivers licences.
 
haymarket said:
Your reaction is very understandable. The gun lobby and gun culture have gotten things so much their way over the last decade that giving in a small amount on something they previously supported seems like a bad deal for them.
Click to expand...

Giving in at all is unacceptable. This entire debate has no reason to exist since the constitution is very clear on the topic. There is no wiggle room that exists. Yes, I'm not willing to give in one little bit on our rights. Cry if you want about it.
 
Henrin said:
Which makes it unconstitutional and not open for debate. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Uhhh no its not unconstitutional since the USSC has ruled that congress has the right to regulate firearms and the possession of firearms.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Uhhh no its not unconstitutional since the USSC has ruled that congress has the right to regulate firearms and the possession of firearms.
Click to expand...

And the constitution and any sort of basic understanding of english disagrees with them. Shall not be infringed in english means they do not have the power to regulate firearms and the possession of firearms. Sorry, but the meaning of words in the 1780's, grammar, and the intent of the second amendment does not just change because the SC says so.
 
Jerry said:
How would universal background checks have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting?
Click to expand...

Prevented Sandy Hook? No. On the other hand, if had restrictions on magazine sizes, the number of deaths at Sandy Hook, Aurora and Tuscon, in all probability would have been much less. But we aren't going down that make sense path. Instead, we are left with the half-assed approach that, at best, will retard the acquisition of firearms by some people. It might have prevented Columbine, for example, as those guns were purchased by a surrogate at a gun show and could prevent Arlington.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom