• 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!

Schumer Says Background Checks Depend On Republican Votes

T

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has been part of a group working behind the scenes on gun control laws, said Sunday it remains unclear if there'll be enough Senate support for a bipartisan background check deal.

Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) - both rated highly by the National Rifle Association - reached a bipartisan deal last week to expand background checks that they feel can get enough support.


"It’s going to be a tough fight to get all the votes we need on the Manchin-Toomey proposal," Schumer said on ABC's "This Week.”


Schumer conceded that there are some Democrats who are not going to vote for the background check deal. Instead, he said, because the amendment will likely need 60 votes to pass, it's going to require Republican support. And, he said, supporters are focusing on the handful of Republicans who voted for cloture last week but haven't vowed to oppose the Manchin-Toomey amendment.
Click to expand...

Schumer says background checks depend on Republican votes - POLITICO.com

dick durbin, the WHIP (responsible for counting votes) said flat out on fns (fox news sunday), interviewed by chris son of 60 minutes mike wallace, that manchin-toomey (a very weak background check compromise, full of exceptions like swiss cheese) simply does not have the votes

sorry

background checks is the lowest of the gun-hanging fruit

that is, awb (assault weapon ban) and magazines are and always were way outta reach

sorry

you can blame the nra, i guess, for bullying your democratic senators in arkansas, alaska, north carolina, north dakota, montana and limp wristed louisiana

better luck with the immigration bill

go, marco!
 
The Prof said:
Schumer says background checks depend on Republican votes - POLITICO.com

dick durbin, the WHIP (responsible for counting votes) said flat out on fns (fox news sunday), interviewed by chris son of 60 minutes mike wallace, that manchin-toomey (a very weak background check compromise, full of exceptions like swiss cheese) simply does not have the votes

sorry

background checks is the lowest of the gun-hanging fruit

that is, awb (assault weapon ban) and magazines are and always were way outta reach

sorry

you can blame the nra, i guess, for bullying your democratic senators in arkansas, alaska, north carolina, north dakota, montana and limp wristed louisiana

better luck with the immigration bill

go, marco!
Click to expand...

schumer wants to pass another unconstitutional law to help set precedent for what he really wants-complete gun registration.

its a stupid law that has no logic
 
TurtleDude said:
schumer wants to pass another unconstitutional law to help set precedent for what he really wants-complete gun registration.

its a stupid law that has no logic
Click to expand...
tell us squire with expertise in gun law, what about it would be found unConstitutional
 
justabubba said:
tell us squire with expertise in gun law, what about it would be found unConstitutional
Click to expand...

well lets see

under LOPEZ I believe

you see, private sellers of second hand guns (any gun sold by someone who bought it at retail is considered USED) can only sell to individuals in their own home state. IN other words, the proposed bill only covers INTRA state sales

where's the interstate nexus?
 
Schumer is the king of weasels.
 
This could be interesting, we'll get background checks thanks to the conservatives.
 
I wonder if Schumer will fall on his sword? Figuratively speaking, of course.
 
justabubba said:
tell us squire with expertise in gun law, what about it would be found unConstitutional
Click to expand...

It would make open carry, in your private vehicle, illegal. That falls under the, "bear arms", part of our civil rights.

IOW, it would be illegal to keep a pistol in my console, or carry a rifle in a gun rack.
 
I don't understand how background checks are a constitutional violation, if voter ID, a form of check before exercising a right, is allowable why not a background check for guns?
 
Wiseone said:
I don't understand how background checks are a constitutional violation, if voter ID, a form of check before exercising a right, is allowable why not a background check for guns?
Click to expand...

remind me where congress gets the power

you seem to think that if something is not prohibited by an amendment, the government has the power

it doesn't
 
apdst said:
It would make open carry, in your private vehicle, illegal. That falls under the, "bear arms", part of our civil rights.

IOW, it would be illegal to keep a pistol in my console, or carry a rifle in a gun rack.
Click to expand...

Good evening, apdst. :2wave:

Part of my family lives in the Friendswood area, and I never saw so many trucks with gun racks above the rear window! And everyone seems to feel if you are going less than 80 MPH, you're impeding everyone else's progress! :eek: Gotta Love Texas!
 
polgara said:
Good evening, apdst. :2wave:

Part of my family lives in the Friendswood area, and I never saw so many trucks with gun racks above the rear window! And everyone seems to feel if you are going less than 80 MPH, you're impeding everyone else's progress! :eek: Gotta Love Texas!
Click to expand...

Nothing like living on the frontier...lol!
 
Wiseone said:
I don't understand how background checks are a constitutional violation, if voter ID, a form of check before exercising a right, is allowable why not a background check for guns?
Click to expand...

The Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Anything which government does to make it in any way more difficult, expensive, time consuming, or otherwise burdensome for any free citizen to acquire a firearm is clearly an infringement of this right. And of course, the only purpose of a background check is to aid government in illegally denying this right to some free citizens (with the obvious ultimate purpose and intent of this power being used to deny this right to all or most citizens). There is no legitimate purpose to be served by these background checks, and only illegitimate purposes.


Voting is a bit different. When someone casts a vote fraudulently, in an election where he is not eligible to vote, he corrupts the electoral process, dilutes the legitimate vote, and thus violates the voting rights of everyone who did legitimately vote in that election. In order to protect the rights of legitimate voters, it is necessary to protect the electoral process against voter fraud. Unfortunately, this means that a small burden must be imposed on legitimate voters in the form of identification to establish that they are eligible to vote, and that they are not voting multiple time or otherwise committing voter fraud. I'd prefer that no such burden was necessary, but the burden of requiring voters to identify themselves and prove their eligibility is less of a violation of their voting rights than it would be to allow their legitimate votes to be diluted by voter fraud.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Anything which government does to make it in any way more difficult, expensive, time consuming, or otherwise burdensome for any free citizen to acquire a firearm is clearly an infringement of this right. And of course, the only purpose of a background check is to aid government in illegally denying this right to some free citizens (with the obvious ultimate purpose and intent of this power being used to deny this right to all or most citizens). There is no legitimate purpose to be served by these background checks, and only illegitimate purposes.


Voting is a bit different. When someone casts a vote fraudulently, in an election where he is not eligible to vote, he corrupts the electoral process, dilutes the legitimate vote, and thus violates the voting rights of everyone who did legitimately vote in that election. In order to protect the rights of legitimate voters, it is necessary to protect the electoral process against voter fraud. Unfortunately, this means that a small burden must be imposed on legitimate voters in the form of identification to establish that they are eligible to vote, and that they are not voting multiple time or otherwise committing voter fraud. I'd prefer that no such burden was necessary, but the burden of requiring voters to identify themselves and prove their eligibility is less of a violation of their voting rights than it would be to allow their legitimate votes to be diluted by voter fraud.
Click to expand...

Could you not argue that like a fraudulent vote corrupting the electoral process and thus devaluing everyone else's right to vote that if the government were to allow free and open and sale of firearms without checking for things like criminal history or mental instability it would devalue everyone else's right to life? I mean if your argument depends on the affect it has on other people's rights, I think you'd have a tough time arguing that guns don't affect other people's rights.
 
TurtleDude said:
remind me where congress gets the power

you seem to think that if something is not prohibited by an amendment, the government has the power

it doesn't
Click to expand...

Not really relevant anyway, because this is something that is clearly prohibited by an Amendment. “…shall not be infringed” does not mean “…may be infringed a little bit, if enough people think it's good idea.”
 
Last edited:
Wiseone said:
Could you not argue that like a fraudulent vote corrupting the electoral process and thus devaluing everyone else's right to vote that if the government were to allow free and open and sale of firearms without checking for things like criminal history or mental instability it would devalue everyone else's right to life? I mean if your argument depends on the affect it has on other people's rights, I think you'd have a tough time arguing that guns don't affect other people's rights.
Click to expand...

There is not any circumstance under which one person, by buying, selling, trading, manufacturing, carrying, owning a firearm, violates another person's rights. Nobody's rights are violated until someone abuses a firearm in a manner which unjustly harms or endangers someone else; which is legitimately illegal and not protected by any rational reading of the Second Amendment or any other part of the Constitution. Nobody's rights are affected in any way merely by someone else's possession of a firearm.

Therefore, there is no basis at all on which to compare restriction on firearm ownership and exchange to restrictions that are necessary to protect the rights of legitimate voters against voter fraud,.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1061691966 said:
I wonder if Schumer will fall on his sword? Figuratively speaking, of course.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer literally myself!!:2razz:
 
Wiseone said:
I don't understand how background checks are a constitutional violation, if voter ID, a form of check before exercising a right, is allowable why not a background check for guns?
Click to expand...

Because background checks don't just confirm identity.
 
clownboy said:
Because background checks don't just confirm identity.
Click to expand...

Ya they check for criminal history and other undesirable features someone may have like a mental condition that might indicate their ownership of a gun would be bad for society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom