• 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!

The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks...[W: 349]

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

I'll give you an exact scenario.... Let's say a member of my family has had a bout with bi-polar in their past, but since has received treatment, and is stable with medication, and functions normally, and has for years since the initial diagnosis, should I be allowed to own a gun?

That would depend on the laws of your state. What do they say?
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

any bill that is not properly based on a delegation of power to the congress infringes on all of our rights

Thank heaven we have a US Supreme Court to make sure that does not happen.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

That would depend on the laws of your state. What do they say?

I live in SC friend....No worries yet....But that doesn't answer my scenario...Could you address that?
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Thank heaven we have a US Supreme Court to make sure that does not happen.

that makes no sense/ why do you support infringements on our rights to KBA
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

on that dread day of decision, senator cornyn offered a concealed-carry reciprocity amendment, which essentially would have required all states to recognize every other state's concealed-carry permits

he got 13 dems

only 3 short of 60

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

fyi
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

I live in SC friend....No worries yet....But that doesn't answer my scenario...Could you address that?

If your family member has been diagnosed as bi-polar, in my humble opinion, they should NOT have a firearm as that is a form of mental illness. They could easily go off their meds and people do that all the time.

But I am NOT a doctor and that is simply my own opinion. But it would again depend on the laws of your own state and I do not pretend to supersede them.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

that makes no sense/ why do you support infringements on our rights to KBA

There are no such things as 'infringements'. The Second Amendment does not mention such things.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

If your family member has been diagnosed as bi-polar, in my humble opinion, they should NOT have a firearm as that is a form of mental illness. They could easily go off their meds and people do that all the time.

But I am NOT a doctor and that is simply my own opinion. But it would again depend on the laws of your own state and I do not pretend to supersede them.

Yes, but in my scenario, they are the bi polar, not me....Should I be able to own?
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Yes, but in my scenario, they are the bi polar, not me....Should I be able to own?

If you are of sound mind and there are no other legal obstacles like felony convictions against you, and you satisfy the laws of your state, yes.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

There are no such things as 'infringements'. The Second Amendment does not mention such things.

Obfuscating word games. The language is shall not be infringed; anything that impedes or restricts access is an infringement, which you very well know. Playing dishonest wordgames, like you always do, is debating in bad faith, or deliberately being dishonest, or trolling. Probably all three. Why do you even bother anymore, anyone thats been on this site for more than a few weeks knows you arent being honest on the 2nd Ammendment.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Obfuscating word games. The language is shall not be infringed; anything that impedes or restricts access is an infringement, which you very well know. Playing dishonest wordgames, like you always do, is debating in bad faith, or deliberately being dishonest, or trolling. Probably all three. Why do you even bother anymore, anyone thats been on this site for more than a few weeks knows you arent being honest on the 2nd Ammendment.

Actually , my insisting on the actual word is important because the idea of incremental steps which people now call "infringements" was not part of the Amendment itself. It is far more of a modern concept which defies the original usage of the word INFRINGED which as has been shown repeatedly through dictionaries of the day, was referring to having the right to bear arms denied.

You make an attack on me and my debate style when that very style and tactics was taught to me by experts through two years of collegiate debate. There, the actual meaning of words is central to debate. There, the true meaning of a word indeed is defined and discussed and all that follows is dependent upon it.

It is indeed both sad and a commentary upon those who never had that sort of training and experience that time honored methods of college debate are attacked by the unknowing as "obfuscating word games". It is further both sad and an additional commentary upon those who never had that sort of training and experience that those same time honored methods of college debate are attacked by the unknowing and incorrectly labeled as trolling, dishonest and debating in bad faith.

I would point out to you that attacking me is a poor substitute for actual verifiable evidence. You attacking me does not change the reality that the more modern term "infringements" is NOT part of our SecondAmendment.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

If you are of sound mind and there are no other legal obstacles like felony convictions against you, and you satisfy the laws of your state, yes.

Then you would have been against Toomey/Manchin....Because in that legislation it didn't specify the individual, it covered the household...So, in that instance, my rights would have been curtailed, effectively banning my lawful ownership....This is confiscation.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Then you would have been against Toomey/Manchin....Because in that legislation it didn't specify the individual, it covered the household...So, in that instance, my rights would have been curtailed, effectively banning my lawful ownership....This is confiscation.

First of all - restricting ownership to the mentally ill is NOT confiscation. Perhaps in some gun culture circles that false meme is common, but they are not the same thing.

Second, You bring up an interesting point that is worth pursuing. I have not read the entire bill. However, in summaries of the bill, it was stated repeatedly that people who were family within your household were not part of the background check mandate when selling or giving a gun to them. But you state that it was.

This needs to be settled with verifiable evidence.

I did find this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ys-manchin-toomey-would-have-criminalized-so/


The amendment, offered by Republican Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, would have required background checks for private sales at gun shows and on the Internet, two areas that are currently exempt from federal law.

But it specifically exempted transactions between family members from the background check requirement. So we wondered what circumstances the NRA envisioned that could have "criminalized certain private transfers of firearms."


.......

Current law requires checks on purchases only from federally licensed gun dealers. So the Manchin-Toomey amendment attempted to find middle ground -- expanding the checks to gun shows and Internet sales, but not requiring them of family members and friends giving or selling guns to each other.

..........

"As under current law, transfers between family, friends and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your co-worker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check," a press release from the senators said.

The amendment itself specifically said background checks wouldn’t be required of family members if "the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law."

"It’d have to be pretty distant family" for the background check rule to apply, said Chris Calabrese, legal counsel for the ACLU.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks...[W: 3

That is the Breaking News banner headline on cnn.com.

Fox News' banner reads: "SENATE REJECTS PLAN EXPANDING GUN BACKGROUNDCHECKS IN 54-46 VOTE"

Edit: And now there is a full link to include.

Background check plan defeated in Senate, Obama rips gun bill opponents | Fox News

Good. Laws restricting the acquisition and possession of arms ought not be made at the federal level. Vermont is not Illinois. The people of each state should exercise such police powers, not the federal government.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

I think all of us - of all stripes and persuasions - can find a few people who voice opinions that perhaps cause us serious concern. However, the kind of people you are talking about are the exceptions rather than the rule and have demonstrated no power at all to deliver on their wishes. Taking that into consideration, it is not at all rational to allow ones mind to be controlled or manipulated by a small number of people voicing extreme views which are going nowhere.

That sounds suspiciously like the old advice to ignore the bully and they will go away. Are you suggesting we pay no attention to the Fienstiens of the world and just go about our day? Because that sounds like a wonderful way to wake up to find things have changed quietly while we slept. By that logic we should have simply ignored the Boston bombings so we didn't provoke them any further. They are, after all, a very small percentage of the fringe who have little chance of accomplishing their goal. Until they do of course.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

First of all - restricting ownership to the mentally ill is NOT confiscation. Perhaps in some gun culture circles that false meme is common, but they are not the same thing.

Second, You bring up an interesting point that is worth pursuing. I have not read the entire bill. However, in summaries of the bill, it was stated repeatedly that people who were family within your household were not part of the background check mandate when selling or giving a gun to them. But you state that it was.

This needs to be settled with verifiable evidence.

I did find this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ys-manchin-toomey-would-have-criminalized-so/

Hold that thought Hay...I have to go to work now, but will respond because this is a crucial point of the stealth gun grab....Hope you have a good weekend, and I'll get back with ya....:2wave:
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

93% of Americans are in favor of background checks. Sad that 46 Senators lack a backbone to stand up to the NRA and the wacko gun lobby.

If that was true then expanded background checks would have passed months ago,you can't win elections on money alone. I seriously doubt that constituents in pro-2nd amendment states are telling their elected officials to support universal background checks except of a small minority. Maybe in California, New York, Massachusetts,Illinois and other anti-2nd amendment states that 93% of the constituents there are telling their elected to support universal background checks.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

That sounds suspiciously like the old advice to ignore the bully and they will go away. Are you suggesting we pay no attention to the Fienstiens of the world and just go about our day? Because that sounds like a wonderful way to wake up to find things have changed quietly while we slept. By that logic we should have simply ignored the Boston bombings so we didn't provoke them any further. They are, after all, a very small percentage of the fringe who have little chance of accomplishing their goal. Until they do of course.

That is not what I am suggesting. Only that you judge them and their abilities properly and do not let yourself be worked into a state of unmerited paranoia about it.

Your analogy is flawed in that it takes a majority to pass legislation (which is no easy task particularly when it comes to the Second Amendment) while it only takes a single nut to do the evil of Boston or Aurora or Sandy Hook. it is the fallacy of false equivalency.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

That is not what I am suggesting. Only that you judge them and their abilities properly and do not let yourself be worked into a state of unmerited paranoia about it.

Your analogy is flawed in that it takes a majority to pass legislation (which is no easy task particularly when it comes to the Second Amendment) while it only takes a single nut to do the evil of Boston or Aurora or Sandy Hook. it is the fallacy of false equivalency.

Cept in the case of Boston, IEDs are illegal, and did **** all to stop him.
Cept in the case of Aurora, he went to the one movie complex that was a gun free zone and it was illegal and did **** all to stop him.

Cept in the case of Sandy Hook, one single teacher with concealed carry could have stopped or slowed the shooter enough to make all the difference.

Criminals dont care how illegal it is. They break the law with impunity. The best defense is a legal, semi trained, concealed carrying member of the school staff that engages the shooter long enough to allow a proper police response or even stops/kills/bleeds out the shooter and stops a tragedy.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

That is not what I am suggesting. Only that you judge them and their abilities properly and do not let yourself be worked into a state of unmerited paranoia about it.

Your analogy is flawed in that it takes a majority to pass legislation (which is no easy task particularly when it comes to the Second Amendment) while it only takes a single nut to do the evil of Boston or Aurora or Sandy Hook. it is the fallacy of false equivalency.

And the irony and price of a free society.

There is no paranoia about gun control. No amount of gun control is ever enough. The answer is always more.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

And the irony and price of a free society.

There is no paranoia about gun control. No amount of gun control is ever enough. The answer is always more.

If a certain level of gun control fails to work, the answer of the gun banners is MORE control

if a certain level of gun control actually suggests it has decreased crime, the answer of the gun banners is IF SOME DECREASES SOME CRIME, MORE WILL DECREASE MORE

gun control is based on a faith based belief system. logic and fact has no use in trying to change the minds of the gun haters
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

93% of Americans are in favor of background checks. Sad that 46 Senators lack a backbone to stand up to the NRA and the wacko gun lobby.

Most Americans are against abortion, most were (and are) against Obamacare.

That never made much difference to Barry then.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Most Americans are against abortion, most were (and are) against Obamacare.

That never made much difference to Barry then.

Actually....most Americans are pro-choice, although it is pretty close. THIS wasn't even close. The overwhelming majority of Americans back reasonable regulations.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Actually....most Americans are pro-choice, although it is pretty close. THIS wasn't even close. The overwhelming majority of Americans back reasonable regulations.

Apparently, their elected reps didn't think so.

And because of yesterday's hunt for the second bomber, which required Bostonians to "shelter in place" and which led to this 19-year old being found in a backyard boat, I'd like to think that many knee-jerk gun control advocates in Boston are now rethinking their positions. How many folks who don't own guns, do you suppose, wished fervently yesterday that they did?
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Actually....most Americans are pro-choice, although it is pretty close. THIS wasn't even close. The overwhelming majority of Americans back reasonable regulations.

what you consider reasonable is highly unreasonable

when it comes to gun rights
 
Back
Top Bottom