• 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!

Bill O’Reilly: Background Checks Make Sense

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
A lot of people on the right (politicians, members of the media) are going bat**** crazy over President Obama’s executive orders on gun control. That is certainly true of almost everyone of Fox News. But not Bill O’Reilly… Ana Kasparian and John Iadarola (Think Tank), hosts of the The Young Turks, break it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

“Fox News host Bill O’Reilly challenged the National Rifle Association and gun owners to be “reasonable” following President Barack Obama’s executive order on Tuesday concerning gun sale regulations.

“The FBI should background check anyone buying a firearm in America. That just makes sense,” O’Reilly said. “If you are paranoid and believe the government is stockpiling information so they can come to your house and take your guns, that’s your problem — your problem. But the government has an obligation to enhance public safety.””*
Click to expand...


Video @: Bill O’Reilly: Background Checks Make Sense

Hmmm... Every once in a while good ol Bill will say something I will have to agree with, and this is one of those times. I also believe that the vast majority of Republicans do not think that this measure of increasing background checks is not the right thing to do...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Bill O’Reilly: Background Checks Make Sense

Hmmm... Every once in a while good ol Bill will say something I will have to agree with, and this is one of those times. I also believe that the vast majority of Republicans do not think that this measure of increasing background checks is not the right thing to do...
Click to expand...
How about that?

Every now and then Bill will say some things that are sensible, and I very much agree with.

He is an ace wordsmith, is pretty sharp, and is a highly skilled debater and host. He can be likable at times.

But man, when he wants to be an a-hole, he's as detestable as they come.
 
I don't think I've ever agreed with anything Bill O'Reilly has ever said. :thinking

This position means he's still batting zero. :shrug:
 
Background checks restrict the right's of those who can't pass background checks.

Closing gun loopholes restricts the rights of big money.

Traceability restricts the rights of those willing to distribute unlawfully, which isn't a right at all.

Nothing Obama proposed restricts the rights of law abiders. People need to get a grip.
 
akrunner88 said:
Background checks restrict the right's of those who can't pass background checks.

Nothing Obama proposed restricts the rights of law abiders. People need to get a grip.
Click to expand...

Background checks already contain limitations that are unreasonable. Those limitations can be added to as time goes on. THAT is the problem with background checks, a way to administratively limit (read "eliminate") the rights of citizens.
 
I honestly dont get the O'Reilly hate, He is a good guy who is right a lot of the time.

Oh ya I do, it is this modern fundamentalism that has it that other people have to agree with us on everything important or else they suck.

We used to be better.

Anyways, most people think that O'Reilly is right here. A bunch of noisy people with power dont however.
 
And anyway, no new laws were implemented. Just expansion of existing laws. Along with $500 million on mental health reporting.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Background checks already contain limitations that are unreasonable. Those limitations can be added to as time goes on. THAT is the problem with background checks, a way to administratively limit the rights of citizens.
Click to expand...

Such as?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I honestly dont get the O'Reilly hate, He is a good guy who is right a lot of the time.

Oh ya I do, it is this modern fundamentalism that has it that other people have to agree with us on everything important or else they suck.

We used to be better.
Click to expand...

I think he is wrong much of the time but unlike most liberals I actually like the guy on a personal level. We just disagree fundamentally and philosophically.
 
akrunner88 said:
I think he is wrong much of the time but unlike most liberals I actually like the guy on a personal level. We just disagree fundamentally and philosophically.
Click to expand...

o'reilly is a imperialist neocon, and thinks it america's job to going around the world and fix its problems.
 
akrunner88 said:
Background checks restrict the right's of those who can't pass background checks.

Closing gun loopholes restricts the rights of big money.

Traceability restricts the rights of those willing to distribute unlawfully, which isn't a right at all.

Nothing Obama proposed restricts the rights of law abiders. People need to get a grip.
Click to expand...

its fun watching gun haters try to best each other with illogical and silly comments. this is one that is a contender.

what loopholes are there? and how is there money to be made by not forcing private second hand sellers out of business? in reality, banning private sales makes more money for GUN MAKERS

DUH
 
akrunner88 said:
Such as?
Click to expand...

what he is saying is that unconstitutional and worthless schemes pimps in office throw out to pander to low wattage voters who want SOMETHING DONE, usually accomplish nothing useful.. And when they fail to do anything about crime, the low wattage voters will be easily convinced to support additional unconstitutional and worthless schemes the same pimps in office proffer in order to "cure" the problem that their early medicine has failed to do
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Bill O’Reilly: Background Checks Make Sense

Hmmm... Every once in a while good ol Bill will say something I will have to agree with, and this is one of those times. I also believe that the vast majority of Republicans do not think that this measure of increasing background checks is not the right thing to do...
Click to expand...

Many things can be said to be the right thing to do but that, alone, is not how laws are made. What is involved here, as far as I can determine, is that if you wish to sell guns (2 or more) "legally" for profit (few wish to sell them for a loss) then you must obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL).

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/apply-license

After you invest youur time and money in that process then you must get any potential gun buyer to fill out form 4473 and call the FBI to have them perform a backgroound check (BGC) on that potential buyer. You must store these 4473 forms, for no less than 20 years, so that BATFE personnel can review them.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Does that seem reasonable for someone that wishes to sell a few (2 or more) guns (per year?) to avoid the risk of being considered a felon (up to 5 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $250K and losing your 2A rights for life) for not "doing the right thing"?
 
Last edited:
akrunner88 said:
I think he is wrong much of the time but unlike most liberals I actually like the guy on a personal level. We just disagree fundamentally and philosophically.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the hate for not agreeing to do what he was supposed to do, for not hitting Obama for the latest decrees from this wanna be king.
 
TurtleDude said:
its fun watching gun haters try to best each other with illogical and silly comments. this is one that is a contender.

what loopholes are there? and how is there money to be made by not forcing private second hand sellers out of business? in reality, banning private sales makes more money for GUN MAKERS

DUH
Click to expand...

You label everyone who wants any type of gun regulation a "gun hater"...You are an extremeist and nothing more.

Ask this guy about loopholes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-oqfPojhec

You probably don't know who that is
 
Divergent said:
You label everyone who wants any type of gun regulation a "gun hater"...You are an extremeist and nothing more.

Ask this guy about loopholes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-oqfPojhec

You probably don't know who that is
Click to expand...

If you

1) believe that the crappy proposals the Democrat pimps in office push will

a) actually deter criminals even though they mainly target lawful gun owners

b) and that the rights of lawful gun owners must take a back seat to the fanciful claims the gun banners advance

then you really are the same as a gun banner. the only difference is the time line and when you want a ban

because we have seen that every time a restriction is passed, people like you are clamoring for another restriction. and it doesn't matter what the restriction does. If the restriction can be tied to a reduction in crime, you all demand yet another restriction, claiming it will lead to more reductions in crime

and if it doesn't work (neither the Brady bill nor the Clinton Gun ban did squat in reducing crime) you will claim that the laws in effect were not strict enough and additional restrictions are needed.

so no matter what happens you will demand yet another law and then another and then another

and after awhile, it becomes obvious what the real goal is-harassing lawful gun owners because every thing you have supported and everything that the dems have passed since 1934 has a far greater deleterious impact on honest citizens than criminals
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Many things can be said to be the right thing to do but that, alone, is not how laws are made. What is involved here, as far as I can determine, is that if you wish to sell guns (2 or more) "legally" for profit (few wish to sell them for a loss) then you must obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL).

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/apply-license

After you invest youur time and money in that process then you must get any potential gun buyer to fill out form 4473 and call the FBI to have them perform a backgroound check (BGC) on that potential buyer. You must store these 4473 forms, for no less than 20 years, so that BATFE personnel can review them.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download

Does that seem reasonable for someone that wishes to sell a few (2 or more) guns (per year?) to avoid the risk of being considered a felon (up to 5 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $250K and losing your 2A rights for life) for not "doing the right thing"?
Click to expand...

What laws have been made?
 
akrunner88 said:
And anyway, no new laws were implemented. Just expansion of existing laws. Along with $500 million on mental health reporting.
Click to expand...

Hmm.. The POTUS can now both make (expand?) federal laws and add funding for them? What do we need congress critters for?

If the POTUS decided to "expand" your federal income tax (bracket) rate from 15% to 25% to get some funding for some other expanded law would that be OK too?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
What laws have been made?
Click to expand...

A change to which gun sales constitute the need for a FFL (which is not cheap) - violation of which is a felony with a penalty of up 5 years in prison and/or fine of up to $250 and loss of your 2A rights for life. That is a mighty important thing to consider for one that merely decided to sell 2 guns over the internet (for profit).
 
TurtleDude said:
its fun watching gun haters try to best each other with illogical and silly comments. this is one that is a contender.

what loopholes are there? and how is there money to be made by not forcing private second hand sellers out of business? in reality, banning private sales makes more money for GUN MAKERS

DUH
Click to expand...

IMHO, the change will cause more folks to use an existing FFL dealer as a middle man (or buyer). It would be wiser to simply give 2 guns away (or to pawn them) than to risk going to prison for up to 5 years by selling them privately to non-FFL buyers. The odds are probably still slim that BATFE or the FBI would express interest in an occasional gun seller, but that risk is not ZERO and the penalties are steep.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
IMHO, the change will cause more folks to use an existing FFL dealer as a middle man (or buyer). It would be wiser to simply give 2 guns away (or to pawn them) than to risk going to prison for up to 5 years by selling them privately to non-FFL buyers. The odds are probably still slim that BATFE or the FBI would express interest in an occasional gun seller, but that risk is not ZERO and the penalties are steep.
Click to expand...

the real goal is to get registration and if you examine your own statement and prediction (which I am sure you have because you usually think things through) its obvious that this will cause more paper trails
 
ttwtt78640 said:
A change to which gun sales constitute the need for a FFL (which is not cheap) - violation of which is a felony with a penalty of up 5 years in prison and/or fine of up to $250 and loss of your 2A rights for life. That is a mighty important thing to consider for one that merely decided to sell 2 guns over the internet (for profit).
Click to expand...

Which laws were changed here? https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom