• 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!

Wayne LaPierre on Universal Background Checks

Eric7216 said:
Unfortunately Obama has lost credibility on this issue. Perhaps if he had stated that he would work with organizations like the NRA he would have gotten more support.
Click to expand...
Erm... Yeah, that doesn't usually work out.

Again: The NRA was working with Manchin and Toomey. When the more extreme activists called them out for it, they torched both of them. 2 years later, they are still on the NRA's **** list.

No one who wants any amount of gun control can rely on the NRA as a working partner, at least right now. Could that change in the future? One likes to hope, but....

8622709644_4d33ab71d2_z.jpg



Interesting the Obama supporters tend to criticize the NRA even as Obama supported NRA fundamentals.
Click to expand...
1) We can agree on certain fundamental elements, while disagreeing on other elements.

2) One big issue with the NRA is its tactics and outsize influence. As I wrote elsewhere today:

The NRA is a small, single-issue group with a dedicated and activist membership, lots of money, and expert lobbyists. Since we are in an era where small numbers of voters can mean success or failure, NRA voters have a disproportionate influence.

Fun historical note! This is also how Prohibition got passed. The Anti-Saloon League developed the tactic of focusing strictly on banning alcohol, endorsing anti-alcohol candidates, and attacking pro-alcohol candidates. This allowed them to ignore party and partisan divisions, and they often tipped the scales in close elections. They also gamed the system in other ways, such as pushing for an amendment before major changes in congressional representation kicked in, and they even unconstitutionally pushed to skip the 1920 reapportionment for the House of Representatives.


For me, I doubt that the NRA idea of background checks are the same as Obama's. It is traditional for authoritarian governments to abuse people by labelling them as some kind of threat. Solzhenitsyn wrote about the Soviet Union putting dissenters into psych wards or cancer wards. The Senate recently passed a measure to put "Sex Offender" in passports of people who were convicted of urinating in public or having teenage sex with a 15yr old when 18. We have no fly lists which allow for no due process. Don't trust what Obama may think is disqualifying. Probably belonging to a Tea Party.
Click to expand...
Errrrrr..... wha?

UCB is UCB is UCB. "Universal" means "every transaction." There isn't much to vary on that point.

The NRA got in a stipulation to Manchin-Toomey that the federal government could not keep a centralized gun registry. $100 says that if that bill hit Obama's desk, he would have signed it.

The reason why some people label guns as a threat to safety is because they believe guns are a threat to safety. Access to firearms almost certainly contributes to higher suicde rates. Gun accidents are somewhat common; roughly one person a week is accidentally shot by a toddler. More people die from firearms than from auto accidents; we can pass laws to improve auto safety, but people lose their minds if anyone even thinks about doing the same for firearms.

Plus, Obama does not decide what flags you for rejection on a background check. That's Congress' job, and he has never taken any executive actions to change that definition. At best, he's pushing the states to get better with reporting people who Congress has already put on the list.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Yea if wayne lapierre keeps this up, then perhaps the GOA will overtake the NRA some time down the road.
Click to expand...

Larry Pratt can often miss obvious points. Wayne LaPierre does constantly. Neither one knows how to really shred the idiocy of the Banites in office

Alan Gottlieb of the Second amendment foundation is far sharper. I joined the NRA as a life member when I first became active in competitive shooting since the NRA was the National Governing body for Olympic shooting sports in the 70s. I have never seen a reason to end my membership though I sometimes wish the NRA would be a bit more forceful in calling out the lies of turds in office Like Obama
 
TheDemSocialist said:


In sworn testimony before the House Judiciary Crime Subcommittee on May 28, 1999, in the wake of the Columbine shootings, NRA Vice-President Wayne LaPierre speaks forcefully in favor of universal background checks.

in. favor. of. universal. background. checks..... You know – like Obama.
Click to expand...


Watching the derps reply to this is like watching a fish out of water. They are trying SO HARD. But should know they are failing.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I know...


Closes loopholes.
Click to expand...

There is no loophole, this is a lie.

The law was never intended to regulate a private transaction, hence there was never a loophole , do you even know what that word means?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
There is no loophole, this is a lie.

The law was never intended to regulate a private transaction, hence there was never a loophole , do you even know what that word means?
Click to expand...

when Congress was debating the Brady bill two things were among the discussions

1) could congress impose a requirement on a private seller who cannot act in INTERSTATE commerce to do background checks-the answer was No by more than enough people to mean such a provision in the proposed law would fail

2) did congress want to try to impose those requirements on private citizens?

the answer was-if that was included in the BB it would not have passed

so what was the law for 200+ years was ONLY changed to create a requirement on those who -by holding a license that allowed them to operate in INTERSTATE COMMERCE- that was justified under the FDR mutation of the Commerce Clause

when someone calls that a loophole that is proof of ignorance or dishonesty. Its like saying If I drive my kid's friends to school and they pay me a couple bucks for gas, I am exploiting a loophole by not having a CDL when interstate truckers or Greyhound bus drivers must have one
 
Visbek said:
More or less.

I looked on NRA-ILA, they've pulled their statement on Manchin-Toomey.

One publicly stated objection was that it would criminalize private transfers. Politifact whacked that one with a "Mostly False."
NRA says Manchin-Toomey would have criminalized some gun transfers between family, friends | PolitiFact

The real reason was politics, of course. Gun rights extremists like the GOA and NAGR, and the more extreme NRA members, lost their minds over the mere possibility of any gun control law getting passed. The NRA gave in to the trolls.

For example, Dudley Brown of the NAGR sent out a mass email, begging for money, and whipping up the hysteria:

It's happening...

According to Politico, Sen. Joe Manchin is in secret negotiations with unnamed NRA officials to sell out our gun rights.

I've warned you from the beginning that our gravest danger was an inside-Washington driven deal.

I'm pulling out all the stops on a massive nationwide grassroots lobbying program making one thing clear:

NO COMPROMISE! NO SELL OUT! NOT NOW, NOT EVER!


Brown classified UCB, anti-trafficking, and mental health restrictions as a sell-out.

https://www.nationalgunrights.org/all-news-items/item/23-a-manchin-nra-deal-for-gun-control


Anyway. I see nothing in the text of Manchin-Toomey that changes any transfer fees.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2013/04/11/senate-section/article/S2598-3
Click to expand...

I know Dudley. I have known Dudley since 93. Dudley is a self centered narcissist. If he told me my car had four tires I would run outside and look to make sure nobody had stolen my tires.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
That statement makes no sense, literally none at all
Click to expand...

Lol It's common knowledge.
Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.

The NRA also made $20.9 million — about 10 percent of its revenue — from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990.

Additionally, some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA's revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business.

The NRA Foundation also collects hundreds of thousands of dollars from the industry, which it then gives to local-level organizations for training and equipment purchases.
Click to expand...
This Is How The Gun Industry Funds The NRA - Business Insider
 
EMNofSeattle said:
What does that have to do with background checks?

Why does a manufacturer care if the customer is background checked ? In any private sale not subject to checks they're not recieving any money on that sale. So the NRA opposing a UBC law is looking out for the interests of you and me, not the manufacturer
Click to expand...

When they make money on every gun sold why would the support any legislation that would limit gun sales?
 
iguanaman said:
When they make money on every gun sold why would the support any legislation that would limit gun sales?
Click to expand...

They make money once, every gun sold. They make nothing on every transaction after the first.

Or do you send money to the maker of every used car you sell to someone?
Once the gun leaves their factory for the distributor they make no additional money on every subsequent transaction of that particular gun
 
Every time I have made a purchase from either a firearm store (Bass Pro Shops, Academy Sports etc.) or at a gun show, they ran a background check on me. The only time I did not have a background check was when I purchased them from a relative. My guns are safe and would only be used to protect the innocent or maybe just for a little shooting fun. You need to focus on enforcing existing laws and getting them out of the hands of the little thugs and criminals even if it means doing a little profiling. It seems they are the ones causing the havoc. Leave innocent private citizens alone.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
They make money once, every gun sold. They make nothing on every transaction after the first.

Or do you send money to the maker of every used car you sell to someone?
Once the gun leaves their factory for the distributor they make no additional money on every subsequent transaction of that particular gun
Click to expand...

Most sell their "old" guns so they can buy a new one. If they can't sell it they can't get a new one. So restricting any gun sales effects gun makers bottom line.
 
iguanaman said:
Most sell their "old" guns so they can buy a new one. If they can't sell it they can't get a new one. So restricting any gun sales effects gun makers bottom line.
Click to expand...

Really? You have consumer surveys showing this to be true? Quantify "most"
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Really? You have consumer surveys showing this to be true? Quantify "most"
Click to expand...

It is true of most consumer goods. You sell your car when you get a new one don't you? What if you couldn't sell it?
 
MorrisDay said:
Every time I have made a purchase from either a firearm store (Bass Pro Shops, Academy Sports etc.) or at a gun show, they ran a background check on me. The only time I did not have a background check was when I purchased them from a relative. My guns are safe and would only be used to protect the innocent or maybe just for a little shooting fun. You need to focus on enforcing existing laws and getting them out of the hands of the little thugs and criminals even if it means doing a little profiling. It seems they are the ones causing the havoc. Leave innocent private citizens alone.
Click to expand...

And the vast majority of gun owners are just like you but a few greedy bad apples can use the weaknesses of the laws to supply a lot of guns to people who should not have one. That is all that we need to correct. There is no reason that universal background checks should be a problem for people like you.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I know...


Closes loopholes.
Click to expand...

EO can't close loopholes, only Congress can do that. Also every-time I have bought a gun at a gun show I had to fill out paper work and had a background check done one me.
 
cpgrad08 said:
EO can't close loopholes, only Congress can do that. Also every-time I have bought a gun at a gun show I had to fill out paper work and had a background check done one me.
Click to expand...

Nope. Its already been shown here that the law is left broad and thus can be executed in a broad manner to a certain extent.
 
iguanaman said:
It is true of most consumer goods. You sell your car when you get a new one don't you? What if you couldn't sell it?
Click to expand...

Again, you have nothng other then a hunch to back up this statement. I've purchased 6 guns, and sold only 1. And that one was a trade in towards a gun of the same model. People do nt sell guns as they do cars. Guns are cheaper, easier to store.
 
iguanaman said:
And the vast majority of gun owners are just like you but a few greedy bad apples can use the weaknesses of the laws to supply a lot of guns to people who should not have one. That is all that we need to correct. There is no reason that universal background checks should be a problem for people like you.
Click to expand...

I live in an area that has "Fast food window" gun sales.

I wish it was that easy, but I'm not ignorant. Freedom isn't Free. Liberty is a Compound Word. Sometimes your Liberty can infringe the Liberties of more people than just yourself. That's political basics.

I'm an avid gun owners/sportsman and I don't think we JUST need background checks. I also think we need basic courses before gun ownership. But this is just my opinion and it rivals the changeable 2A.

I hold this opinion because I've seen new gun owners learn things about guns from getting their hunting license. I've also seen DWI's go down with better regulation. Nihilism is not the answer.
 
Divergent said:
I live in an area that has "Fast food window" gun sales.

I wish it was that easy, but I'm not ignorant. Freedom isn't Free. Liberty is a Compound Word. Sometimes your Liberty can infringe the Liberties of more people than just yourself. That's political basics.
Click to expand...

Political basics would teach that the only currency of politics is power.

I'm an avid gun owners/sportsman and I don't think we JUST need background checks. I also think we need basic courses before gun ownership. But this is just my opinion and it rivals the changeable 2A.
Click to expand...

Just out of interest why do you think back ground checks are needed. Are you actually giving this any thought or just following the gun control rubbish?

I hold this opinion because I've seen new gun owners learn things about guns from getting their hunting license. I've also seen DWI's go down with better regulation. Nihilism is not the answer.
Click to expand...

What recorded parameter are you discussing and are you sure it will go down with GUN CONTROL REGULATION?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom